The Algae Cluster: Three European algae biofuel projects with a common LCA approach

Transcription

1 The Algae Cluster: Three European algae biofuel projects with a common LCA approach Tom Bradley Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult

2 Contents What is Life Cycle Assessment? Existing Life Cycle Assessment of algae biofuels Common LCA approach in the algae cluster 3 case LCA studies All-Gas InteSusAl BIOFAT Conclusion

3 LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT

4 What is Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)? Methodology to understand the impacts of a process Taken from the cradle to the grave of a process Follows the standards ISO 14040/14044 Measures a range of impacts, including climate change, toxicity, eutrophication, water use, land use change and more

5 What is Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)?

6 Why Use LCA? Compare different processes to understand comparative advantages and disadvantages Highlight areas of concern within a product system Quantitatively answer concerns from consumers on the environmental impacts of a product If including Life Cycle Costing, also used to reduce costs of a product

7 EXISTING ALGAE LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT

8 Existing Algae LCA Majority of Algae Life Cycle Assessments are based on hypothetical or extrapolated data Significant differences between results from different studies This is due to a wide range of methological differences, and differences between the systems being analyzed

9 Existing Algae LCA Different product being analyzed Different boundary conditions Different impact categories used Different impact category methodologies when the same impact categories are used Different process databases Different approaches to co-products Different (and sometimes unrealistic) productivities assumed Different assumptions on energy for harvesting and processing

10 Existing Algae LCA To compare the projects in the Algae Cluster, we need to use the same methodology, and work closely together

11 COMMON LCA APPROACH IN THE ALGAE CLUSTER

12 Introduction: Comparison of 3 different approaches BIOFAT All-Gas InteSusAl Algae cultivation system Green wall panels & open ponds; Tubular PBRs & open ponds Open ponds Fermentors, photobioreactors and open ponds Water Input Seawater (with maximum recycling) Biofuels Bioethanol / Biodiesel Municipal waste water Biomethane By-products Electricity and heat Water purification, fertilizer (electricity and heat) Seawater (with maximum recycling) Biodiesel Biomass for CHP or further processing via pyrolysis

13 Common LCA Approach in the Algae Cluster The LCA approach used by each project in the Algae Cluster will be identical, to ensure that results can be closely compared This will allow the three projects to demonstrate which methods and techniques can be used to reduce environmental impacts, and which increase them This requires each project to have an identical Goal and Scope, including the same functional unit, boundary conditions and impact categories.

14 Common LCA Approach in the Algae Cluster 1. Must align with ISO 14040/ISO Impact categories align with latest science (for example, using latest data from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment). 3. Allow comparison with LCA carried out using the Renewable Energy Directive. 4. Replicable by all three practitioners. 5. Suitably transparent, whilst respecting intellectual property protection by partners.

15 Boundary Conditions

16 Boundary Conditions Included Disposable capital equipment Grid Electricity and heat Internally generated electricity and heat Processing of materials Operation of primary equipment Waste Recycling Transport of raw and ancillary materials Overhead (heat and lighting) of manufacturing facilities Internal transportation of materials Organic processes Non disposable Capital equipment and maintenance Land Use Change Vehicle engine Construction of facility Excluded Distance travelled between algae facility and biofuel facility Distance from facility to pump Transportation of employees

17 Functional Unit combustion of 1 MJ (Lower Heating Value) of algal biofuel in a car engine.

18 kgco2eq/kwh Electricity European Elecricty Grid GWP100 and GWP20 Impacts AT BE BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GB GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK Country Data from PE International Database Analysed using GaBi GWP 100 year GWP 20 year

19 Impact Categories ReCiPe mid point (Hierarchist) Ozone depletion (kg CFC-11 equivalent). Terrestrial acidification (kg SO 2 equivalent to air). Freshwater eutrophication (kg P equivalent to freshwater). Marine eutrophication (kg N equivalent to freshwater). Human toxicity (kg 1,4 dichlorobenzene to urban air) and (DALY/PDF). Photochemical oxidant formation (kg NMVOC compound equivalent to air). Particulate matter formation (kg PM10 to air). Terrestrial ecotoxicity (kg 1,4 dichlorobenzene to industrial soil) and (DALY/PDF). Freshwater ecotoxicity (kg 1,4 dichlorobenzene to freshwater) and (DALY/PDF). Marine ecotoxicity (kg 1,4 dichlorobenzene to marine water) and (DALY/PDF). Agricultural land occupation (m 2 year of agricultural land). Urban land occupation (m 2 year of urban land). Natural land transformation (m 2 year of natural land). Mineral resource depletion (kg Fe equivalent). Fossil resource depletion (kg oil equivalent).

