Department Biorefineries
Deutsches Biomasseforschungszentrum
BTx and PTx as competitors or companions –
a systemic assessment
Franziska Müller-Langer, Hendrik Etzold, Karin Naumann
8th Stakeholder Plenary Meeting|12 April 2018|Brussels
1. Background
2. Characteristics of BTx and PTx
3. Systemic assessment
4. Example PTG-HEFA hybrid refinery
5. Conclusion
2
Content
©DBFZ 2018 based on European Environment Agency (EEA) 2017, EU White Paper on Transport 2011, COM (2016) 501 und COM (2017) 283,
EU Reference Scenario 2016 3
Background
EU|GHG emissions from transport
Total transport energy demand: 358 Mtoe 340 Mtoe 355 Mtoe
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2030 2050
Gre
enh
ou
se G
as E
mis
sio
ns
(GH
G) f
rom
Tra
nsp
ort
by
Mo
de,
in
clu
din
g In
tern
atio
nal
Bu
nke
rs: E
U-2
8 in
Mio
. t C
O2e
q/a
Other transportation (allremaining transport activitiesincl. pipeline transportation,ground activities in airports andharbours, and off-road)
Navigation (total)
Railways (excl. indirectemissions from electricityconsumption)
Civil aviation (total)
Road transportation
-20% wrt 2008
-60% wrt 1990
-80 - 95%
Sources: (IEA 2015) Energy Technology Perspectives 2015; (EC 2011) Energy roadmap 2050; (GP et al 2015) energy [r]evolution a sustainable
world energy outlook 2015; Fig. presented in Mueller-Langer et al. 2016, FVEE Conference proceedings4
Background
EU|Scenarios on transport energy demand
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
2DS(IEA
2015)
DST(EC 2011)
2DS(IEA
2015)
DST(EC 2011)
E[R](GP et al.
2015)
AE[R](GP et al.
2015)
E[R](GP et al.
2015)
AE[R](GP et al.
2015)
2013 2030 2050 2030 2050
Status 80% GHG mitigation (2 °C) 95% GHG mitigation (1,5 °C)
Tota
l en
ergy
dem
and
tran
spo
rt E
U in
EJ/
a Electricity
Hydrogen & Synfuels
Biofuels
Fossil fuels
Frame scenarios.
2DS – 2°C-Szenario (EU 28);
DST - Diversified supply
technologies (EU 27);
E[R] - Energy revolution (OECD);
AE[R] - Advanced energy
revolution (OECD)
5
Characteristics of BTx and PTx
BTx and PTx routes and synergies
Conversion / Intermediate storage / Logistics Products / Further processingRenewable resources / energy carrier
Sust
ain
able
bio
mas
s
Energy crops(Oil, sugar, starch,
lignocellulose)
Residues and waste (Wood, straw,
manure, biowaste, UCO, fats, industrial
residues)
Algae(Micro-/macro algae)
Re
ne
wab
le e
lect
rici
ty Wind
Solar
Electro-chemical
conversion(Electrolysis)
Synthetic fuels (z.B. B/PTL, B/PTG)
SynBioPTx © DBFZ 08/2016 (w/o entitlement of completeness)B/PTG – Biomass-/Power-to-Gas, B/PTL – Biomass-/Power-to-Liquids, DDGS - Dried Distillers Grains with Solubles, FAME – Fatty acid methy ester
Water / Geothermal
Physico-chemical conversion
(oil mills, refining, trans-/esterification)
Thermo-chemical conversion
(Pyrolysis, torrefaction, gasification, hydrothermal
processes)
Methane / hydrogen(Biomethane, PTG)
Synthetic chemicals / intermediates
(e.g. Methanol, alkenes, naphtha)
Basic chemicals / intermediates
(e.g. glycerol, fatty acids, carbon acids, aromates)
Food / fodder (e.g. extraction meal, DDGS,
gluten)
Biodiesel (FAME)
Bioethanol
HVO / HEFA (Hydrotreated vegetable oils /
esters and fatty acids)
CO2
CO2
CO2
H2
H2
Syntheses (e.g. Methanation, Fischer-Tropsch,
methanol, alkenes)
Product treatment
(e.g. cleaning, conditioning,
hydrotreating, hydrocracking,
destillation)
Bio-chemical conversion (alcoholic fermentation,
anaerobic digestion)
O2
H2
6
Systemic assessment
State of development & SynBioPTx potentials
Fuel option Typical (by-)productsaState of development
(TRL, FRL)b
Current capacity /
production EU [kt/a]
SynBioPTx potential,
examplesc
Biodiesel (FAME)press extraction meal,
glycerineCommercial, TRL/FRL 9 18,600 / 10,800
PT-methanol for trans-/
esterification
Hydrotreated veg. oils or
esters/fatty acids (HVO /
HEFA)
(press extraction meal),
propane, gasoline fractions,
jet fuel, diesel
Commercial, TRL 9 for
HEFA diesel, TRL 4 for
algae etc.
