BIOENERGY TECHNOLOGIES OFFICE Beau Hoffman US Case Studies on Energy Conversion R&D Technology Manager Recovery from Waste US Dept of Energy, Bioenergy Technologies Office 1 | Bioenergy Technologies Office
MSW Report to Congress Congressional interest is largely driven to solve waste disposal challenges “Deliver a report to the Appropriations Committee a report on R&D opportunities to improve the economic viability of municipal solid waste ‐ to ‐ energy” For existing WTE facilities: • Current Gen AD Improvements – Co ‐ digestion advancements – Advanced biogas cleanup – Conversion of biogas to fuels and co ‐ products – Advanced AD reactor design • Advanced waste preprocessing and handling strategies – High precision sorting – Development of quality control specs (for waste feedstocks) – Preprocessing/pretreatment processes to remove contaminants 2 | Bioenergy Technologies Office
Case Study 1 – Catalytic Biogas Upgrading Questions: Devin Walker John Kuhn dwalker@t2cenergy.com jnkuh@usf.edu 3 | Bioenergy Technologies Office
Case Study 1 – Catalytic Biogas Upgrading 2012: 2016: Mobile Pilot Unit (completed 2018) 24 SCFM LFG Feed 75 Gal/Day Diesel 4 | Bioenergy Technologies Office
Case Study 1 – Catalytic Biogas Upgrading 5 | Bioenergy Technologies Office
Case Study 1 – Catalytic Biogas Upgrading Hydrocarbon TRIFTS Commercial Fuel Analysis Family Diesel Diesel • Low aromatics (Less particulate/soot Paraffins 68.61 19.95 formation) Isomers 29.98 31.60 Olefins 0.86 0.92 • Zero sulfur (No SOx Emissions) Aromatics 0.3 39.48 • Isomers improve cold temp properties Cyclics 0.25 8.05 • Excellent middle distillate boiling point distribution • Boiling points align with commercial diesel • Waste derived cleaner burning fuel 6 | Bioenergy Technologies Office
Case Study 1 – Catalytic Biogas Upgrading Plant Profitability at Various Wholesale Diesel Prices w/ RIN (600 scfm Biogas) $20,000,000 WS Price $3.5 WS Price $3.0 Discounted Cumulative Cash Flow $15,000,000 WS Price $2.5 WS Price $2.0 $10,000,000 WS Price $1.5 WS Price $1.0 $5,000,000 $ ‐ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 $(5,000,000) Years Breakeven No RIN credit at 646 At current WS pump price of 2.15 NPV = $10.6MM SCFM biogas production rate RIN = $4.25/gal diesel (D3 ~ $2.50/RIN) Production Cost = $1.72/gal Initial Construction Capital $3.9 MM 7 | Bioenergy Technologies Office
Case Study 2 – Hydrothermal Liquefaction Conversion technology must be: Wet waste requires a simple and Simple, scalable, robust robust process technology Process a range of feedstocks and high ash levels (>20%) Able to convert directly with minimal dewatering (or by blending in of dry materials) Achieve high carbon yields to liquid hydrocarbons (40 ‐ 60%) Hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) is… The conversion of solid biomass in hot, compressed water into liquid components • HTL produces a gravity ‐ separable biocrude with low oxygen content (5–15 %) that can be upgraded to drop ‐ in blendstocks PNNL’s bench ‐ scale continuous HTL system HTL Conditions Hydrotreating Conditions Questions: Justin Billing Temp: 330-350°C Temp: 400°C Pressure: 2900 psig Pressure: 1500 psig H 2 Justin.Billing@pnnl.gov t res : 10-30 min Sulfided NiMo on Al Lesley Snowden ‐ Swan Lesley.Snowden ‐ Swan@pnnl.gov Stable biocrude oil Fuel blendstocks Wet biomass material (95%+ yield) (up to 60% C ‐ yield) (sludge, manure, algae) 8 | Bioenergy Technologies Office
Case Study 2 – Hydrothermal Liquefaction • A fixed-bed hydrotreater is critical to quantify catalyst lifetime • Process improvements dropped the MFSP by over $2/GGE Throughput increased 34% (WHSV of 0.29/h to 0.39/h) – catalyst, capital cost Time-on-stream increased from 300 to 550 hours – catalyst cost • A two-year catalyst life will further reduce MFSP by $0.80/GGE 9 | Bioenergy Technologies Office 9
Case Study 2 – Hydrothermal Liquefaction Sludge (GLWA) Sludge (CCCSD) Sludge/FOG (80/20) (CCCSD) Swine Manure • Simulated distillation shows product is 80% Rich in diesel 70% High in cetane (~70) 60% Mass Yield* % 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Algae HTL Sludge 0% EtOH to HTL Diesel gasoline jet diesel heavies (IBP ‐ 184°C) (153 ‐ 256°C) (184 ‐ 390°C) (>390°C) Certification 50/50 Diesel Wood/Algae HTL • Engine testing at CSU of 5% blends in Wood Wood HTL Pyrolysis diesel shows NO negative impact on performance or emissions 10 | Bioenergy Technologies Office
