„einsatz von biomasse für btl – ein kritischer blick ...itas / l. leible et al., 3rd...

Forschungszentrum Karlsruhein der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft

„Einsatz von Biomasse für BtL – ein kritischer Blick“

„Biomass Utilisation for BtL – A Critical Look“

Dr. Ludwig Leible, Stefan Kälber, Gunnar Kappler

Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS)

3rd BtL-Congress

October 15th/16th 2008, Berlin

Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe 2ITAS / L. Leible et al., 3rd BtL-Congress, October 15th/16th, 2008, Berlin

Fig. 2: 23 years (1985/2008) – To highlight the changing situation

World population in 2008: 6.7 billion peopleGrowth since 1985: 1.8 billion people

World population in 1985: 4.9 billion peopleSources: United Nations (2007); US Population Reference Bureau (2008)

20081985


Fig. 3: Presentation outline

(1) Major developments and preliminary remarks

(2) Biomass resources and supply in Germany

(3) Technologies for fuel production from biomass

(4) BtL-fuel from cereal straw and wood residues fromforestry

(5) Comparison of BtL-fuel with electricity or heat production

(6) Conclusions / Outlook

„Einsatz von Biomasse für BtL – ein kritischer Blick“„Biomass Utilisation for BtL – A Critical Look“


(1) Major developments


Fig. 5: Major developments

(1) Growing world population

(2) Increasing demand for food and energy

(3) Increasing prices of food and energy

(4) Increasing CO2 emissions

(5) ……..


Fig. 6: Crude oil prices (North Sea Brent) from January 2006 untilOctober 2008


Fig. 7: German energy mix in 2007: 6.6% renewable energies

Source: ewt 2008, 58 (1-2), p91


Fig. 8: Importance of biomass as renewable energy in Germany (2002-2007)

ITAS LL/2008


Fig. 9: The preference of BtL-fuels – as measured by?

(1) Contribution to energy supply

(2) Competitiveness against- Food production- Heat and electricity from biomass- fossil energy sources- non biogenic renewable energy sources

(3) Contribution to reduce greenhouse effect

(4) Employment effects in rural areas

(5) Contribution to technology development/export chances

(6) ….


(2) Biomass resources and supply in Germany


Fig. 11: Volume of biomass and demand for primary energy in Germany

Conclusion:

From an optimistic point of viewbiomass can meet 10-15% ofcurrent primary energy demand!

ITAS LL/2008

900

210

70-80

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Availablebiogenicresidues

Plant growthaboveground

Primaryenergy demand

mill

ion

Mg

ofD

OM

/a

Primary energy demand 2007: 474 million tce1995: 480 million tce

this corresponds to about 900 million Mg DOM

For comparison:

In 2007 biomass (includingbiogenic residues and wastes)covered around 4.8%.

DOM = dry organic matter

tce = ton coal equivalent = 29.3 GJ


This volume corresponds to 8% of the primary energy demand in Germany.In 2007, biomass (including biogenic waste and residues) covered about 4.8% in Germany.

A simplifiedestimate shows:

Fig. 12: Volume of biogenic waste and residues in Germany 2005


Fig. 13: Logistic challenges regarding biomass supply:– biomass is regionally distributed (decentral), energy density is low!

Crude oil: specific weight: 0.8-0.9 Mg/m3;energy density (Hu): 9-10 MWh/m3

Wood chips: specific weight: 0.40 Mg/m3

(50% DM) energy density (Hu)≈0.90 MWh/m3 Wood residues

ITAS LL/2006

Cereal straw Straw bales: specific weight: 0.14 Mg/m3

(86% DM) energy density (Hu)≈0.55 MWh/m3

ITAS LL/2006

©BASF

ITAS LL/2008


Only a few locations aresuitable; these locations aremainly dominated by straw

Schillingstadt; with r = 25 km

• Volume: 190,000 Mg DM(thereof 71% straw)

• Collecting costs:50 €/Mg DM for straw;80 €/Mg DM for wood residues

• Supply costs (free gate),in total: 80 €/Mg DM

Forbach; with r = 25 km

• Volume: 110,000 Mg DM(thereof 10% straw)

• Collecting costs:70 €/Mg DM for straw;90 €/Mg DM for wood residues

• Supply costs (free gate),in total: 100 €/Mg DM

Fig. 14: Supply with straw and wood residues – Location studies

Source: Gunnar Kappler, Dissertation (2008, Uni Freiburg)


(3) Technologies for fuel production from biomass


Fig. 16: Search for alternatives: BtL is one option

Source: Bild der Wissenschaft 6/2007

BtL is one option!


