Transcript 2005 OBP Bi-Annual Peer Review Project Presentation Template

2005 OBP Bi-Annual Peer Review
EERC Center for Biomass Utilization®
Chris J. Zygarlicke
Energy & Environmental Research Center
University of North Dakota
Integrated Biorefinery
November 16, 2005
Overview
Barriers
Time Line
• FY05 project start date
October 2004
• 76% complete as of
October 2005
Budget
• Developing and validating
technologies for future
biorefineries using corn,
vegetable and crop oil,
Stage
agricultural residue, and
Exploratory
perennial crop feedstocks.
and
• Addressing end-to-end
process integration, risk of
Developmental
pioneer technology, and
Research
plant economics.
• Total project funding
FY05
• DOE $491,000
• Nonfed. Cost Share $221,614
FY06
• DOE $992,000
• Nonfed. Cost Share $376,457
• FY06 Request $1,000,000
Partners
• See next slide
Overview (cont.) – Partners
• North Dakota (ND) Division of
Community Services
• Minnesota Sustainable
Partnership Program
• Wright-Patterson AFB
• Agricultural Products Utilization
Commission
• United Soybean Board
• Minnesota Corn Research
Council
• South Dakota Soybean
Association
• Monsanto Enviro-Chem
• UND Chemical Engineering
Dept.
• ENSYN Inc.
• ND Soy Bean Council
• Minnesota Corn Growers, South
Dakota Corn Growers, and ND
Corn Growers
• Biomass Energy Resource
Center (Vermont)
• Chippewa Valley Ethanol Co.
• Archer Daniels Midland
Corporation
• Ankur Scientific Energy
Technologies
• ND State Board of Agricultural
Research
EERC CBU Approach
EERC Approach
• “Seed” activities or projects that
consist of lower-cost, high-risk
applied fundamental research
• Commercial partners get involved
on the ground floor of idea
development, leading to larger
pilot-scale development with
stronger partner or consortium
support
• Partner-driven pilot-scale validation
leading to commercial
demonstration/implementation.
FY05 and FY06 EERC
CBU Research Activities
• Ethanol processing for hydrogen
production
• Vegetable oil catalytic cracking for
cold-flow improvement of diesel–
biodiesel blends
• Utilization of low-cost biodiesel
feedstocks
• Biomass gasification for distributed
power
• Cuphea oil for biodiesel production
• Urea fertilizer process integrated
with corn ethanol plant
• Chemical feedstocks from
lignocellulose pyrolysis bio-oil
Project Goals and Objectives
• To develop and promote the use of
biomass for production of biopower,
biofuels, and bioproducts
Congressionally directed funds for
a center for applied fundamental
research
Not just one research topic
Education, training, and
information dissemination
EERC CBU® Activities
Highlighted
• Innovative catalytic process for
utilization of lower-cost biodiesel
feedstocks
• Improved cold-flow biodiesel
• Biomass gasification for distributed
power generation
Lower-Cost Biodiesel Feedstocks
Why are we concerned with unrefined highFFA feedstocks?
• Ability to utilize lower-cost crude
vegetable oils and soapstocks.
