Transcript Geen diatitel - Global Carbon Project

Technologies (and their role for
sustainable bioenergy)
1st Workshop ESSP Bioenergy –
Bioenergy and Earth Sustainability.
Escola Superior de Agricultura “ Luiz de Queiroz”
Piracicaba - Brazil, July 19-22, 2008.
André Faaij
Copernicus Institute - Utrecht University
Task Leader IEA Bioenergy Task 40
Member Steering Group BIOPEC Initiative
Copernicus Institute
Sustainable Development and Innovation Management
Integration…
Pfff, it’s
complex…
Copernicus Institute
Sustainable Development and Innovation Management
Key bioenergy utilisation routes
Copernicus Institute
Sustainable Development and Innovation Management
Bioenergy today
• 45 EJ + 10 EJ total use
• 9 EJ + 6 EJ commercial; non-modern
• ~ 8 EJ Modern; commercial:
– < 1 EJ electricity
– ~ 2.5 EJ heat
– ~ 1.5 EJ biofuels (bulk = ethanol; half of that ethanol
sugar cane based)
• Main controversy on biofuels from annual crops
and palm oil.
• Currently some 20 Mha in use for biofuels
worldwide (compared to 5,000 Mha for food)
Copernicus Institute
Sustainable Development and Innovation Management
Combustion; workhorse of bio-energy…
Efficiency: from 20 – 40%
CHP: 60 - <80%
Capacity: 20 – 250 MWe …
Economics OK with residues
Fuel
Air
Sustainable Development and Innovation Management
Fuel
Ash
Fuel
Copernicus Institute
Fuel
Fixed bed furnace
(grate furnace)
Ash
Air
bubbling fluidised
bed furnace
Air
circulating fluidised
bed furnace
Air
dust firing
Power Station Kymijärvi, Lahti Finland
Copernicus Institute
Sustainable Development and Innovation Management
Future BIG/CC technology
-> Current status: ~3500 U$/kWe, 30% electrical efficiency, ACFB, ~10 Mwe
-> Future:~1500,- U$/kWe, ~50% efficiency, (ACFB..), >100 MWe
-> Ultimate: <1000 U$/kWe, >55% eff., PCFB, HT gas cleaning >200 MWe
Natural gas
Burner
Flue
gas
Dolomite
Poplar wood
Pretreatment
Air
Gas
cooler
Steam
Gasifier
Air
Flue gas
Fuel gas
cooler
Fuel gas
clean-up
Particles/alkalis
Ash
Steam
Fuel gas
expander
Gas turbine
Air
Copernicus Institute
Sustainable Development and Innovation Management
HRSG
Steam
turbine
Inert gas
for
pressure locking
Cost of electricity:
~ 10 U$ct/kWh ->
3-4 U$ct/kWh,
almost doubling of
electrical output
Hot
water
[Faaij, van Ree et al., 1998]
Perennial crops
(vs. annual crops)
• Lower costs (< 2 €/GJ)
• Planted for 15-25 years
• Low(er) intensity
– Can restore soil carbon and structure
Miscanthus x giganteus
– Suited for marginal/degraded lands
– Requires less inputs (well below key threshold values)
• Wide portfolio of species & production systems
– Possibilities for enhancing (bio-) diversity
– Adaptable to local circumstances (water, indigenous species)
• Earlier development stage
– Large scale and diverse experience needed
– Learning curve to be exploited
– Improvement potential
Copernicus Institute
Sustainable Development and Innovation Management
Yields: perennials ~3x annual
Crop
Biomass yield
(odt/ha* yr)
Energy yield in fuel
(GJ/ha*yr)
Wheat
4-5
~ 50
Corn
5–6
~ 60
Sugar Beet
9 – 10
~ 110
Soy Bean
1–2
~ 20
10 – 11
~ 180
Palm Oil
10-15
~ 160
Jathropha
5-6
~ 60
SRC temperate climate
10 – 15
100 - 180
SRC tropical climate
15 - 30
170 - 350
Energy grasses good conditions
10 - 20
170 – 230
Perennials marginal/degraded lands
3 - 10
30 – 120
Sugar Cane
Copernicus Institute
Sustainable Development and Innovation Management
Bioethanol from
lignocellulosic biomass
1.
2.
3.
4.
