niche for modular cellulosic bioenergy plants
TRANSCRIPT
1
Ulrich Bonne, PhD, CTOMinnefuel, LLC and partners
Hopkins, [email protected]
presentation at
CPAC Summer InstituteUniversity of Washington, Seattle, WA
16 July 2008
Niche for Modular Cellulosic BioEnergy Plants
MinneFuel, LLC
2
Outline1. Skip background on energy scenario2. Sustainable renewable energy options
GTL. Technical and economic viability3. Skip financing matters 4. Conclusions
Niche for Modular Cellulosic BioEnergy Plants
3
Opinion Exch. p. A12“It would be best to invent a way out of warming”
by Bjorn Lomborg, adj.professor, Copenhagen.The Copenhagen Consensus Project* which gathered 8
leading world economists, to come up with best ways to tackle 10 challenges: civil conflicts; climate change; communicable diseases; education; financial stability; governance; hunger and malnutrition; migration; trade reform; and water & sanitation*. (BCR=Benefit/Cost Ratio)
Their conclusions*: …”the least effective use of resources to slow global warming would be to ‘simply’ cut CO2 emissions,” rated as BCR = 0.9 …. “Don’t ignore global warming….but dramatically increase R&D on low-carbon energy, such as solar and 2nd-generation biofuels.” 2.7
1. Mpls./St.Paul StarTrib News, 30 Jun.’08:
* http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Default.aspx?ID=788
4
MinneFuel, LLC [email protected]
Components of Universal Biomass Conversion System
Load Fac Wpk/acre Wav/acre Acres Area % Mile x Mile T$ $/WavgWind (2.5 MW turb.2001) 30 7,029 2,109 1.6E+09 69.1 1564 10 3Solar-PV(150acres,11MW,75M 20 73,333 14,667 2.3E+08 9.9 593 113 34Biomass @ 7 tons/year/acre; 30% conv.eff. 1,263 2.6E+09 115.4 2020 5 2Total US use of 100 Quad Btu/y = 3.3 TWavg 2.3E+09 100.0 1881
5
Envisioned Small BioFuels Plant (Forestry/Farm Scale), Rev.5
[email protected], LLC
The challenge: Prove its technical and economic viabilityCould we afford automobiles if each had to be custom-assembled in our back yard?
6
2. Envisioned Small BioFuels Plant. Process Flow. Rev.2
Process flow diagram w/ indicated combustible (CO+2H2) mole flows to produce 1 product unit:
2.94 Biomass feedstk input, i.e. plant efficiency = 100x1/(2.94+1.47) = 23 - 34 % (methanol)
2.40 Syngas (+0.55 CO2) Methanol Biomass w/ E-Generation
0.40 Loss during syngas cleanup; efficiency = 2.0/2.4=83.3 %. FT eff.: 1.0/2.0 = 50%
2.80 Entering FT reactor >> 1.0 heavies equiv. to gasifier burner + 0.8 light recycle + 1.0 product
+0.5 Fuel for electric generator, and indicated needed increases in other streams
MinneFuel, LLC
8
2. Gasifier Furnace Design. Rev.8
Compressed biomass feeds into the 100-200 psia gasifier near the top, near steam injection port
The fire tube is tilted to facilitate biomass feed and ash removal
The guiding rods or grates ensure close contact with the hot fire-tube
The guiding rods or grates become finer as the biomass chunks gasify and decrease in size
Biomass ash is removed at bottom via gas-tight auger
Fire-tube seals are located in low-temperature zone of fire-tube
MinneFuel, LLC
Compressed biomass falls into the pressurized gasifier near the top
The guiding rods or grates ensure close contact with the hot fire-tube
The guiding rods or grates become finer as the biomass chunks gasify and decrease in size
The heat release is stretched along the fire-tube length via swirling flame (Wingersheak Burner) effect
Biomass ash is removed at bottom via gas-tight auger or screw press, by opening exit just enough to create desired torque on auger drive.