Fig. 17: Routes for the production of fuels from biomass


(4) BtL-fuel from cereal straw and wood residues(bioliq®-concept of the Forschungszentrum KA)


Biomass supplyCereal straw and woodresiduesfrom the local area of thepyrolysis plants

(1) Decentral(n=10-50)pyrolysis plants50-100 MW

Production ofbio-slurry*

Con

di-

tioni

ng

* bio-slurry: pyrolysis oil/char-suspension

SUBSTITUTION offossil energy sources

and raw materialsraw synthesis gas

(2) CentralGasification plant

500-5000 MW

Gas

clea

ning

Gas

con

diti

onin

g

Syn

thes

isFT-products,H2, Methanol

formaterial

use

for energyuse

ITAS LL/2006

Fig. 19: Two-step bioliq®-concept (Biomass-to-Liquid, BtL)for fuel production from straw and wood residues


Fig. 20 : Production costs of FT-synfuel from straw and wood residues– a comparison with fossil diesel

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

0.2 1.0

Pyrolyse, Vergasung, FT -Synthese

Biomasse: Transport

Biomasse: Ernte u. Konditionierung

Raffinerie

Erdöl frei Raffinerie

Mineral ölsteuer

0FT-Synfuel (plant capacity, million Mg/a) 1)

Pro

du

ctio

nco

sts

(€/li

tre)

Pyrolysis, gasification, FT-synthesis

Biomass: transport

Biomass: collection

Diesel (fossil) with30 / 65 / 100 $/bbl

Refinery

Petroleum, free refinery plant

Mineral oil tax

1) FT-Synfuel from straw and wood residues, central plant; production costs quoted free plant, without tax; basis 2006

ITAS LL/2008


(5) Comparison of BtL-fuel with electricity or heatproduction


Fig. 22: Straw/wood – Diversity/competition regarding energy use

Biomassdemand *)(1000 Mg/a)

Supplyradius **)

(km)

Investment

(million €)

Biomass: straw and wood residues

*) at 86% DM and LHV =4.0 MWh/Mg FM

**) Availability: 100 Mg FM/km2

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10000

Heat Heat + electricity Electricity FT-fuel

Pla

ntca

pac

ity

(MW

th)

5

0.1

Heating plants(Local, district

heat)

70

5

CHP plants

200

10

Power plants

5000

500

FT-plantsPower plants

FT-plants9400

to940

175to55

2800to

440

350to

17.5

33to8

120to10

Heating plants3to

0.06

3to0.4

4to0.2

105to7.5

18to5

60to8

CHP plants

ITAS LL/2008


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

ElectricityHeat FT-Synfuel

reference: coal-fired power plant (500 MWe)

reference: fossil diesel (65 $/bbl)reference: heat fromheating oil (30 kWw)

a) Industrial wood (pellets, 92% DM) b) Wood residues (chips, 50% DM) c) Straw (bales, 86% DM)

CHP

combustion gasification pyrolysis andgasification

ITAS LL/2008

Fig. 23: Production costs of heat, electricity and FT-Synfuel fromwood residues and cereal straw (basis 2006)

Pro

duc

tio

nco

sts

(€/M

Wh)

decentral integrated

500

MW

th(0

.12

mill

ion

Mg

FT)

Two-stepBtL-concept bc)

1500

MW

th(0

.37

mill

ion

Mg

FT)

5000

MW

th(1

.26

mill

ion

Mg

FT)

CH

Ppl

ant

bc)

(10-

67M

Win)

Hea

tin

gp

lan

tb)

(500

kWw)

Sm

allf

urn

ace

a)

(30

kWw)

CH

Pp

lan

tbc)

(1.5

-13.

4M

We)

Po

wer

pla

ntb

c)

(20-

45M

We)

Co

-co

mb

ust

ion

bc)

(10%

of5

00M

We)

Flu

idis

edb

edb

c)

(2.8

-63

MW

e)

Co

-gas

ific

atio

nb)

(ap

pro

x.4%

of50

0M

We)

Fix

edb

edb)

(460

kWe)


Fig. 24 : CO2 mitigation costs producing heat, electricity and fuel from strawand wood residues (basis 2006)

100

150

200

250

300

350C

O2

miti

gati

onco

sts

(€/M

gC

O2

eq.)