Case Study 2 – Hydrothermal Liquefaction $8.0 $7.16 Minimum Fuel Selling Price, Balance of Plants $7.0 $6.74 $6.0 Biocrude Hydrotreating / $5.11 Hydrocracking $5.0 $4.69 $/GGE Biocrude Transportation $4.0 $3.11 HTL Water Treatment $3.0 $2.77 $2.0 HTL Biocrude Production $1.0 Sludge Dewatering $0.0 2018 SOT 2018 SOT 2019 SOT 2019 SOT 2022 Projected 2022 Projected no NH3 no NH3 no NH3 removal removal removal • Annual state of technology (SOT) assessment tracks progress toward goal • Progress via increased hydrotreating catalyst life and reactor throughput • Increased feed solids, separations, heating configuration and upgrading (throughput and catalyst life) will enable the 2022 goal 11 | Bioenergy Technologies Office
Case Study 2 – Hydrothermal Liquefaction $6.0 Balance of Plants $5.11 $5.0 $4.54 MFSP, $/GGE $4.44 Biocrude MFSP Yield 0.6 Biocrude Yield, g/g feed (DAF) $5.8 Hydrotreating / $4.0 Hydrocracking $5.6 0.5 Biocrude $5.4 Transportation $3.0 MFSP, $/GGE 0.4 $5.2 HTL Water $5.0 $2.0 Treatment 0.3 SOT $4.8 HTL Biocrude $1.0 0.2 $4.6 Production $4.4 0.1 $0.0 Feedstock $4.2 Baseline Sludge/FOG Swine dewatering 0 $4.0 (SOT) (80/20) manure 0 5 10 15 20 Weight % FOG blended with sludge • Blending FOG, even at low levels, improves economics of waste water sludge • Higher biocrude yields for manure and FOG reduce MFSP by $0.60 ‐ 70/gge 12 | Bioenergy Technologies Office
Case Study 2 – Hydrothermal Liquefaction • Wet waste resources are highly co ‐ located 80% of non ‐ sludge waste is generated within 25 miles of a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) that is ≥ 1 M Gal/day • Collection and blending reduces costs via larger plant scale 13 | Bioenergy Technologies Office
Case Study 3 – Advanced CO 2 Sorbents Synthetic, porous metal ‐ organic frameworks + amines Combine benefits of aqueous amines and adsorbents “step ‐ shaped adsorbents” • “Step ‐ shaped” adsorption = less energy needed to regenerate • High selectivity for CO 2 = higher product purity Questions: Jason Husk • Solid phase = easy to handle, increased safety (vs aqueous amines) Jhusk@mosaicmaterials.com 14 | Bioenergy Technologies Office
Case Study 3 – Advanced CO 2 Sorbents Mosaic Typical PSA Process Mosaic’s phase change adsorbents… Sorbents for PSA and amine • exhibit very large working scrubbers… capacities • exhibit low working capacities • require small pressure and/or • require large pressure and/or temperature swings to be cycled temperature swings to be cycled 15 | Bioenergy Technologies Office
Case Study 3 – Advanced CO 2 Sorbents • 1.2MM grant from California Energy Commission (CEC) thru Sept 2018 • 40% Reduction in OPEX with Mosaic’s Gen ‐ 1 concept system compared to traditional amine scrubbing • 15% Reduction in CapEx , and plans to pursue further cost reductions • Stability testing of MOF ‐ based pellets performed at Davis WWTP Waste received Digestion produces – CO 2 capacity maintained over 1000+ cycles biogas • In ‐ house manufacturing at 1 kg /week , currently supporting multiple orders. • Year 1: Pilot system designed/fabricated by Mosaic Materials, EPC Subs Biogas • Year 2: Pilot system deployed at host site Pipeline Upgrading injection to demonstrate efficacy of CO 2 removal or vehicle CNG unit Sources: American Biogas Council, SoCalGas 16 | Bioenergy Technologies Office
Case Study 4 – Next Gen AD Project goal: Improve the techno ‐ economic viability of biopower production by developing a sustainable two ‐ phase anaerobic membrane bioreactor (AnMBR) system that diverts organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) and food waste from landfills and incineration while generating methane and renewable bioproducts. Project outcome: A scalable, high performance, low ‐ cost, two ‐ phase modular AnMBR to extend the economic viability of AD to smaller scales • Modular high rate rumen inspired AD technology 2 nd Phase Magna Tree Dynamic Membrane : Filtering biofilm formed on support structure of ~ 10 – 100 microns Questions: Meltem Urgun ‐ Demirtas Demirtas@anl.gov 17 | Bioenergy Technologies Office
Case Study 4 – Next Gen AD VFA concentration and VFA yield during operation of the rumen reactor Ruminant Inspired Dynamic AnMBR hydrolyzes a high fraction of lignocellulose > 60% in a short time 18 | Bioenergy Technologies Office
Case Study 4 – Next Gen AD • Modelling AnMBR performance • Previous AD models have been developed to model one stage AD. • A model is needed that evaluates the feasibility of different waste stream combinations and the process performance from the lens of two stage AD. • Why? Hydrolysis step is rate limiting and varies with biodegradability of waste. • New C++ version of the ADM1 model allows ~40x speedup in computational time while maintaining robustness of results 19 | Bioenergy Technologies Office
Recommend
More recommend