– Opportunity for 25% cost reduction
in biodesiel feedstock
– Low value primarily sold as feed
additive
• Plentiful and difficult to process because
free fatty acids promote water formation
• Supports OBP highest-priority area of
petrochemical replacement with
biomass-derived fuels
Bob Allan
Warren Gretz
Lower-Cost Biodiesel Feedstocks
Project Objective
• Develop technologies to utilize lower-cost unrefined vegetable
oil feedstocks to reduce cost of biodiesel production
Results
• Process effected 100% conversion of crude soybean oil
feedstock to methyl esters
• Developed conversion process that uses a proprietary solid acid
catalyst
Challenges to Be Met
• Operate in continuous-process mode at short residence time
• Utilize lower required molar ratio of alkylating agent to fatty acid
• Operate at low temperature and pressure
Lower-Cost Biodiesel Feedstocks
Catalyst Development
• Solid acid catalysts
• Homogeneous catalysts
• Install on support
sufficiently tight to
prohibit solubilization
in oil or ester
• Utilize catalyst chemistry
to prevent reverse
esterification
Lower-Cost Biodiesel Feedstocks
Catalyst Development
Results
Crude soybean oil feedstock; 28:1 MeOH:fatty acid molar ratio (4:1 volume
ratio); 10 wt% catalyst (oil basis); 300-mL Parr reactor with magnetic stir bar
Temp., °C
Pressure, psi
Residence
time, hours
SA-1
150
325
4
78
SA-1
175
450
16
100
H-1
Unsupported
150
325
4
100
H-1 on
Support
150
325
4
100
H-1 on support
150
325
16
100
Catalyst
Conversion to
MeEster, %
Lower-Cost Biodiesel Feedstocks
Catalyst Development Targets
Challenges to Be Met
• Optimize catalyst configuration
• Reduce MeOH:fatty acid molar ratio to 7:1 from
current 28:1
• Reduce residence time to 1 hour from current 4
hours
• Keep reaction temperature at or below 150°C
Improved Cold-Flow Biodiesel
Why are we concerned with cold
flow for biodiesel?
• Improved cold flow will enable
biodiesel to access large winter
auto and truck diesel fuel markets.
• Cold flow @ -50°C will enable
blending with jet fuel for airport
emissions reduction.
• Supports OBP highest-priority
area of petrochemical
replacement with biomassderived fuels and Task 5.4 Oils
Production and Utilization
Improved Cold-Flow Biodiesel
Project Objectives
• Utilize catalytic cracking to produce a vegetable oil-based fuel
with improved cold-flow performance
Results
• Conducted preliminary thermal cracking experiments with
soybean oil and SME
• Used existing batch autoclave reactor
• Achieved marginal yields of JP-8-compatible material—
demonstrates need for catalytic cracking
Challenges to Be Met
• Optimize process for production of fuel with carbon chain
length similar to that of No. 1 diesel and JP-8
• Operate in continuous process mode
• Effect cracking at olefinic bonds to improve resulting fuel
stability
• Utilize lower-cost unrefined vegetable oils versus methyl esters
Improved Cold-Flow Biodiesel
Current biodiesel unacceptable for blending with jet fuels
Specification parameters in JP8/SME Blends
ASTM Tests
Total Acid Number,
mg KOH/g (D3242)
Aromatics, %vol
(D1319)
Distillation-Residue,
% vol (D86)
Distillation-EP, deg C
(D86)
Freezing Point, deg C
(D5972)
Existent Gum,
mg/100mL (D381)
Viscosity @ -20deg C,
cSt (D445)
Particulate Matter,
mg/L (D5452)
Water Reaction
(D1094)
FSII (DiEGME),
% vol ( D5006)
Conductivity, pS/m
(D2624)
Standard
Max
0.015
Max
25.0
Max
1.5
Max
300
Max
-47
Max
7.0
Max
8.0
Max
1.0
Max
1B
0.10-0.15
JP-8
0.000
2% SME Blend
0.008
10% SME Blend
0.022*
20% SME Blend
0.040*
15.9
17.2
22.6*
30.4*
0.7
1.8*
1.6*
1.0
256
288
339*
344*
-44*
-50
-27*
-19*
1.0
10.2*
14.8*
228.0*
4.4
4.3
5.1
Failed*
0.2
0.3
3.9*
Failed*
1b
4*
4*
4*
0.07*
0.05*
0.05*
0.05*
150-600
176
129*
93*
135*
*Did not meet specification; all blends were premixed.
Improved Cold-Flow Biodiesel
Results
Cracked biodiesel produces a product very similar to JP-8.
9000000
SME cracked at 420°C
JP-8 (POSF3773)
Biodiesel
n -C11
Signal, a. u.
8000000
JP-8 and
Biodiesel
EERC BF26291.CDR
7000000
n -C12
JP-8 (POSF3773)
6000000
5000000
4000000
3000000
2000000
1000000
0
8000000
Signal, a. u.