0

50CHP

combustion gasification

ElectricityHeat FT-Synfuel

pyrolysis andgasification

decentral integrated

-50

Reference from 50 to100 €/Mg CO2 eq.(reduction scenarios

according toBMWi (2001))

ITAS LL/2008

a) Industrial wood (pellets, 92% DM) b) Wood residues (chips, 50% DM) c) Straw (bales, 86% DM)

500

MW

th(0

.12

mill

ion

Mg

FT)

Two-stepBtL-concept bc)

1500

MW

th(0

.37

mill

ion

Mg

FT)

5000

MW

th(1

.26

mill

ion

Mg

FT)

CH

Pp

lan

tbc)

(1.5

-13.

4M

We)

Po

wer

plan

tbc

)

(20-

45M

We)

CH

Ppl

ant

bc)

(10-

67M

Win)

Hea

ting

pla

ntb

)

(500

kWw)

Sm

allf

urn

ace

a)

(30

kWw)

Co

-co

mb

ust

ion

bc)

(10%

of5

00M

We)

Flu

idis

edb

edb

c)

(2.8

-63

MW

e)

Co

-gas

ific

atio

nb)

(ap

prox

.4%

of

500

MW

e)

Fix

edb

edb)

(460

kWe)


Fig. 25: CO2 mitigation costs – results from other studies (WBA 2008)

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Heatin

g : woo

d chips

Heatin

g : cer

eal

Bioga

s(e

lectr .

&he

at):

LM

Bioga

s (elec

tr .):

SM+L

M

Bioga

s(e

lectr .

&he

at):

SM+L

M

Biogas

(feed

in):

SM+L

M

CHP:woo

dch

ips

Co-co

mbu

stio

n : stra

w

Co-co

mbu

stio

n : woo

dch

ips

Biodie

sel:

rape

seed

Etha

nol: w

heat

Biogas

( fuel):

LM

CO

2m

itig

atio

nco

sts

(€/M

gC

O2

equi

vale

nts)

1,700

WBA-calculations

Maximum values from other studiesMinimum values from other studies

Heat CHP &electricity

Fuels

.SM = silo maize; LM = liquid manureCo-combustion in coal-fired power plant

Source: WBA (2008), modified


Fig. 26: Conclusions/Outlook

Increasing competition for biomass

The potential of biomass as energy source is limited

Biogenic waste and residues offer economic benefits

Biomass for heat production is currently most competitive

Highest CO2 mitigation costs for biofuels

Under precautionary aspects the promotion of BtL-technologies makes sense!

„Einsatz von Biomasse für BtL – ein kritischer Blick“„Biomass Utilisation for BtL – A Critical Look“


Fig. 27: Conclusion/Outlook for long-term perspective of biomass use

StofflicheNutzung

GezieltangebautePflanzen

HERKUNFT

Biomasse

EnergetischeNutzung

BiogeneReststoffe

aus:

VERWENDUNG

Land-/Forstwirtschaft

Nahrungsmittel

Futtermittel

ElektrischerStrom

Chem. / techn.Rohstoffe

Wärme

Kraftstoff

ProduzierendesGewerbe

ÖffentlicheAbfallentsorgung

LandschaftspflegeNaturschutz

ITAS LL/2007

Ölgetränkte „Krümel“ „Honigartige“ Suspension (Slurry)

Materialuse

Specific cultivatedplants

Origin

Biomass

Energyuse

Biogenic residuesfrom:

Utilization

Agriculture/Forestry

Food

Animal feed

Electricity

Chem. / techn.Raw materials

Heat

FuelsProductionIndustries

Public wastemanagement

Landscapeconservation

ITAS LL/2006


Thank you foryour attention!

Source: Benzol-Verband, ARAL (Eds.), 1936,Bochum, 18pp.

ITASLL/2008

Fig. 28: Fuel from hard coal (biomass)– (not) a new subject in Germany?

„einsatz von biomasse für btl – ein kritischer blick ...itas / l. leible et al., 3rd...

Documents