SHF
SSF
SSCF
CBP
+BIG/CC…
Major demonstrations
In US/Canada, EU
Copernicus Institute
Sustainable Development and Innovation Management
Synthetic fuels from biomass
Biomass & coal gasification to FT liquids - with
gas turbine
Recycle loop
Pre-treatment:
Gasification:
Gas cleaning:
Gas processing:
FT synthesis:
- grinding
- drying
- air or oxygen
- pressurised or
atmospheric
- direct/indirect
- ‘wet’ cold or
‘dry’ hot
- reforming
- shift
- slurry reactor Offgas
or fixed bed
feedstock is
poplar wood
Gas
turbine
- CO2
removal
FT liquids
Power
Major investments in IG-FT capacity
About 50%
ongoing in China right now:
of carbon!
- Reducing dependency on oil imports!
- Without capture strong increase in CO2 emissions…
Copernicus Institute
Sustainable Development and Innovation Management
What are we waiting for?
Yueyang
Sinopec-Shell
Coal gasification
project; (China)
Shell gasifier arriving
at site September 2006.
15 licences in
China at present…
Courtesy of Shell
Copernicus Institute
Sustainable Development and Innovation Management
Economic performance 2nd generation
biofuels s.t. & l.t.; 3 Euro/GJ feedstock
Copernicus Institute
Sustainable Development and Innovation Management
[Hamelinck & Faaij, 2006, Energy Policy]
GHG Balances (without
indirect land-use changes)
Wastes (Waste Oil,
Harvest Residues,
Sewage)
Fibers (Switchgrass,
Poplar)
Sugars (Sugar Cane,
Beet)
Starches (Corn,
Wheat)
Vegetable Oils
(Rapeseed, Sunflower
Seed, Soybeans)
Reduction in CO2 Equivalent Emissions
(Percent)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Source: IEA
120
Copernicus Institute
Sustainable Development and Innovation Management
IEA – Fulton, 2004
Source: Hamelinck, Faaij, 2005
Composing chains…
Copernicus Institute
Sustainable Development and Innovation Management
Technological learning; improvement
potentials and development pathways.
• Detailed bottom –up analyses of bioenergy systems.
• Breakdown of factors in conversion,
supply lines and biomass (crop)
production.
• Essential for implementation
• Many case studies, methodology
development & applied research.
Copernicus Institute
Sustainable Development and Innovation Management
Cost reduction potential in 2nd
generation technologies.
Copernicus Institute
Sustainable Development and Innovation Management
[Wit, Junginger, Faaij, 2008]
Total learning system for biomass-fuelled
Source: Junginger, Faaij et al., 2005
power plants producing electricity
Copernicus Institute
Sustainable Development and Innovation Management
Experience curve for primary forest fuels
Source: Junginger Faaij et al., 2005
in Sweden and Finland (1975 and 2003).
Copernicus Institute
Sustainable Development and Innovation Management
Experience curve for the average and marginal
production cost of electricity from Swedish
Electricity production costs (Euro(2002)/kWh)
Source: Junginger, Faaij et al., 2005
biofuelled CHP plants from 1990-2002
0.12
0.11
1990
0.1
0.09
PR = 91% R2 = 0.85
0.08
1991
0.07
1994
1995
0.06
1992 1993
1997
0.05
2002
PR = 92% R2 = 0.88
0.04
Average electricity production costs
Marginal electricity production costs
1999
0.03
1
Copernicus Institute
Sustainable Development and Innovation Management
10
100
1000
Cumulative electricity production (MWh)
10000
1980
1985
1975
2001
Experience curve for total
hydrated ethanol (19752004) excluding feedstock
1999
Average production costs (1975-1998) and prices (1999-2004)
PR = 0.68 + 0.03 (R2 = 0.81)
2000
4000
6
Cumulative national sugarcane production [10 TC]
8000
19
77
400
Copernicus Institute
Sustainable Development and Innovation Management
20
00
200
19
98
Experience
curve of
sugarcane
production 1975
– 2004
100
Industrial costs (excl. feedstock)
PR = 0.81 + 0.02 (R2 = 0.80)
20
03
1000
19
89
10
19
84
1990
19
81
20
[Wall Bake et al., Biomass &
Bioenergy, 2008]
Production costs
[US$(2005)/m3HYD)
Sugarcane production costs
[US$(2005)/TC]
40
50
10
20
40
80
160
Cumulative national ethanol production [106m3]
320
Examples of various sugarcane cost
breakdowns in Sao Paulo 1976-2005
Sugarcane production cost breakdowns
50
Land
Soil preparation
Crop maintenance
Harvest (cutting and loading)
Cane transportation
Average cane production cost
(as presented earlier)
Production costs
[US$(2005)/TC]
40
30
20
10
0
1976
Copernicus Institute
1980
1987
1995 1997
2000
2005
[Wall Bake et al., Biomass & Bioenergy, 2008]
Sustainable Development and Innovation Management
Cost breakdowns of industrial ethanol
production process excl. feedstock
Ethanol production costs [US$/m 3]
500
Investment costs
Operational costs
Other costs (taxes, administration, etc.)