2,600 / 1,900 PT-H2 for hydroprocessing
Bioethanol (sugar, starch)
sugar: bagasse/vinasse;
starch: gluten, stillage for
DDGS, fertiliser, biogas
Commercial, TRL/FRL 9 6,400 / 4,018 Bio-CO2 about 8,800 kt/a
Bioethanol (lignocellulosic)
lignin-products, pentoses,
from stillage for fertiliser,
biogas
Commercial demo plants,
TRL/FRL 7-948 Bio-CO2 about 55 kt/a
Biomethane / Biogas digestate, electricity Commercial, TRL/FRL 9 882 Bio-CO2 about 1,151 kt/a
Biomethane / Synthetic
Natural Gas (SNG)electricity and heat
Demonstration plants,
TRL/FRL 6-70.2
Common synthesis
RD&D, H2 integration
Synthetic biomass-to-
liquids (BTL), mainly FT,
methanol/DME, OME
Jet fuel, diesel, gasoline /
naphtha, electricity and
heat
Pilot / demo plants,
TRL/FRL 3-50.08
Common synthesis
RD&D, H2 integration
Synthetic power-to-liquids
PTL, same like BTL
Jet fuel, diesel, gasoline /
naphtha or methanol
Pilot plants, TRL 8-9
components, FRL 2
(methanol 8)
4 (methanol), 0.003Use of Bio-CO2, common
synthesis
a depending on process design; b according to technology readiness level (TRL) of the European Commission, fuel readiness level (FRL) according CAAFI , c here rough estimation based on process related CO2, Distiller's Dried Grains with Solubles, DME Dimethylether, FT – Fischer-Tropsch, OME –
Oxymethylethers; ©DBFZ 2018 bassd on Naumann et al. 2016; Gain Report 2016; European Biogas Association, 2016; CRI 2017
7
Systemic assessment
GHG emissions WTT
©DBFZ 2016 based on e.g. Moreira 2015; LBST 2010, JEC 2013, LBST 2014, DBFZ 2012-2015, Gröngröft 2014, Stratton 2010, Frank 2013, Liu 2013, Sills 2013,
Schmied 2015, MKS 2013, Jones 2015, BLE 2015, Naumann et al 2016, BLE 2017
EIBI KPI: - 60% GHG reduction
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Biodiesel (veg. oils)
HVO / HEFA (veg. oils)
Bioethanol (starch, sugar)
Bioethanol (lignocelluloses)
Biomethane / biogas (diff.)