Early
Production
Run EERC
Cracked
Biodiesel
9000000
7000000
6000000
C8
C9
5000000
4000000
3000000
2000000
1000000
0
Carbon Number
Biodiesel
Biomass Gasification for
Distributed Generation
Why are we concerned with smallscale biomass gasification?
• Fits DOE OBP goals of biomass
syngas for electricity and potentially
other products
• Qualifies under federal or state
renewable energy programs
• Reduces greenhouse gas emissions
• Eventual attractive ROI (5–10 years)
• Waste utilization for energy
• Green electricity and heat
• Lower pollutant emissions
• No boiler license requirement
• Economic residue disposal
• Portable technology can address fuel
transportation cost issues
Biomass Gasification for
Distributed Generation
Results
• 72 hours of continuous testing on wood
chips and sawdust (25% moisture)
• Average dry gas, 198 scfm
• 68.4 efficiency
• Particulates, 42.5 mg/Mm3
• Tars, 200–500 mg/Nm3
• 80% substitution of diesel fuel load ~ 100 hp
Remaining Technical Barriers
• Automation of gasifier operation and solids
and liquids handling
• Condensate disposal and water cleanup
• Process development to improve efficiency
• Increased fuel flexiblity (ag-residues)
• Addressing It-B Commercial-Scale
Demonstration and It-E Sensor and Controls
Biomass Gasification for
Distributed Generation
Syngas Composition and Heating Value for Selected Feedstocks
Parameter
Units
Sawdust
Hydrogen
%
15.7
13.3
15.8
CO
%
18
13.9
16.6
CO2
%
12
14.3
13.2
CH4
%
2.4
1.8
2.5
N2
%
50.4
55.3
51.5
O2
%
1.5
1.5
0.5
Particulate
mg/Nm3
32.3
1.95
Tar
mg/Nm3
252
256
Heating Value
Btu/scf
103.6
127.7
130.7
Chips
Pellets
Overall Project Strategic Fit
• Research activities within the EERC CBU support the Integrated
Biorefinery platform specifically in:
• Developing technologies for producing fuels, chemicals, and power, as
related to biorefinery operations by 2012.
• High-risk applied research that could help U.S. industry establish largescale biorefineries based on agricultural residues or commodity seed oils
by 2018.
• Biomass gasification technology being developed for commercially
competitive electricity generation could be adapted to produce syngas at
$3.84 per millon Btu by 2030 from lignin or wood.
• Company fit:
• The EERC has been performing thermochemical conversion of carbon
for over 50 years.
• Laboratory infrastructure and project experience for converting complex
organic structures in coal and biomass into marketable chemical
feedstocks has been ongoing at the EERC for over 30 years
• USDA-funded National Alternative Fuels Laboratory® at the EERC has
focused on biobased and renewable fuels, products, and process
technologies since 1991.
• Situated in heart of the Red River Valley and the breadbasket of the
northern Great Plains, the EERC has learned to collaborate with
agricultural industries, grower groups, and related agencies.
Milestones – Go/No-Go Decision
Lower-Cost Biodiesel Feedstocks
• Finish lab-scale optimization
February 2006
• Pilot-scale process demonstration
June
2006
• Go/no-go decision – Are projected commercialscale costs below current conventional biodiesel
production costs?
Improved Cold-Flow Biodiesel
• Finish vegetable oil cracking
February 2006
• Combustion testing – Wright Patterson AFB
March 2006
• Go/no-go decision – Did engine testing establish
acceptable performance and emissions at a 20%
blend with JP-8?
Biomass Gasification for Distributed Power
• Adequate control of tars in water
• Gasifier automated controls developed
• Commercial demonstration being negotiated
March 2006
June 2006
July 2006
Project Collaboration
• The EERC CBU has had over 40 industrial and commercial partners over the last
5 years collaborating on projects.
• The EERC sponsors an annual Renewable Energy Conference to disseminate
information and interface with interested parties.