Total industrial costs (excl. feedstock)
400
3
120 m /day
3
120 m /day
300
3
240 m /day
200
100
3
1000 m /day
0
1975
Copernicus Institute
1980
Sustainable Development and Innovation Management
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
[Wall Bake et al., Biomass & Bioenergy, 2008]
Production costs sugarcane [US$/tonne] and ethanol [US$/m 3]
Estimated future costs of
sugarcane and ethanol production
assuming 8% annual growth
10
Cumulative ethanol production [106 m3]
40
80
160
320
640
20
1280
800
PR = 0.81 + 0.02
Explaining the experience
curve:
Cost reductions of
Brazilian ethanol from
sugarcane
J.D. van den Wall Bake, M.
Junginger, A. Faaij, T.Poot,
A. da Silva Walter
Biomass & Bioenergy, 2008
400
200
2020
40
20
PR = 0.68 + 0.03
10
Sugarcane
Ethanol prod. cost (excl. feedstock)
Expected range of cane prod. costs in 2020
Expected range of ethanol prod. costs in 2020
1000
Copernicus Institute
2000
4000
8000
16000
6
Cumulative sugarcane production [10 TC]
Sustainable Development and Innovation Management
2020
32000
16000
15000
U.S.
U.S. projected
RFS
U.S. Ethanol production [million gallons]
14000
Brazil
World
13000
Ethanol plants US
(status 2006)
12000
11000
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
2015
2010
2005
2000
1995
1990
1985
1980
1975
0
Global
ethanol
Production &
outlook
Copernicus Institute
Sustainable Development and Innovation Management
Source: John Urbanchuk (data for Oct 31 2006; green =
Corn production costs
14
14
Corn production
Corn production costs
Still 38% reduction in costs per acre
6
Annual
[billionbushel]
bushel]
Annualcorn
corn production
production [billion
Annual
costs[$(2005)/bu]
[$(2005)/bu]
Annualcorn
corn production
production costs
7
7
12
(so without yield increase influences)
5
10
4
8
3
3
6
6
60% reduction in costs per bushel
2
2
1
1
0
0
2
2
Corn production
Corn production costs (yield is fixed)
Corn production costs per bushel
1975
1975
Copernicus Institute
1980
1980
Sustainable Development and Innovation Management
1985
1985
1990
1990
1995
1995
4
4
2000
2000
2005
2005
Source: ERS-USDA, NASS -USDA
0
0
[Hettinga,
2007]
Corn production costs
8.00
180
7.00
160
+171%
140
6.00
120
5.00
100
4.00
80
3.00
60
Yield [ bu/acre]
Production costs [$(2005)/bu]
Corn production costs per bushel
-63%
2.00
40
-46%
1.00
20
-64%
0
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
0.00
Cash expenses
Copernicus Institute
Corn price
Sustainable Development and Innovation Management
Capital costs
Yield [bu/acre] right axis
Other
[Hettinga,
2007]
Development: yield increase
180
Genetic modification?
160
Yield [bu/acre]
140
120
100
80
Single cross
hybrids
60
40
Open pollinated
Hybrids
20
0
1860
Copernicus Institute
1880
1900
Sustainable Development and Innovation Management
1920
1940
1960
1980
2000
[Hettinga,
2007]
Source: Adapted from Pioneer, NCGA (ProExporter Network)
Ethanol operating costs
1.2
Operating costs [$(2005)/gal]
1
0.8
-75% ?