Biomethane / SNG (lignocelluloses)
Bio-GTL (biogas)
BTL / FT (lignocelluloses)
HTP (different)
PTG / methane (RE)
PTG / hydrogen (RE)
PTL / FT (RE)
PTL / methanol (RE)
Total WTT GHG emissions | Review of different studies in kg CO2 / GJ
Bio
met
han
e
Bio
die
sel (
FAM
E) &
Bio
eth
ano
l
HV
O/H
EFA
Average GHG within DE quota in 2016
8
Systemic assessment
Fuel production costs
©DBFZ 2018 based on e.g. deJong 2015, Halfmann 2014, Staples 2014, Jones 2014, Zhu 2011, Gröngröft 2014, IEA 2012, Pearlson 2012, aireg 2015, IATA 2012, IATA
2009, Vera-Morales 2009, Endres 2012, Davis 2014, Agusdinata 2011, Schmied 2015, LBST 2015, Becker 2012, König 2015, Varone 2015, Jones 2015, BioWTL 2013,
BioBoost 2015, Biller 2015, Tichler 2014; Naumann et al 2016; Brynolf et al. 2018; Tremel et al. 2015, Zech et al 2016; F.O. Licht 2017; Eurostat 2017
EIBI KPI e.g. 22 EUR/GJ
Bio
met
han
e
Bio
die
sel (
FAM
E)B
ioet
ahn
ol (
EU)
Average price ranges 2017
9
Systemic assessment
Simplified SWOT
©DBFZ 2018 w/o entitlement of completeness
BTx PTx
Ove
rall
Conversion
Jet fuel
Catalysators / process energy
© DBFZ, 2015
Hydrogen
Natural gas
HEFA product mixture
Diesel
Naphtha
Hydrogen provision
Fuel gasElectrolysis
Stand alone Biomethane
Steam reforming
Basic concept
Scenarios
Pre-treatment / refining
Rectification
Hydrotreating,Isomerisation
Palm Rape UCOJatropha
Jet fuel
Diesel
Fuel treatment
Naphtha
Grid connected
ElektrolyseElectrolysis
10
Example PTG-HEFA hybrid refinery
Feasibility of different plant concepts
©DBFZ 2018 based on http://www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/DE/Artikel/G/MKS/machbarkeitsanalyse-ptg-hefa-hybridraffinerie.html
Financed by:
www.mks-dialog.de
Focus region: Germany
Selected RE favoured regions: Sweden, Spain, Namibia
0,00
0,50
1,00
1,50
2,00
2,50
3,00
3,50
4,00
4,50
5,00
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Ges
teh
un
gsko
sten
Ker
osi
n in
ct/
MJ
THG-Emissionen in g CO2-Äq /MJ
Basis-konzept
ES
Szen. 8Palmöl
Szen. 7Raps
Szen. 10Diesel
optimiert
Basis-konzept
DE
Szen. 2Dynam.Strom
Szen. 4H2 ausErdgas
Basis-konzept
NA
Szen. 6H2 aus
Naphtha
Szen. 5H2 ausBiomethan
EE-InselDE
EE-InselCSP ES
EE-InselWind ES
Szen. 9UCO Basis-
konzeptSE
60% THG-Minderung gegenüber der fossilen Referenz von 83,8 gCO2-Äq. /MJ
Kerosin fossil
11
Example PTG-HEFA hybrid refinery
Summary of results
Financed by:
www.mks-dialog.de
Jet
fuel
pro
du
ctio
nco
sts
in E
UR
ct/M
J
GHG emissions g CO2eq/MJ
Fossil jet fuel
60% GHG mitigation cf. fossil reference83,8 g CO2eq/MJ
Mitigation costs | comparison with favoured regions (red)
Base scenario: Alternative regions well below DE (approx. 65-85%)
Stand-alone scenario (“EE-Insel”): comparable with DE (+/- 7%)
12
Conclusion
• For reaching future targets all sustainable renewable fuels required
• Considering BTx and PTx as multi product plants addressing different sectors
• Synergies for biofuels and PTL/PTx: e.g. biobased CO2 for PTx, hydrogen for
HVO/HEFA, for fuel and chemical synthesis, biogas methanation >> SynBioPTx
allows expanding existing value chains
• Comparably higher costs for PTL (esp. electrolysis, electricity) >>
competitiveness of input / feedstocks, annual load and flexible operation cost
drivers
• PTL with GHG benefits only if 100% renewable electricity is used >> with
increasing RE share in electricity mix also biofuels improve GHG balance further
• Comparable GHG reduction for biofuels and PTL >> for use within GHG quota in
Germany PTL not competitive
• Challenge: fuel availability, market competition of educts/products and related
operability of control mechanism
DBFZ Deutsches
Biomasseforschungszentrum
gemeinnützige GmbH
Torgauer Straße 116
D-04347 Leipzig
Tel.: +49 (0)341 2434-112
E-Mail: [email protected]
www.dbfz.de
Smart Bioenergy – Innovations for a sustainable future
Contact
Dr.-Ing. Franziska Müller-Langer
Phone +49 341 2434-423
E-Mail [email protected]
Foto Titel: Pixabay / CC0 Public Domain