20 Impact Categories Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report (2013) Climate Change over a 100 year period (kgco 2eq ). Climate Change over a 20 year period (kgco 2eq ). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories - Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (2006) Land use change (100 year and 20 year based kgco 2eq ). Additional LCI indicators Primary energy consumption [MJ]. Land occupation [m 2 ]. Blue water consumption [m 3 ].

21 Co-products System expansion method used In this method the expanded part represented by the complementary product is subtracted from the overall system, so that only the product of focus is left. The Renewable Energy Directive does suggest energy allocation instead, but this would make no sense for All-Gas

22 THE PROJECTS

23 The Projects Demonstration of integrated and sustainable microalgae cultivation with biodiesel validation BIOfuel From Algae Technologies All-gas: Industrial scale demonstration of sustainable algae cultures for biofuel production

24 Location: InteSusAl

25 Location: BIOFAT

26 Location: All-gas

27 The InteSusAl Approach

28 The BIOFAT Approach: Camporosso (Italy)

29 The BIOFAT Approach: Pataias (Portugal)

30 The All-Gas Approach

31 InteSusAl: Current Initial demonstration facility to be completed in October 2014 Various trials to be run in 2014/2015 LCA based on real operating data will begin in 2015

32 LCA Models CONSTRUCTION MODEL Based on detailed data from Necton. Currently 80% complete HETROTROPHIC MODEL Theoretical model 80% complete Require productivity data for full version PHOTOTROPHIC MODEL Theoretical model under construction Require productivity data for full version FULL INTESUSAL LCA MODEL

33 LCA Model: Heterotrophic (hypothetical) Model based on expected heterotrophic system inputs and outputs Awaiting data from real trials in order to provide accurate LCA impacts Two models run, one with EU grid mix, and other with photovoltaics

34 LCA Model: Heterotrophic (hypothetical) Impact Contribution from Electricity Climate Change (GWP100) 87.6% Climate Change (GWP20) 88.4% Fossil depletion 98.8% Primary energy 99.3% Human toxicity cancer effects 52.9% Human toxicity non-canc. effects 97.2% Freshwater eutrophication 35.7% Terrestrial acidification 99.3

35 LCA Model: Heterotrophic (hypothetical) EU-28 Grid Mix model and PV powered model

36 Comparison Model Compared model results with data from Pasell et al 2013 Algae biodiesel life cycle assessment using current commercial data. Base Case: Combination of real data from Seambiotic, and SRS mixed with GREET data Future Case: Scale up with increased productivity and lower carbon electricity H. Passell, H. Dhaliwal, M. Reno, B. Wu and A. B. Amotz, Algae biodiesel life cycle assessment using current commercial data, Journal of Environmental Management, no. 129, p , 2013.

37 LCA Model: Heterotrophic (hypothetical) - Comparison Model Passell et al base case and future case compared with InteSusAl theoretical heterotrophic model

38 LCA Model: Heterotrophic (hypothetical) - issues No real data yet used all purely hypothetical The exact Low Heating Value of the algae derived biofuel is not yet known (testing is planned) Performance in engine not yet quantified, planned in late 2015 Photovoltaic model is not perfect (too old, based on 2004 data, the PV industry has moved on since then)

39 Next Steps Complete construction LCA Include real data in hypothetical LCAs from InteSusAl facility and fuel testing More accurate photovoltaic model for renewable powered system Next results to be published in December 2015 at the 9th International Algae Congress on 1-3 December 2015 in Lisbon, Portugal.

