Commercializing New Biomass Energy Technologies Eric D Larson

Commercializing New Biomass Energy Technologies Eric D. Larson Princeton Environmental Institute Princeton University USA International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists International Sugarcane Biomass Utilization Consortium Third Meeting, 28 June – 1 July, 2009 Shandrani Resort, Mauritius 1

My goals in this talk • Discuss context for a new sugarcane-biomass energy technology initiative. • Overview of thermochemical and biochemical biomass conversion technologies. • Discuss gasification-based technologies and economics, including co-gasification of biomass with coal and CO 2 capture and storage. • Provide some technology cost and performance estimates that might be useful for “back-of-envelope” project calculations. • Wrap-up thoughts/questions for further ISBUC discussions. 2

What Future Oil Prices ? > $100/bbl by 2012 -2015 Low Price, Reference Case, and High Price projections are from the U. S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2009 (March 2009). Subsequently (April 2009) EIA revised Reference Case projection to reflect expectation that world recession would last longer than expected in AEO 2009. 3

Climate Change Issues/Opportunities • To avoid dangerous climate change (ΔT > 2 o. C), global GHG emissions by 2050 must be: – ½ current emissions level, or – Less than ¼ of projected 2050 “business-as-usual” emissions. • IEA projects GHG emissions price in 2030 in OECD: – $90/t for 550 ppmv stabilization – $180/t for 450 ppmv stabilization • Biomass will become much more valuable (including possibility for negative GHG emissions when biomass is used with CO 2 capture and storage (CCS). 70 60 GHG Emissions, Gt CO 2 equivalent per year Business-as-usual emissions 62 Gt. CO 2 eq 50 40 30 cto e er s r Pow ry t Indus 20 Buildings 10 Transporta tion 0 Targeted emissions 14 Gt. CO 2 eq Source: International Energy Agency, Energy Technology Perspectives, 2008 4

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on CCS • Based on observations and analysis of current CO 2 storage projects (several storing ~106 t. CO 2/yr), natural systems, engineering systems, and models: – CO 2 injected underground is very likely to stay there for > 100 yrs. – CO 2 injected underground is likely to stay there > 1000 yrs. • Large potential for CO 2 storage in deep sedimentary basins Prospects for Holding CO 2 Highly Prospective Low to High Prospective Non Prospective Source: B. Metz, O. Davidson, H. de Coninck, M. Loos, and L. Meyer (eds. ), Figure SPM. 6 b in “Summary for Policymakers, ” IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005. 5

Parallels Between Coal IGCC and BIG/GT Development? • Coal gasification proponents say coal-IGCC is superior to conventional technology options: – higher efficiency than conventional coal power plants. – Inherently much lower air emissions than conventional power plants. – electricity generating cost in U. S. not higher than new conventional coal plant. • But IGCC is not a routine commercial option for new coal power (despite first major demonstration in 1970 s) because: – Conventional plants can meet emissions regulations with add-on investments. – Many existing coal plants are already paid off (esp in U. S. ), so existing generating costs are much lower than for a new conventional coal plant. – IGCC experience is not yet sufficient to ensure low level of risk that goes with new conventional coal plant. • Lesson: new technology must offer significantly better economics or opportunity to justify taking risks needed to establish it in market. – Coal gasification is widely practiced in China, but for chemicals. – Analogy: the PC did not replace the typewriter because it significantly improves typing – it provides many other benefits. 6

New context for thinking about sugarcane biomass energy • High oil (and natural gas) prices likely to be sustained – energy insecurity in U. S. and China are driving big investments in new technologies for transport fuels from biomass and coal. – Some major private sector players are getting involved, e. g. Shell, BP, GE, Sasol, others. • Awareness of need for urgent action on climate change is growing rapidly (COP 15 - Copenhagen will continue to build this awareness). • Gasification power from biomass that has only marginal economic benefits may not be compelling enough reason for commercializing biomass gasification – liquid fuels or co-production appear more promsing. 7

Basic Biomass Conversion Options advanced technology options Biochemical Ethanol Alt. Liquid fuels Bagasse, Trash Gasification Electricity B Combustion D Electricity 8

Biochemical conversion of biomass Raw Biomass Pretreatment Combining of two steps proposed: simultaneous saccharification and fermentation – SSF Hydrolysis Fermentation Combining of three steps proposed: consolidated bioprocessing – CBP Enzyme production • Current technology Ethanol Recovery & Distillation Solids separation Steam & power generation Process steam & electricity – Separate pretreatment hydrolysis using purchased enzymes (cellulases) to liberate C 5 and C 6 sugars C 6 fermentation. – C 5 fermentation has been demonstrated at pilot scale. • Near future technology – Pretreatment + combined enzyme hydrolysis and fermentation • More future technology – Consolidated bioprocessing: one reactor for enzyme production, hydrolysis, fermentation. • May 2009 study from U. S. National Academy of Sciences: – Ethanol yield with current known technology: ~260 liters/dry t biomass – Future-technology yield: ~330 liters/dry t biomass 9

Gasification-based conversion of biomass Air, O 2, and/or steam Bagasse, Trash Drying Sizing Gas Turbine Gasification (1 to 30 bar) Steam Turbine Process steam Biomass to Liquids (CO+H 2 O H 2+CO 2) CO, H 2, CH 4, CO 2 Heat Recovery BGCC Gas cleaning Water Gas Shift Electricity Catalytic Synthesis Distillation or Refining Liquid Fuel CO 2 Removal Steam & Power Generation Process steam/elec. Hybrid thermochem/biochem fuels production (one example) Fermentation Steam & Power Generation Distillation or Refining Alcohols Process steam/elec. 10

Biofuel substitutes for Conventional Fuel Ethanol Gasoline Mixed alcohols Diesel Methanol / MTG LPG Fischer Tropsch Paraffin Dimethyl ether Kerosene Biocrude Crude oil HYDROLYSIS GASIFICATION 11

Fuels that can be made via gasification • Fischer-Tropsch Liquids (FTL) – Diesel substitute + naphtha/gasoline co-product – Technology from 1930 s, large interest in coal-to-FT today • Dimethyl ether (DME) – Similar to LPG (25% blend with LPG acceptable) – Excellent diesel fuel, but needs pressurized fuel systems – Large production from coal in China, Iran • Substitute natural gas (SNG) – Syngas methanation technology is commercial – Low temperature of biomass gasification favors CH 4 • Hydrogen (H 2) – Technology for H 2 from syngas is commercial – Can provide the H 2 needed for NH 3 production 12

Comparing thermochemical and biochemical systems Thermochem Biochem Process sensitive to feedstock type/quality? No Yes Fuel/power/chemicals flexibility? High Low “Drop-in” fuels to replace petroleum fuels? Yes Maybe Potential for co-processing with coal? High Low Higher Lower Commercial or near-commercial components? Yes No R&D advances needed to achieve potential? No Yes Significant R&D efforts ongoing (in U. S. )? No Yes Ready for commercial-scale demonstration? Yes No Familiar to sugarcane biomass industry? No Yes Higher Lower CCS potential with liquid fuels production Projected specific investment costs for fuels? Black – technology features Red – development status Blue – key hurdles 13

Gasification-based fuels from biomass and/or coal Vent to atmosphere or compress for transport/injection. • All conversion component technologies are commercial (or near -commercial in the case of biomass gasification). • CO 2 removal is intrinsic part of the process. • Projects to demonstrate CO 2 capture from coal and storage at mega-scale (> 106 t. CO 2/yr injection) are in active development in USA, Europe, Australia, and China – will require ~10 years to gain confidence needed for widespread implementation. 14

CCS for biomass • Coal is target for most CCS developments, but if CCS works for coal, it can also be considered for biomass • With CCS, biomass goes from “carbon neutral” to “carbon-negative” as a result of geological storage of photosynthetic CO 2. • Attractive approach: co-process biomass with coal: – Economies of scale of coal conversion. – Low cost of coal as feedstock. – Negative CO 2 emissions of biomass offsets unavoidable coalderived CO 2 net-zero GHG emission fuel can be produced. – One commercial operation already co-gasifying coal and biomass (Buggenum IGCC, Netherlands) for power generation; several U. S. projects in development for fuels. 15

Three designs for coal/biomass co-processing with CCS. 16

Coal/Biomass co-processing for Fischer-Tropsch diesel and gasoline, with CO 2 capture for storage 17

Carbon/GHG flows for coal/biomass system with CCS. ~40% of input energy from biomass gives ~0 GHG emissions 18

Net lifecycle GHG emissions with alternative fuels from coal and/or biomass relative to petroleum-derived fuels Coal-FTL Coal-gasoline (MTG) Coal-FTL w/CCS Coal-MTG w/CCS Current Ethanol Coal/bio-MTG w/CCS Coal/bio-FTL w/CCS Bio-FTL Bio-MTG Ethanol w/CCS Bio-FTL w/CCS Bio-MTG w/CCS 19

Amount of biomass needed with different technologies to make fuels having ~zero net lifecycle GHG emissions Co-processing for FTL, MTG • One liter of fuel from biomass via thermochemical or biochemical processing requires about same amount of biomass feedstock. • Co-processing biomass with coal to make a liter of zero-GHG liquid fuels requires half or less as 20 much biomass as a “pure” biofuel.

Yields of low/zero net GHG liquid fuels per t biomass * * * Pure biomass cases with CCS (BTL-RC-CCS and BTG-RC-CCS) have strong negative GHG emissions, so some petroleum-derived fuel can be used and still have overall GHG emissions = 0. 21

$ per liter of gasoline equivalent (2007$) Production costs (“Nth” plant) for alternative biomassbased liquid fuels. * $100/bbl crude oil Petroleum gasoline $50/bbl crude oil Assumptions: Biomass input rate ~1500 dry t/day; biomass price, $1. 5/GJHHV; coal price, $1. 7/GJHHV; capital charge rate = 0. 15/yr. 22

$ per liter of gasoline equivalent (2007$) Production costs (“Nth” plant) for alternative biomassbased liquid fuels. * B-FTL-CCS C/B-FTL-El-CCS Ethanol* Ethanol-CCS Capex Gasoline eq Power GHG (106 2007$) (bbl/d) (MWe) (vs. oil) 363 2178 15. 7 -0. 14 370 2178 11. 1 -1. 35 718 4936 34. 1 -0. 02 740 4002 126 -0. 01 156 1941 2. 0 0. 17 158 1941 0. 6 -0. 22 $100/bbl crude oil Petroleum gasoline $50/bbl crude oil Assumptions: Biomass input rate ~1500 dry t/day; biomass price, $1. 5/GJHHV; coal price, $1. 7/GJHHV; capital charge rate = 0. 15/yr. *Ethanol from U. S. National Academy of Sciences study (May 2009), which projects achievable future yield of 334 lit/dry tonne switchgrass with capex as indicated above. FTL estimates are based on analysis by Princeton Univ. researchers (e. g. , see paper from Pittsburgh Coal Conference 2008, www. princeton. edu/pei/energy/publications) 23

$ per liter of gasoline equivalent (2007$) Production costs (“Nth” plant) for alternative biomassbased liquid fuels. * B-FTL-CCS C/B-FTL-El-CCS Ethanol* Ethanol-CCS Capex Gasoline eq Power GHG (106 2007$) (bbl/d) (MWe) (vs. oil) 363 2178 15. 7 -0. 14 370 2178 11. 1 -1. 35 718 4936 34. 1 -0. 02 740 4002 126 -0. 01 156 1941 2. 0 0. 17 158 1941 0. 6 -0. 22 $100/bbl crude oil Petroleum gasoline $50/bbl crude oil Assumptions: Biomass input rate ~1500 dry t/day; biomass price, $1. 5/GJHHV; coal price, $1. 7/GJHHV; capital charge rate = 0. 15/yr. *Ethanol from U. S. National Academy of Sciences study (May 2009), which projects achievable future yield of 334 lit/dry tonne switchgrass with capex as indicated above. FTL estimates are based on analysis by Princeton Univ. researchers (e. g. , see paper from Pittsburgh Coal Conference 2008, www. princeton. edu/pei/energy/publications) 24

$ per liter of gasoline equivalent (2007$) Production costs (“Nth” plant) for alternative biomassbased liquid fuels. * B-FTL-CCS C/B-FTL-El-CCS Ethanol* Ethanol-CCS Capex Gasoline eq Power GHG (106 2007$) (bbl/d) (MWe) (vs. oil) 363 2178 15. 7 -0. 14 370 2178 11. 1 -1. 35 718 4936 34. 1 -0. 02 740 4002 126 -0. 01 156 1941 2. 0 0. 17 158 1941 0. 6 -0. 22 $100/bbl crude oil Petroleum gasoline $50/bbl crude oil Assumptions: Biomass input rate ~1500 dry t/day; biomass price, $1. 5/GJHHV; coal price, $1. 7/GJHHV; capital charge rate = 0. 15/yr. *Ethanol from U. S. National Academy of Sciences study (May 2009), which projects achievable future yield of 334 lit/dry tonne switchgrass with capex as indicated above. FTL estimates are based on analysis by Princeton Univ. researchers (e. g. , see paper from Pittsburgh Coal Conference 2008, www. princeton. edu/pei/energy/publications) 25

Investment estimate for gasifier-GTCC power (Nth plant, U. S. site, 2007 prices) Bagasse plus 50% of trash from 2 million tcane/yr 6 million tcane/yr MW Electric Export to Grid Investment cost 26

Electricity selling price for stand-alone gasifier-GTCC power plant (“Nth plant” U. S. price estimate) Electricity Selling Price, US$ per MWh (2007 levels) (including 10% return on investment) price US $ per MWh Weighted cost of bagasse ($15/dry t) + trash ($40/dry t). Financial assumptions (U. S. conditions) Is this a compelling case for BIG-GT commercialization ? 27

Some numbers: potential yields from sugarcane biomass Surplus Electricity (100% bag + 50% trash + meeting mill process steam and electricity needs) Liquid Fuels Production From 50% of bagasse + trash (0. 14 tonnes dry biomass total per tc) Nitrogen Fertilizer Prod (50% bag + 50% trash) 28

Mauritius potential electricity, fuels, fertilizer from sugarcane Potential (% of current) Current Actual ? Electricity Generation (GWh/year) 100 bar steam cycle 590 (26%) BIG-GT power 1050 (46%) ~ 2300 Transport Fuel (106 liters/yr gasoline equivalent) Sugar ethanol 315 (24%) Biomass ethanol 165 (13%) Biomass FTL 194 (15%) Coal/Biomass FTL 440 (34%) ~ 1300 Ammonia Fertilizer (tonnes of contained N) Biomass ammonia 1, 825, 000 (~200 x) ~ 8800 29

Summary thoughts • Gasification is technologically close to being commercial. • Economics of gasification for power have not been sufficient to get over the “hump” since idea first recognized ~25 years ago. • Coal gasification (and past biomass IGCC) experience suggest gasification must provide “disruptive” benefits to succeed. – Electricity production may not be disruptive enough. – Liquid fuel production may be disruptive enough. – Gasification is well suited to make fuels/chemicals in addition to power. • Co-production of fuel and power may be most disruptive of all. – World oil price volatile; co-production is a hedging strategy. – Strong GHG mitigation policy needed to avoid planetary overheating – such policies will also help protect co-producer against oil price collapse. • Carbon-based fuels/power with low lifecycle GHG emissions will grow in value, and negative GHG emissions potential of biomass is likely to be high value in long term. • Gasification strategy that foresees it as technology platform for fuels/chemicals/ power co-production may provide a compelling motivation for commercialization. • Sugarcane industry is unique in having experience with large-scale biomass handling, with liquid fuels production, with power generation, and (in Mauritius) with coal use. • But commercializing gasification will require a big effort. 30

Past BIG-GT commercialization efforts Varnamo (Sweden) operation 1993 -1999 • 20 MWbiomass GTCC + district heating. • > 8, 500 hours pressurized gasification • > 3, 600 hours integrated operation. • Technical success, but larger scale needed for successful economics. ARBRE (UK) low-P gasifier, 8 MWe GTCC • Successful partial commissioning (2000/01) • Institutional problems end project in 2002. SIGAME (Bahia), 32 MW, 1991 -2003 • Low-P gasifier • Detailed engineering completed, GE turbine modified • Plantations established • Institutional problems end project. 31

Challenges to commercializing biomass gasification Engineering • • Efficient biomass drying, e. g. using low-temperature waste heat Gasifier feeding of bagasse/trash (more for pressurized gasification) Tar cracking/gas cleaning Operational reliability and availability Financial • • Finding the money Demonstrating the competitiveness • • Investment cost O&M cost Fuel cost Energy or product price Institutional • • Getting support from the right partners (engineering, finance, institutional) Getting the right institutional and organizational arrangement to carry forward the demonstration and continue on to commercial deployment. 32

Some considerations for ISBUC • Past work (e. g. , Arbre, Varnamo, and other projects) provides information needed to design a commercialscale gasification installation. • A minimum scale is needed to be convincing as a commercial demonstration and to achieve acceptable economics. What should be the scale? • What should be produced? Power? Fuel? Power and Fuel? • How about co-processing biomass and coal in an already-commercial coal gasifier? • What are ISBUC’s long-term objectives – beyond a demonstration project? 33

Thank you! 34

Scale of Sugarcane Processing Plants in Southeast Brazil 4000 2000 1000 Approximate dry t/day recoverable biomass 3000 0 Source: UNICA, Ranking de Produção, www. unica. com. br/referencia/estatisticas. jsp 35

Fischer-Tropsch liquids (FTL) from coal w/ or w/o CCS. 36

Fischer-Tropsch liquids (FTL) from biomass w/ or w/o CCS B-FTL, B-FTL-CCS 37

GHG Emissions of Alternative Biomass-Based Liquid Fuels 38

Trajectory of GHG emissions price (in 2007 $/t. CO 2 eq) that translates to a levelized GHG emissions price of $50/t. CO 2 eq Levelized GHG Emissions Price, 2016 -2035 39