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1975
1980
1985
1990
Operating costs (excl energy)
Copernicus Institute
Sustainable Development and Innovation Management
1995
2000
2005
Trendline (R2= 45%)
2010
[Hettinga,
2007]
Experience curve: operating
costs
Operating costs minus energy [$(2005)/gal]
10
worst case
Trendline (worst case)
best case
Trendline (best case)
y = 2.8318x -0.2118
R2 = 0.3722
PR = 0.86
1
y = 1.1428x -0.1281
R2 = 0.3381
PR = 0.92
0.1
100
1000
10000
Cumulative ethanol production [million gallon]
Copernicus Institute
Sustainable Development and Innovation Management
100000
[Hettinga,
2007]
Yield developments in
Europe
Historic yield development
 example: wheat
Average yields plotted for
Significant difference!
y = 0.0764x - 147.16
R2 = 0.9468
6
Yield [ton/ha]
The Western European Countries
The Central and Eastern European
Countries
7
5
4
3
y = 0.0377x - 71.637
R2 = 0.497
2
1
0
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Source FAOSTAT
Copernicus Institute
Sustainable Development and Innovation Management
[Wit & Faaij, 2008]
Yield projections Europe
Observed yield
Linear
extrapolation of
historic trends
Widening yield gap
Applied scenarios
Low, baseline and high
Yield [ton/ha]
CEEC and WEC
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1960
Observed historic yields
1970
1980
1990
2000
Projections
2010
2020
2030
Source FAOSTAT
Copernicus Institute
Sustainable Development and Innovation Management
[Wit & Faaij, 2008]
Results - spatial production
potential
Arable land available for dedicated
bio-energy crops divided by the
total land
Potential
Countries
Low
potential
< 6,5%
NL, BE, LU, AT,
CH, NO, SE and FI
Moderate
potential
6,5%
- 17%
FR, ES, PT, GE,
UK, DK, IE, IT and
GR
High
potential
> 17%
PL, LT, LV, HU, SL,
SK, CZ, EST, RO,
BU and UKR
Copernicus Institute
Sustainable Development and Innovation Management
[Wit & Faaij, 2008]
Results - spatial cost
distribution
Production cost (€ GJ-1) for
Grassy crops
Potential
Countries
Low
Cost
< 2,00
PL, PT, CZ, LT, LV,
UK, RO, BU, HU, SL,
SK, EST, UKR
Moderate
Cost
2,00 –
3,20
FR, ES, GE, IT, SE,
FI, NO, IE
High
Cost
> 3,20
NL, BE, LU, UK, GR,
DK, CH, AT
Copernicus Institute
Sustainable Development and Innovation Management
[Wit & Faaij, 2008]
Results – cost-supply curves
Production costs vs.
supply potential
for 2010, 2020 and 2030
Variation areas indicated
around the curves represent
uncertainties and scenario
variables.
Only CEEC cost level increases
Copernicus Institute
Sustainable Development and Innovation Management
[Wit & Faaij, 2008]
Crop specific supply curves
• Feedstock potentials
Produced on 65 Mha arable and 24
Mha on pastures (grass and wood)
Summary baseline 2030
• Supply potentials high
compared to demand
2010 (0,78 EJ/yr) and 2020 (1,48
EJ/yr)
24
Production Costs (€/GJ)
• Significant difference
between ‘1st and 2nd
generation crops’
1st
generation
Starch
21
18
2nd
generation
Oil
15
Sugar
12
Grass Grass
Wood Wood
9
6
3
0
0
6
12
Supply (EJ/year)
18
1 EJ (ExaJoule) = 24 Mtoe
Copernicus Institute
Sustainable Development and Innovation Management
[Wit & Faaij, 2008]
Development in net feedstock use
for biofuels (REFUEL project;
example scenario)
Copernicus Institute
Sustainable Development and Innovation Management
[www.refuel.org, 2008]
Closing remarks
• Technological and management improvements key
factor:
– Agricultural (and livestock) management!
– Energy cropping & supply systems
– Conversion.
• Technological learning and improvement potentials
still fairly poorly covered in analyses around
bioenergy (potentials & projections), agriculture a.o
(especially 2nd generation and beyond!).
• Combination of bottom-up engineering work and
modelling generally gives good results.
• Takes considerable effort.
Copernicus Institute
Sustainable Development and Innovation Management
Thanks for your attention
For more information, see e.g. IEA Task 40:
www.bioenergytrade.org:
Key References:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Junginger, Faaij et al., 2005
Smeets et al., 2007, Progress in Energy & Combustion Science,
Hoogwijk et al., 2005 & 2008, Biomass & Bioenergy
Hamelinck & Faaij, 2006, Energy Policy
Dornburg et al.,2008 Biomass Assessment WAB
Wicke et al., 2008, Biomass & Bioenergy
Wall Bake et al., 2008, Biomass & Bioenergy
Wit & Faaij, 2008, REFUEL – (Forthcoming)
Hettinga et al., 2009 (forthcoming).
Copernicus Institute
Sustainable Development and Innovation Management