Techno-economic comparison of promising biofuel conversion pathways in a Nordic context effects of feedstock costs and technology learning

Transcription

1 Techno-economic comparison of promising biofuel conversion pathways in a Nordic context effects of feedstock costs and technology learning Walid Fayez Mustapha, Torjus Bolkesjø, Thomas Martinsen and Erik Trømborg Walid Mustapha Ph.D. Candidate Faculty of Environmental Sciences and Natural Resource Management Walid.mustapha@nmbu.no

2 Scope and methods Study scope 1. Assess the cost-competitiveness of forest-based biofuel conversion pathways in a Nordic forest biomass market 2. Assess the effect of feedstock cost changes and technology learning with increasing deployment of biorefineries Methods 1. Model simulations in a forest sector model Compare the technologies at an annual production volume of 100 million liters Compare the technologies with increasing facility deployment to see effects of feedstock cost changes and technology learning 1

3 Nordic Forest Sector Model (NFSM) Partial equilibrium model maximization of welfare Can be used for, among other things, analyzing investments and assessing market effects of policy framework Includes forest and forestry, the forestbased industry, bioenergy sector and transportation and trade. Also includes an investment module for forest-based biorefineries. 2

4 Biomass Products Sawlogs Sawmills Sawnwood Boards Forestry By-products Pulpwood Board producers Pulp & Paper Energy Pulp Paper Bioheat Power Biorefineries OMP Harvest residues Biofuels 3

5 Process design costs Fast pyrolysis, Fischer-Tropsch, HTL, hydrolysis and fermentation and mixed alcohol synthesis. 4

6 Conversion pathway cost comparison Feedstock cost is the largest cost component in FASTPYR. 5

7 Conversion pathway cost comparison Feedstock cost is the largest cost component in FASTPYR. As well as for the other conversion pathways 6

8 Conversion pathway cost comparison 7

9 Conversion pathway cost comparison None of the conversion pathways are cost-competitive with the fossil alternatives 8

10 Conversion pathway cost comparison None of the conversion pathways are cost-competitive with the fossil alternatives FASTPYR appears to be cost competitive with the biofuel alternative 9

11 Total costs with increasing facility deployment The change in chips price affects which conversion pathway is the most cost-competitive 10

12 Total costs with increasing facility deployment The change in chips price affects which conversion pathway is the most cost-competitive The difference becomes larger and costs increase when feedstock is delimited to harvest residues 11

13 Technology learning effects Cost reductions from technology learning may be outweighed by increasing feedstock costs 12

14 Conclusions and perspective FASTPYR and HTL are the most cost competitive of the forest-based alternatives found in the open literature. However, we have ignored: 1. Many technologies (TRL < 5) 2. Potential side-stream revenue from high-value products 3. Co-generation and co-location benefits 4. Integration benefits 13

15 Conclusions and perspective FASTPYR and HTL may become cost-competitive with current biofuel alternatives. However, this will depend on: 1. The reliability of costs from process modelling tools and pilot test data 2. The technology learning rate and spillover 3. Actual investment and associated path dependency Feedstock costs increase with increasing facility deployment. Total costs may still decrease due to technology learning. This will depend on the carbon efficiency of the conversion pathway and the learning rate This will have wider value chain implications for existing industry 14

16 Thank you for your attention