Fire-tube seals are located in the low-temperature zone
MinneFuel, LLC
2. Gasifier Furnace Design. Rev.9
10
2. Gasifier System Design. Rev.10
Screw-pressed biomass (preheated by slow gas leaks) feeds into the small-ID, pressurized gasifier tube.
Heat transfer to biomass at center is more effective than in Revs. 8,9. Hot burner gases swirl on the outside.
“Free” H2+O2 feed from solar-PV cell electrolysis, steam & burner boost direct biomass heating to 850°C
The grates hold biomass chunks until they gasify & decrease in size.
Fly-ash is removed via impact plates, from which ash drops to screw-press.
Biomass ash is removed at bottom via a gas-tight screw-press, with exit opening just sufficient to create desired torque on screw drive.
Air & steam preheating for high effic.MinneFuel, LLC
11
2. Challenges: Gasifier System Design. Rev.10
1. Will screw-presses be gas-tight enough?
2. Core gasifier tube: Is there any material other than SiC ? (Tensile y. strength > 10,000 psi at 900°C)
3. Will fly-ash removal be good enough to not foul downstream heat exchanger and gas cleaning?
4. Can the grate be adjustable to hold biomass long enough to minimize biomass loss with ash?
5. Will overall efficiency gains due to indirect and pressurized gasification be cost-effective?
MinneFuel, LLCConclusion: Need to prove technical feasibility via pilot
12
2. Composition of MinnePlantTM Gasification Streams
* Columns Tflam = Adiabatic flame temperature TL-07-Plant-BM-sp1: Equilibrium composition at 844°C of enough water gas for 1 mol of methanol (CH3OH)2: Input of same composition, with air added for complete combustion at 7 bar (~ 100 psia)3: Flame composition and temperature right after combustion with air at 7 bar4: Same but at 1 bar; note that peak temperature is ~43°C lower than at 7 bar5: Input same comp. as #2, except for extracting enough syngas to make 1 mole of methanol.6: Flamed resid.prod. gas of #5 input comp. after combustion w/air at 1 bar. T4 - T6 = ~88°C7: Flamed residual p. gas of #5 comp. after comb. w/pure O2. T7-T6 = 681°C, T7 >> T4.8: Input extracted syngas CO+2H2. 9. After combustion w/air. T9 - T4 = 130°C, T9-T6= 217 °C10: Input methane + air. 11: Flamed methane after combustion with air. T4 > T11 > T4
Table 3. Flame Properties of Producer, Syngas and Methane Fuel Gases*Residual Producer Gas Syngas Methane
Equil. Input Flame Flame Input Flame Flame Input Flame Input FlameP in bar 7 7 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Tin in C 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
moles moles mol% mol% moles mol% mol% moles mol% moles mol%CO 2.39 2.39 0.41 1.42 1.39 1.02 10.44 1.00 2.01 0.98H2 4.70 4.70 0.17 0.57 2.78 0.42 4.45 2.00 0.80 0.39CO2 0.55 0.55 10.81 11.49 0.55 12.85 17.64 9.27 8.35H2O 1.19 1.19 22.63 25.65 1.19 27.98 53.01 21.77 18.26O2 0.00 3.57 0.23 0.93 2.09 0.72 14.46 1.50 1.40 2.00 0.68N2 0.00 13.65 65.75 59.94 7.97 57.01 0.00 5.74 64.75 7.65 71.34CH4 0.00 1.00Tflam in C .(844) 2075.3 2032 1944.8 2626.2 2162.2 1999.3STANJAN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Producer Gas Prod.Flue Gas
MinneFuel, LLC
13
2. Other Modules: Convert Trash to Electricity via Mobile “Bioreactor”
Defense Life Science LLC and Purdue University
1. The shredder rips up waste and soaks it in water to make sludge2. The sludge is pumped into the bioreactor, and enzymes break it down into carbohydrates
and then into simple sugars, which yeast metabolizes into ethanol.3. Residue is pelletized in the pelletizer, & converted to gas in the gasification reactor . 4. The ethanol, gas and 10% diesel fuel convert to electric power in the diesel generator,
Input: 100 lbs/h
Output: 60 kW
Size: ~ Moving Van
Funding: US Army
Founder: Jerry Warner, CEO
Ph: 703.448.0440
14
2. Wood Chip Gasification & GTL Pilot Plant
Aviosol AB, Sweden
Output: 150 m3/y or 15 gal/h of ProBio-Diesel. BioPro is a synthetic diesel. Raw materials are gasified and undergo the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis process. The finished product can be used in normal diesel engines. We can, by a comfortable margin, produce the entire country’s diesel needs without overexploiting the forest.
http://www.Aviosol.com
15
Convert Trash to Electricity via Mobile “Bioreactor”
Diversified Energy Co.
DoD funded development of this portable synthetic fuel production system based on DEC’s HydroMax gasification technology and Velocys’ Fischer-Tropsch approach
16
1. Solar PV Cost Learning/Experience Curve
Experience curves for PV modules and sensitivity of learning rate to underlying data by Maycock (2002); and Strategies-Unlimited (2003). From G.F.Nemet, UC-B, 2006.Portugal: 11 MW; 20.7% cap., 150 acres; 72 M$ >> 5976 GEE/y/acre or >17 x corn stoverConclusion: Solar PV costs are dropping as
1/CC0.5 – 0.29 or to 71 - 82 % for each capacity doublingUCB-G.F.Nemet: http://www.feem-web.it/ess/ess06/files/nemet-fp.pdf [email protected]
1982
2006
1. Solar PV & Wind Cost -- Experience/Learning Curve
Source: IIASA, 2000 in Wim C. Turkenburg, libdigi.unicamp.br/document/?down=1037
18
2. Comparison of Economies of Scale: 1. Size vs. 2. Volume
1. Economies of scale are obtained as plant sizes increase. The shown empirical relation is also used to keep plant costs low in terms of $ per installed capacity via process intensification, see M.V.Koch, K.M.VandenBussche and R.Crisman, “Micro Instrumentation for High Throughput Experimentation and Process Intensification,” Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, Germany (2007) p.50, Fig.3.5
2. High volume production reduces cost via “Learning Curve/Experience Factor”: a. http://cost.jsc.nasa.gov/learn.htmlb. Stephen R. Lawrence http://leeds-faculty.colorado.edu/lawrence/Tools/Learn/LTheory.htm
00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9
1
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000Number of Units made
Cos
t Fac
tor
U.Bonne, TL-07-Plant-Bus, 12-AUG-07
Experience Cost Factor for Each 2x Production Increase
0.80
0.85
0.90
MinneFuel, LLC
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 20 40 60 80 100Small-Plant Capacity in gal/h
Sm
all-P
lant
Par
amet
ers
FAF
$/gal
$/(gal/y)
FAF = 1
U.Bonne, TL-07-Plant-Bus, 21-OCT-07
1500 Mgal/y
N = 2,500
2.Plant & Product Cost vs. Size & F.Assembly Factorfor constant no. of small plants or const. total production
[email protected].: 30 Mgal/y = 3,750 gal/h
2007 Consumption
in billion gal/y:
US Gasoline – 141
MN Gasoline – 2.8
~ 2.0% of US
Population: 5.2/300
~ 1.7% of US
input of 24 tons/day
MinneFuel, LLC
20
2. Advantage Factors of Small vs. Large Plants
* For example, EPA stack emission limits of NOx, SOx and PM from utility plant boilers were at first only mandated for plants with outputs over 250 MWe, with impact on kWh “product” of about 5-10%. Limits for small boilers were mandated later as appropriate, when lower-cost technology became available.