• Through DOE funding, the EERC has published/presented 16 papers over the last
two years.
• Collaboration with:
• University of North Dakota Chemical Engineering Department, Dr. Wayne
Seames and Dr. Michael Mann
• Wright Patterson Air Force Base – principle investigator Dr. Edwin Corporan
• Montana State University -- Dr. Alice Pilgeram, Director of the Biobased
Products Institute, Dr. Chengci Chen and Dr. Duane Johnson (lignocellulosics to
biochemicals at MSU).
• Mr. Bruce Miller, Energy Institute, Pennsylvania State University
• North Dakota Department of Commerce Division of Community Services, Mr.
Kim Christianson
• Purdue University, Dr. Klein Ileligi, Agricultural & Biological Engineering
• University of Minnesota, Dr. Douglas Tiffany, Research Fellow, Department of
Applied Economics
Market and Customers
Low-Cost Biodiesel Feedstocks
• Seed oil-manufacturing and crushing plants
• Biodiesel producers
Improved Cold-Flow Biodiesel
• Biodiesel producers and fuel distributors
• Automotive, farm implement, and grower
groups
• U.S. motorists
Biomass Gasification for Distributed Power
• Industrial plants with low-cost biomass
resource (i.e., waste wood)
• Power producers and utilities
• Ethanol plants
Competitive Advantage
Duration of opportunity window?
• The projects being investigated at the EERC have both nearand far-term opportunities as a result of risks associated with
national security and ever-increasing costs of petroleum,
petroleum products, and energy production.
Competing technology?
• Petroleum industry and coal-based power generation.
Why is this a better approach?
• The use of renewable fuels offers the advantage of near-zero
greenhouse gas production and increased national security.
What could dramatically alter the market?
• Dramatic decreases in costs of lignocellulosic material
conversion to transportation fuel.
• Huge leaps forward in the efficiency and cost of power
production.
Project Stage
ICFD
LCBF
BGDP
• EERC CBU activities are in the detailed investigation and development stages. Biomass
gasification system needs more turnkey control and automated systems; bioproducts from
seed oil residues and lignocellulosics need further development and then will proceed from
lab to pilot-scale testing.
Improved Cold-Flow
Biodiesel = ICFD
Lower-Cost Biodiesel
Feedstocks = LCBF
Biomass Gasification for
Distributed Power = BGDP
Progress and
Accomplishments
• Addressed in Results and Challenges to Be Met sections of
project descriptions
Future Work
• Lower-Cost Biodiesel Feedstocks
− Optimize catalyst efficiency and durability, and evaluate process with
variety of economically attractive feedstocks
− Optimize and commercialize EERC-developed catalytic processes for
conversion of biodiesel coproduct glycerol to high-cetane diesel fuel
additives and high-octane gasoline additives
• Improved Cold-Flow Biodiesel
− Evaluate and develop product options for non-fuel-quality material
yielded from catalytic cracking process
− Conduct fuel evaluation and optimization work in recently purchased
and soon-to-be-installed microturbine system
• Industrial-scale biomass gasifier
− Develop biomass-processing and feeding methods for nonwood
resources, possibly including straws, corn stover, switchgrass,
sunflower hulls, and agri-residue pellets (2006).
− Design automated and sensor-instrumented controls for feed
automation, gas cleaning, fuel drying, charcoal handling, and
condensate (tars) disposal (2006–2007).
Project Management
Overall Project Manager: Chris J. Zygarlicke
• Maintains clear lines of accountability and
responsibility through regular meetings with
principal investigators
• Ensures project quality and performance
• Maintains reporting requirements to DOE OBP
• Communicates with DOE OBP to keep projects
within OBP target research goals and
objectives
• Individual activity principal investigators
• Ted Aulich, Edwin Olson, Darren Schmidt,
Chad Wocken, and Wayne Seames.
• Carry out day-to-day research on specific
activities or subprojects within the EERC CBU
• Develop cooperative partnerships to leverage
DOE investment
• Publish DOE reports and papers and present
results at international conferences and
meetings