40 Pataias pilot plant Laboratory & inoculum production (GWPs) Water from a borehole Nutritive medium & saline solution preparation Tubular PBRs Water treatment, storage & distribution CO 2 from beer fermentation Carbonation system Effluents treatment & disposal Cascade RWs Culture thermoregul ation Culture concentration Biomass procesing Algae Process line Electricity Fresh water CO2 Utilities, pretreatment and wastes treatment Chemicals Cooling water Recycled water Wastes

41 Energy demand Energy demand by phase 0.5% 0.5% Carbonation system 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 1.8% 2.8% 18.1% Culture thermoregulation Laboratory and inoculum production (GWPs) Nutritive medium & saline solution preparation Effluents treatment and disposal 49.5% Water treatment, storage & distribution Biomass processing 26.2% Culture concentration Raceways Tubular photobiorreactors Tubular PBRs 50%

42 GHG emissions: GWP100a GHG emissions: GWP100a by phase Tubular PBRs 35%

43 GHG emissions: GWP20a GHG emissions: GWP20a by phase Nutritive medium & saline solution preparation 35%

44 GHG emissions: GWP100a Impact per inputs 100.0% 90.0% Electricity 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 65.1% Salt Fertilizer solution 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 28.2% 5.4% Sodium hypochlorite Sodium thiosulfate Artificial seawater solution Water Electricity demand 65%

45 GHG emissions: GWP20a Impact per inputs 100.0% 90.0% Electricity 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 62.7% Salt Fertilizer solution 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 30.1% 5.8% Sodium hypochlorite Sodium thiosulfate Artificial seawater solution Water Electricity demand 62,7%

46 GHG emissions: GWP100a Renewable CO2 (from beer fermentation) 100.0% 90.0% Electricity 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 65.1% Salt Fertilizer solution 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 28.2% CO 2 38,5% 5.4% Sodium hypochlorite Sodium thiosulfate Artificial seawater solution Water

47 GHG emissions: GWP20a Impact per inputs 100.0% 90.0% Electricity 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 62.7% Salt Fertilizer solution 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 30.1% CO 2 37,8% 5.8% Sodium hypochlorite Sodium thiosulfate Artificial seawater solution Water CO2 consumption compensates all process emissions unless electricity

48 Conclusions & next steps Conclusions No direct (scope 1) fossil fuel consumption Energy demand --- > Electric consumption CO 2 consumption compensates all process emissions unless electricity Electricity origin is key factor to achieve better savings than cereal/oil biofuel Next steps Include facility construction Complete LCA for Camporosso unit Assessment of results based on different electricity origin

49 System boundaries Fraunhofer UMSICHT

50 Mass and energy flows ~ m 3 *d -1 ~ km*d -1 Fraunhofer UMSICHT

51 All-Gas: Distribution of primary energy demand (CED) Indirect primary energy demand 19% Electricity UP 3, 7% UP1: Anaerobic waste water pretreatment UP2: Cultivation of microalgae 9% 0% 6% 3% 6% 7% 50% Electricity UP 2, 15% Electricity UP 4, 7% Electricity UP 1, 9% Electricity UP 5, 11% Electricity UP 7, 1% UP3: Harvesting of algae UP4: Biogas production from algal biomass UP5: Biogas upgrading and provision at service station UP6: Application of fermentation residues on the field UP7: CO2 and energy generation in a biomass boiler Total CED: MJ*d -1 CED caused by electricity generation (green) Approximately 50 % of the total primary energy demand can be traced back to the electricity demand

52 Energy balance of All-Gas (10 ha, m 3 *d -1 ) UP1: Anaerobic waste water pre-treatment UP2: Cultivation of microalgae UP3: Harvesting of algae UP4: Biogas production from algal biomass UP5: Biogas upgrading and provision at service station UP6: Application of fermentation residues on the field UP7: CO2 and energy generation in a biomass boiler Subsitution of fertilisers Substitution of waste water treatment Substitution of CNG in cars Total benefit -40,000-35,000-30,000-25,000-20,000-15,000-10,000-5, ,000 10,000 Primary energy demand, net cal. value [MJ*d- 1 ] Credits for waste water treatment, fermentation residues, and CNG in cars allow primary energy savings of ca MJ*d -1

53 Global warming potential per m 3 of waste water treated [kg CO 2 -eq.*m -3 waste water treated] Sensitivity GWP per m 3 of waste water treated Unit process 12: Operation of passenger cars with a gas engine Unit process 11: Substitution of fertilisers IPCC AR5: GWP100 IPCC AR5: GWP20 IPCC 2007: GWP100 EU-27: Thermal energy from natural gas (for credit) EU-27: Electricity grid mix 2011 Unit process 07: CO2 and energy production in a biomass boiler Unit process 06: Application of fermentation residues on the field Unit process 05: Biogas upgrading, service station, use in cars Unit process 04: Biogas production from algal biomass Unit process 03: Harvesting of algae Unit process 02: Cultivation of microalgae Unit process 01: Anaerobic waste water pre-treatment AR5 shows slightly lower GWP due to smaller characterization factor for nitrous oxide; more important than methane