• Have access to lower-cost, local & distributed feed- Cost Factorsstock; and benefit from shorter transport distances(0.87) 0.58
• Lower-cost distribution (no or fewer middlemen; 20/80%) 0.25• Less noise and local traffic congestion by large
trucks or trains hauling low-density biomass ~0.9 • Lower cost of burdened labor (30/50 $/h) ~0.6• Less favorable financing (8y @12% vs. 20y @8% loan) 1.71 .• Provide jobs to local economy. Total product cost: 0.13• Savings from "factory assembly" vs. “field assembly” 0.37• Cost saving via "learning curve" from continuous
improvement of mass production, after 2000/200 units 0.13 / 0.24• Mobile, no hook-ups to electric, water or sewer ~0.9• Lower-cost air and water pollution control systems* ~0.9• Neg. economy of scale x150 via ~0.6 power-law ~20.0
Total capital cost: 0.37*0.13*0.9*0.9=0.039; 0.78 / 1.4
MinneFuel, LLC
21
2. Model. Small Plant Economic Feasibility:150Plants
BTL BUSINESS MODEL TO COMPUTE PLANT & FUEL COST IN $/(GAL/Y) & $/GAL. SMALL PLANTS INPUTS OUTPUTS In Out
3 Capacity in gal/h 25 3 Ref./Small Plant size ratio 150 Q R4 Up-Time in h/year 6000 4 Mass prod.cost saving factor 0.2600 t Sm5 Ref. Plant size in gal/y 30,000,000 5 BM plant cost in $/(gal/y) 5.840 Qr C6 Ref. Plant cost in $/(gal/y) 3 6 BM plant cost in $ 1,168,080 Cr Cc7 Land cost in $/acre 4500 7 Payment w/interest per $/year 235,138 Ca8 No. of produced plants 150 8 BM feedsock in tons/y 1762 N F9 Fcty assembly saving factor 2.7 9 in lbs/h 587 Sf Fh
10 Years to pay loan in years 8 10 in dense ft3/y 320,315 tL Fv11 Interest on loan in %/y 12 11 Yield in gal/ton (for listed % Eff) 85.1 r Yw12 Profit in % of fuel sales 10 12 Total cost feedstk & prd.trans.,$/ton 7.43 P Cw13 Economy of plant scale, power 0.6 13 Number of people to run plant/shift 0.497 n Hu14 Learning curve in %/doublg. 83 14 Cost of ethanol in $/gal - feedstk 0.0872 L VF15 BM feedst.cost in $/ton 0 15 - Plant labor ~(Q/Qr)^0.63/3, $/gal 0.5959 Cf VL16 Include BM transp.cost: 0=N,1=Y 1 16 - amortization in $/gal 1.5676 Ct VC17 Plant op.labor cost in $/h/shift 30 17 - profit in $/gal 0.2251 CL VP18 BM harvest in tons/acre 3.5 18 - maintenance, insur'ce, prp.tax 0.0185 Ya Vm19 Distribution in % of mfct. cost 20 19 - distribution 0.4989 Cd Vd20 20 Total in $/gal 2.9932 V21 BM energy conv.eff in % 35 21 - incl. BioMax25 Electr. $/kWh 0.0614 ηE Ve22 BM LHV in Btu/lb 9200 22 Total ethanol produced, million gal/y 22.5 Hb23 Ethanol LHV in Btu/gal 75,637 23 Total manufactg. assets in $ 350,423,883 He CT24 Ethanol density in lb/gal 6.549 24 Total number plants needed 1,072,808 ρe Ns25 All US waste BM, bill tons/y 1.89 25 Years to achieve 25% saturation 1788 Y t2026 Density of pell.stover in lb/ft3 11 26 Total US potential in bill.gal eth/y 161 ρ Yb27 27 CO2 emiss. redution of total E in % 11.8 ∆E28 Num.Small MN plants in oper'n. 30,000 28 CO2 em.redution of gasoline E in % 35.5 n ∆Et29 MN factory labor value add in % 30 29 Total cost of the loan in $ 1,881,102 Va Ct30 MN factory labor cost in $/h 50 30 MN BM feedstock in million tons/y 52.9 Cf Fa31 MN factory indiv.labor h/year 2000 31 MN fuel production in billion gal/y 4.50 tf Qmn32 32 MN fuel gross revenue in B$/y 13.47 Sf33 Cost of truck fuel in $/gal 3 33 MN factory(val.added)sales in B$/y 0.18 Cg Sa34 Time to load and unload BM, h 1 34 MN jobs - Fuel prod. + distribution 33,000 tf Je35 Truck BM capacity in tons 5 35 - Plant product.+ servcg.in $/y 1,752 L Jm36 Trucking cost prod./feedst., ratio 0.1 36 - Average gross pay/SP-job in $/y 90,000 Rpf Pe37 Truck cost + 50% interest in $ 110,000 37 3xMax.radial BM-plant dist. in miles 1.51 Cm ds38 Truck life in miles 200,000 38 Truck average speed in miles/h 21.2 Z v39 Truck SP average speed, miles/h 20 39 Cost of feedstock transport in $/ton 7.21 vo Cw*40 Truck mileage in miles/gal 4 40 Cost of product transport in $/ton 0.21 Ym Cp
TL-07-Plant-Business-Model, Rev. 8, U.Bonne, 5-Nov-07
MinneFuel, LLC
22
Comparison of Fuel from Biomass, Solar-PV &Wind
[email protected], LLC
SHORT COMPARISON OF LARGE AND SMALL PLANTSInputs Large Large Small Small Small Small Sol PV Sol PV Wind
3 Capacity in ethanol gal/h ="22kW" 3750 3750 25 25 "556" "556" "556" "556" "556"4 Up-Time in h/year 6000 6000 6000 6000 6000 6000 1653 1653 24535 Ref. Plant size in million gal/y 30 30 30 30 30 306 Ref. Plant cost in $/(gal eth/y) 3 3 3 3 3 6 10.1 5 5.18 Total number of plants produced 1 1 150 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,0009 Fcty assembly saving factor 1 1 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 1 1 1
10 Years to pay loan in years 8 8 8 8 8 8 20 20 2011 Interest on loan in %/y 8 8 12 12 12 12 12 12 1212 Profit in % of fuel sales 20 20 10 10 10 10 10 10 1013 Economy of plant scale, power 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.614 Learning curve in %/doublg. 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 8315 BM feedst.cost in $/ton 30 30 0 0 30 50 0 0 016 Include BM transp.cost: 0=N,1=Y 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 017 Plant op.labor cost in $/h/shift 50 50 30 30 30 30 1 1 118 BM harvest in tons/acre 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 0 0 019 Distribution in % of mfct. cost 80 64 20 20 20 20 5 5 520 Cost of BioMax-25 kW BTE, k$ 250 250 65 32.4 32.4 32.4
Outputs1 Last plant cost in Million $ 90 90 1.17 0.582 0.58 1.162 Plant capacity cost in $/(gal-eth/y) 3 3 5.84 2.911 2.91 5.82 16 8 83 Fuel retail price in $/gal ethanol 3.29 3.00 2.99 1.955 2.42 3.76 8.0 4.3 2.64 Fuel retail price in $/gal gasoline 5.19 4.73 4.73 3.09 3.82 5.94 12.7 6.8 4.1
BioMax electricity cost in ¢/kWh 26.3 26.3 6.14 3.4 3.4 3.4A\TL-07-Pl-Bus-Mod, 25-JUN-08
24
3. Coop Financing of Modular Biomass Plants
Mark J. Hanson, StoelStoel Rives, LLPRives, LLP & [email protected]
• A farm cooperative “sponsors” a biomass plant and finds 20 farmers seeking to . use/buy or market 10,000 gal of fuel/year.
• Farmers contribute $ 50,000 each (once), and annually ~ 100 tons of biomass
• Farmers buy 10,000 gal fuel / year at cost or receive the net profits from such fuel sales
25
4. Conclusions • Wind is competitive now. Same area can be cultivated for food.
• Solar could drop its relative price by 10x in 15 years, and be competitive. But area cannot be cultivated.
• Cellulosic biomass (& coal) conversion is practiced by large plants; but small plants (5-25 gal/h output) can offer advantages, despite conventional wisdom to the contrary:- Short feedstock and product transport- Faster learning curve- Useful processors of residual food-crop biomass and
complementary to food production- No utility hook-ups- Small and distributed environmental impact- Create new jobs more locally and distributed- Economically viable after 150 plants- Economically viable before 150 plants with investment ($14M,
w/ROI of $69M after ~5 yrs & sale of 900 plants), or gov. subsidy- Financed via coop organization
MinneFuel, LLC [email protected]
26
4. Where do we go from here?
• Refine gasification and GTL conversion design • Associate with needed development & m. partners • Leverage MN renewable, residual biomass
resources and labor pool • Refine comprehensive business plan • Iterate technical and economic models, scale up
and cost-engineer “small plant”• Verify performance of lab- & pilot-scale small plant • Secure funding at various stages• Launch manufacture of “universal” small plants
MinneFuel, LLC
27
Collaboration and Innovation"IBM is re-inventing the way it innovates. At one time the tech giant was a true believer on go-it-alone R&D. The feeling was that if a technology wasn't invented by IBMers, it wasn't as good. Now the computer pioneer realizes that no matter how big an organization is, more smart people are going to work outside its walls than inside. So it courts R&D partners aggressively. ‘We are the most innovative when we collaborate,’ declares Chief Executive Samuel J.Palmisano”.
THANK YOU !ANY QUESTIONS?
p.18 of the Innovation Insert of Business Week issue of Sept.10, 2007
28
1. Carbon Sequestration
Conclusion: Carbon sequestration remains elusive and may not be ready for commercialization
With Earth crust density of d ~ 2.7 g/cm3, a pressure of p=2500 psi is balanced by the hydrostatic pressure at a depth of p*10/14.5/d = 638 m or 2,095 ft
With water density of d ~ 1 g/cm3, a pressure of p=2500 psi is balanced by the hydrostatic pressure at a depth of p*10/14.5/d = 1724 m or 5,657 ft
CO2 has a higher density than water at p > 2500 ? psi and therefore would sink to the ocean’s bottom and form CO2 hydrates. However, the rate of dissolution is not zero (500 years?[1])
Convert CO2 to torpedo-shaped solid at -78.5°C and drop into ocean sediment, for conversion to clathrate, according to C.N.Murray et al, Energy Convers. Mgmt 37(6-8), 1067 (1996)
Calculations show that, CO2 may replace and release CH4 from S-I clathrates. Consider this if there are methane clathrates present where CO2 sequestration is to be attempted[3].
[1] US Pat. 5,397,553 (EPRI, 1995) method to form CO2-in-water clathrates of density > 1.1 g/cm3 of sea water, approximately CO2·8H2O. Recheck suggested “alignment” of CO2 molec.[2] US Pat. 5,700,311 (Dwain F.Spencer, 23 Dec.1997) method to extract CO2 from gas mix into water to form clathrates. H2 does not form clathrates
29
Biography
Ulrich Bonne received an MS in Physics in 1960, and a PhD (Dr.rer.nat) in Chemical Physics in 1964 from the University of Göttingen, Germany, with a thesis on “Optical Studies in the Reaction Zone of (Low-Pressure, Flat) Sooting Flames.” Since joining the Honeywell Labs in Minnesota, he focused on R&D and productization of sensors (of flames, O2, and combustion efficiency), modeling seasonal system efficiency, and then on devising an annual fuel utilization efficiency (AFUE) test method with NIST, which ASHRAE and DOE later officially adopted. Since the mid-1980s he pioneered modeling, design, and development of core microbridge sensor technology for environmental, medical and aerospace applications, and most notably for an electronic, fully-compensated natural-gas metering
system. From 2002-06, he has secured funding from DOE and DARPA to model, design, and demonstrate the performance of innovative thermal micro gas analyzers, detectors, and thermal micropumps. As a Honeywell Senior Research Fellow, his work has led to over 80 US patents and 140 publications.
An active retiree since Jan.’07, he now consults on combustion and biomass (gasification) process performance, modeling and design. He supports customers interested in the development of small, mobile, distributed and factory-assembled plants for the conversion of waste biomass to transportation fuels.
He is a member of the International Combustion Institute; served on ASHRAE technical committees, on DOE and NIST evaluation panels, and was a member of OSA, SAE, and ACS.