54 Scenario analysis Scenario 1: Higher anaerobic digestion temperature; thermophilic (55 C) conditions for anaerobic digestion instead of mesophilic (35 C) conditions Nm 3 CH 4 *kg -1 volatile suspended solids (VSS) added Scenario 2: Higher anaerobic digestion temperature; maximum biogas yield at thermophilic (57 C) conditions according to literature data (Ras et al. 2011) 0.24 Nm 3 CH 4 *kg -1 VSS added Scenario 3: Higher methane yields of UASB reactors: 0.2 instead of 0.15 m 3 CH 4 *kg -1 COD Scenario 4: Higher COD load of waste water entering UASB reactors: 800 g*m -3 instead of 590 g*m -3 Scenario 5: Higher algae productivity per ha: 25 g VSS*m -2 *d -1 instead of 18 g VSS*m -2 *d -1

55 Scenario analysis Scenario 6: Lower C uptake of microalgae from CO 2 in combustion gas and from dissolved organic carbon: 70 % instead of 90 % Scenario 7: Lower nitrogen content in microalgae which influences the greenhouse gas emissions caused by the application of fermentation residues on the field: 5 wt.% instead of 8 wt.% Option 8: Substitution of the electricity mix:, EU-28 grid mix in 2020 (Bradley et al. 2015) and Spanish electricity mix in 2011 instead of EU-28 grid mix in 2011 Option 9: Substitution of diesel instead of CNG in a car Option 10: Use of biomethane in CHP plant instead for transportation purposes

56 GWP per m 3 of waste water treated Conventional waste water treatment Base line scenario 1. Thermophilic digestion (I) 2. Thermophilic digestion (II) 3. High methane yield of UASB reactors 4. High COD load of waste water 5. High algae productivity 6. Low C uptake of algae 7. Low nitrogen content in microalgae Spanish electricity grid mix in 2011 EU-28 electricity grid mix in 2020 Substitution of diesel instead of CNG Use of biomethane in a CHP plant Greenhouse gas emissions of 1 m 3 waste water treated [kg CO 2 -eq.] Highest benefit comes from less nitrogen in algae and consequently less N 2 O emissions maybe problematic with regard to purification performance Use of biomethane in a CHP plant is the worst option

57 Comparison of GHG emissions of biomethane from algae to other fuels Biomethane from algae allows GHG savings of more than 50 % Different calculation approach (system expansion)!

58 Summary of LCA results LCIA Indicator Relative changes of environmental burdens [%] per m 3 of treated waste water (fu 1) DALY Fossil depletion > 100 > 100 Urban land occupation > -100 > -100 Ozone depletion 89 > 100 Particulate matter formation > -100 > -100 Photochemical oxidant formation > -100 > -100 Terrestrial acidification > -100 > -100 AR5 GWP100, excl. biogenic carbon Water scarcity footprint > -100 > -100 Abiotic depletion 88 > 100 Fresh water ecotoxicity uncertain uncertain Fresh water eutrophication - 65 > -100 Marine eutrophication > -100 > -100 Potentially disappearing fraction (PDF) per MJ fuel in car engine (fu 2)

59 Conclusions from LCA study Waste water treatment by microalgae offers the possibility to protect the climate and to save fossil resources Further improvements under development such as low energy water mixing and biogas upgrading Harmful emissions into the air tend to be higher: higher acidification potential higher particulate matter formation potential lower ozone depletion potential higher photochemical oxidant formation potential Higher WSF and more space is needed

60 Algae Cluster LCA Summary Three very different projects are all using the same LCA methodology and working closely together All-gas project has completed the LCA study, BIOFAT and InteSusAl are in progress Electricity use the largest source of impacts on all three projects All-gas project has shown useful energy output is twice that of the energy input

61 Contact Thanks for your attention! Tom Bradley MSc CPhys MInst. National Renewable Energy Centre Narec Brunel Building, 64 Regent Street, Blyth, Northumberland, UK Telephone: Internet: Sara Antón López. Sustainability engineer Abengoa Bioenergy Campus Palmas Altas, Energía solar 1, Sevilla, ES Telephone: Internet: Dipl. Landscape Ecologist Daniel Maga Fraunhofer UMSICHT Business Unit Resources and Innovation Management Osterfelder Strasse 3, Oberhausen, Germany Telephone: Internet: