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 Daniel Maga Fraunhofer UMSICHT (All-gas) Sara Anton Lopez - Abengoa Bioenergía, S.A. (BIOFAT) Tom Bradley UK National Renewable Energy Centre (InteSusAl)

2 Contents Introduction Common LCA approach in the algae cluster 3 case LCA studies All-Gas InteSusAl BIOFAT Conclusion

3 INTRODUCTION

4 Introduction: The algae cluster Three large scale demonstration projects for biofuels production from algae with ambitious, but achievable targets: Minimum plantation area of 10 hectares (24.7 acres), and Minimum productivity of 90 dry solid tons per hectare per year.

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

6 Introduction: In order to compare such different approaches an harmonized methodology (goal and scope definition) is needed Comparable system boundaries A common functional unit The same methods for life cycle impact assessment A common understanding for considering land use

7 COMMON LCA APPROACH IN THE ALGAE CLUSTER

8 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.

9 Common LCA Approach in the Algae Cluster BIOFAT Goal and Scope. Algae Cluster Goal and Scope All-gas Goal and Scope InteSusAl Goal and Scope

10 Boundary Conditions Algae biofuel LCAs tend to use either well to gate, well to pump or well to wheel models NO x and CO 2 emissions from the use phase of biodiesel and fossil diesel are very similar (McCormick, et al., 2006) Travel from the biodiesel refineries to the refilling stations have been ignored, as this is not specifically unique for algae based biofuels For the purpose of a comparative study between algae biofuels and other fuel types, a well to gate system is being analysed.

11 Boundary Conditions

12 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 Excluded Distance travelled between algae facility and biofuel facility Transportation of employees Vehicle engine Anything after the initial production of the D100 biofuel Construction of facility

13 Functional Unit Range of functional units used in the literature, including kg, MJ and litres MJ value can be either based on LHV or HHV, which both can have differing values in the literature MJ value used by the Algae Cluster will be the experimentally derived LHV for the biogas or biodiesel Algae cluster will use the following functional Units: Overall environmental impacts associated with an algae-based biorefinery in comparison to a (fossil) reference amount of microalgae processed per year (kg dry algae stream) 1 MJ biofuel (biogas, biodiesel) compared to 1 MJ conventional (bio)fuels In Addition, the ALL-GAS project will consider a functional unit of 1m 3 cleaned water.

14 Electricity Electricity use (in the literature and Algae Cluster models) is the major contributor to most impacts The GWP impact of electricity varies per country The GWP impact of electricity in various countries will change due to grid mix changes and climate change commitments Country PE International data (2010) GWP100 [CO 2eq ] GWP20 [CO 2eq ] Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Data from PE International Database Analysed using GaBi

15 kgco2eq/kwh Electricity European Elecricty Grid GWP100 and GWP20 Impacts 1,6 1,4 1,2 1 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0 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

16 kgco2eq/kwh Electricity The Algae Cluster will use the EU grid mix for electricity A hypothetical EU grid mix based on each country s National Renewable Energy Action Plan for 2020 will also be used Data for electricity use in MJ will be published with the Algae Cluster results so other researchers can use different grid mixes with these results 1,6 1,4 1,2 1 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0 Global Elecricty Grid GWP100 and GWP20 Impacts EU-27 AU BR IN IS NZ JP US NO GWP 100 year Country GWP 20 year Data from PE International Database Analysed using GaBi

17 Impact Categories Impact Category methodology used will impact on value choices made Some methods are difficult to compare For example, if we consider eutrophication, then there are different ways to calculate this. The CML methodology uses phosphate equivalent as the categorisation factor, whereas the TRACI methodology uses nitrogen equivalent. This means that studies in different papers (such as (Kadam, 2002) and (Bretner, et al., 2011) ) cannot be compared. (Collet, et al., 2014)

18 kgco2eq kgco2eq Impact Categories: Global Warming Potentials Methane GWP100 and GWP20 Range of values commonly used: Renewable Energy Directive uses data from 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Many LCA methodologies used IPCC AR4 data from 2007 Currently no LCA methodologies use the 2013 IPCC AR5 data TAR (Ramaswamy, et al., 2001) GWP100 TAR (Ramaswamy, et al., 2001) AR4 (Forster, et AR5 (Myhre, et al., 2007) al., 2013) GWP20 Nitrous Oxide GWP100 and GWP20 AR4 (Forster, et AR5 (Myhre, et al., 2007) al., 2013) GWP100 GWP20

19 Impact Categories: Global Warming Potentials GWP20 important due to implications of short term warming on climatic feedback cycles Due to differing lifetimes in the atmosphere, methane has a large short term impact Analysis of GREET data showed GWP100 and GWP20 can lead to different value choices Gas Global warming potential CO 2eq 20 year 100 year 500 year Methane Nitrous Oxide AR4 (Forster, et al., 2007) Fuel Rank CO 2eq GWP20 (lowest to highest) Rank CO 2eq GWP100 (lowest to highest) Soybean-based RG Soybean-based RDII Forest Residue-based RDII Forest Residue-based Pyrolysis RG Algae-based BD BtOH for FFV: BtOH100, Corn 6 6 EtOH for FCV, Corn 5 7 Grid-Connected CIDI PHEV: BD100 (Algae) and Electricity 11 8 E85 for Dedi. EtOH Vehicle, Corn 7 9 E85 for FFV, Corn 8 10 Data analysed using GREET software from Argonne National Laboratory

20 Impact Categories: Global Warming Potentials Algae Cluster will use the IPCC AR5 data Both GWP100 and GWP20 will be calculated Specific gases emitted (CO 2, CH 4, N 2 O, HFCs ) will be listed, so that future researchers can recalculate impacts based on future data Currently building and validating AR5 impact file for use with GaBi software, and compiling AR5 GWP100/GWP20 data for EcoInvent processes

21 Impact Categories: Land Use Change Various possible Land Use Change calculations considered For simplicity, transparency reproducibility, and ease of integrating with the RED, IPCC Tier 1 will be used. This method considers three areas: Biomass carbon stock change Soil organic carbon stock change Incomplete combustion of biomass and dead organic matter (DOM) in the initial land-use category before conversion All values are taken from default data from the IPCC guidelines, based on the land area changed, climate, type of vegetation and various other variables. Method will be used for GWP100 and GWP20 impacts

22 Impact Categories: Others used Fossil Fuel Consumption [MJ] (ReCiPe) Primary energy consumption [MJ] (ReCiPe) Land occupation [m 2 ] (ReCiPe) Blue water consumption [m 3 ] (Koehler & Thylmann, 2012)

23 Common LCA Approach: Extrapolation The Algae Cluster will ultimately produce three 10 hectare algae biofuel facilities These would not be of the same scale as a major commercial refinery Using operational data from 10 hectare system, hypothetical extrapolations will be created of a future case major commercial facility The rules, methodology and assumptions will be agreed between the Algae Cluster projects to ensures consistency in approach

24 LCA Summary LCA practitioners from the three Algae Cluster projects are working closely together An agreed approach has been created between the three algae cluster projects to allow for a detailed comparison Data published will contain as much information as possible to allow other practitioners to recalculate according to the impact categories they consider important Results and lessons learned from the three operating demonstration systems will be published in 2015/2016

25 THE PROJECTS

26 InteSusAl Industrial scale demonstration of sustainable algae cultures for biofuel production

27 Industrial scale demonstration of sustainable algae cultures for biofuel production The All-Gas Approach Objectives Large demonstration plant: Farming area 10 h Full industrial plant: from biomass production to fuel processing and fleet demonstration To use only carbon from non fossil fuel sources for growth supplementation (CO 2 from biogas and biosolids combustion) To achieve yields > 90 t of algal biomass ha -1 yr -1 (25-33 g m -2 day -1 ) To make use of the wastewater nutrients for algal growth

28 All-Gas: Location

29 All-Gas Pilot Plant in Chiclana de la Frontera 10 ha open ponds supplied with pretreated wastewater Production of biogas by upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) and by anaerobic digester Upgrading of biogas to biomethane as fuel

30 Comparison/Reference System All-Gas Biorefinery (Fossil) Reference Biomethane CNG Thermal energy and electricity from biomass Water cleaning with algae Thermal energy from natural gas Electricity from national grid Water Treatment in a traditional wastewater treatment plant

31 The All-Gas Approach Waste water olive stones (11) Biomass boiler (1) Anaerobic pretreatment (UASB) Cultivation Heat and CO 2 (2) Algae cultivation in raceway ponds Extraction of raw materials Harvesting Downstream processes (8) Drying of Fermentation residues (6) Dewatering of fermentation residues (7) Fertilizer production UASB sludge (3) Algae harvesting (DAF) (4) Algae digestion (5) Biogas upgrading and feeding in gas grid Emissions into air, water and soil Credits (14) Substitution of Electricity & Heat (13) Substitution of Fertilizer (12) Substitution CNG in vehicle engine (fu) Cleaned water

32 Energy balance Scenario 1: Burning olive kernels ~ m 3 *d -1 No energetic use of fermentation residues (2.4 t) km/day

33 Energy balance Scenario 2: Use of all internal biomass ~ m 3 *d km/day

34 Energy balance Scenario 3: Use of all internal and external biomass ~ m 3 *d km/day

35 kwh/m 3 waste water Energy balance with biomass boiler and ORC 2,00 1,50 1,00 0,50 0,00-0,50-1,00 1,56 1,13 0,42 Thermal energy balance -0,60 1,69 1,69 1,69 0,40 0,29 0,11 Electrical energy balance Olive kernels/biomethane -0,36-0,60 Energy consumption [kwh/m3] Energy generation with olive kernels [kwh/m3] Energy generation with algal biomass [kwh/m3] Energy generation with olive kernels and algal biomass [kwh/m3]

36 kwh/m 3 waste water Energy balance with biomass boiler and ORC 1,20 1,00 0,95 0,80 0,60 0,53 0,40 0,20 0,00-0,20-0,40 Thermal energy balance -0,18-0,07 0,04 Electrical energy balance -0,25 Energy generation with olive kernels [kwh/m3] Energy generation with algal biomass [kwh/m3] Energy generation with olive kernels and algal biomass [kwh/m3]

37 Conclusions from the energy balance Scenario 1 (only olive kernels): Negative energy balance of the system, but possible application of fermentation residues as fertilizer/soil conditioner Scenario 2 (only fermentation residues): Positive thermal energy balance Slightly negative electricity balance Technical hurdles to burn fermentation residues due to high sulfur, potassium and chlorine contents harmful emissions Scenario 3 (olive kernels and fermentation residues) Positive electricity and thermal energy balance Excess waste heat Excess CO 2 production (not needed for algae growth) Technical hurdles to burn fermentation residues due to high sulfur, potassium and chlorine contents harmful emissions

38 Conclusions from the energy balance Next steps Optimization of the biorefinery with regard to optimal use of fermentation residues to provide thermal energy for internal demand CO 2 for algae growth highest benefit from material utilization (fertilizer/soil conditioner) Integration of energy savings through water purification Calculation of primary energy demand for a more precise comparison to integrate the energy demand in the pre-chains of materials

39 /m3 waste water Outlook on economic feasibility (Scenario 1) First balance on costs and revenues 0,08 0,06 0,04 Comparison of 0,02 suggested system compared with 0,00 conventional -0,02 waste water plant CAPEX are -0,04 excluded here -0,06 Biomass Boiler and ORC Biomethane as fuel for cars Biomass olive stones Total benefit Conventional WWT Electricity balance Thermal energy balance

40 Demonstration of integrated and sustainable microalgae cultivation with biodiesel validation

41 InteSusAl: Partners Centre for Process Innovation (UK) Necton (PT) Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research (NL) Institute Food & Biobased Research (DLO-FBR) (NL) European Renewable Energy Centre (EU) National Renewable Energy Centre (UK)

42 InteSusAl: Location

43 The InteSusAl Approach

44 The InteSusAl Approach

45 InteSusAl: Timeline 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

46 BIOfuel From Algae Technologies

47 Main objectives Integrate proven photobioreactor technology and raceway designs by Europe's most experienced microalgal biotechnologists to achieve the best possible cost-yield ratio for algal biomass production Processing the microalgae biomass by biorefinery approaches to maximize returns Development of a real case Life Cycle Analysis methodology with feedback from design to operation, including all direct and indirect externalities

48 Project plan The project is implemented in two phases: Strain selection & process optimization in 2 pilot scale facilities in: Italy & Portugal (0,5 Ha) Economical modelling, including scale up to a 10 hectare demo facility

49 BIOFAT: Location

50 The BIOFAT Approach: Camporosso (Italy) Vegetal oil (8) CHP Extraction of raw matreials Cultivation Harvesting Downstream CO 2 (1) Inoculum generation in GWP (2) Algae growth in RWs (3) Product acumulation in RWs (4) Integrated dewatering (pre-con/harvester) (5) Bio-refinery Water reuse Emissions into air, water and soil Credits (7) Substitution of electricity (6) Substitution of diesel / gasoline in vehicle engine

51 Camporosso (Italy) Product acumulation (RW) Growth (RW) Inoculum (GWP) Inoculum (GWP) Expected to be running by August 2014

52 The BIOFAT Approach: Pataias (Portugal) Wood pellets (8) Burner Extraction of raw matreials Cultivation Harvesting Downstream CO 2 (1) Inoculum generat. tubular PBRs (2) Algae growth tubular PBRs (3) Product acumulation in RWs (4) Integrated dewatering (pre-con/harvester) (5) Bio-refinery Water reuse Emissions into air, water and soil Credits (7) Substitution of heat (6) Substitution of diesel / gasoline in vehicle engine

53 Pataias (Portugal) Inoculum & growth (tubular PBRs) Product acumulation (RW) Expected to be running by June 2014

54 LCA overview: Impact Camporosso Pataias Energy CHP (vegetal oil) supply -> 500 kwe Burner (wood pellets) supply -> 150 kw Emissions Non fossil CO2 required for algae production Emissions avoided through energy productions onsite Limit value (in comparison with other biofuel raw materials): corn 20 g CO2/MJ biof ; wheat 23 g CO2/MJ biof ; soybean oil: 19 g CO2/MJ biof Water Optimization of water consumption and re-use: Water from a well to restore evaporation -> cooling system for GWP & exhaust gases from CHP Optimization of water consumption and re-use: Water from a borehole to restore evaporation Tubular PBRs cooling system -> absorption chiller (fed with burner heat) Land occupation 0,5 ha 0,5 ha

55 CONCLUSION

56 Conclusions The LCA approach has been decided and agreed by members of the 3 projects to ensure results can be compared LCA results will be used in the planning process to avoid and reduce environmental impacts Assessment and comparisons from the three projects are expected for 2015/2016

57 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:

58 References Bretner, L., Eckleman, M. & Zimmerman, J., Combinatorial of life cycle assessment to inform process design of industrial production of algal biodiesel. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, Volume 45, pp Collet, P. et al., Chapter 13 Life-Cycle Assessment of Microalgal-Based Biofuels. In: A. Pandey, D. Lee, Y. Chisti & C. R. Soccol, eds. Biofuels from Algae. Burlington MA and San Diego CA: Elsevier, p Forster, P. et al., Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In: S. Solomon, et al. eds. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, p Kadam, K., Environmental implications of power generation via coal-microalgae cofiring. Energy, 27(10), pp McCormick, R. et al., Effects of Biodiesel Blends on Vehicle Emissions, s.l.: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Koehler & Thylmann, GaBi Water Modelling Principles, Version November 2013 Myhre, G. et al., Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. In: T. Stocker, et al. eds. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, p Ramaswamy, V. et al., Radiative Forcing of Climate Change. In: F. Joos & J. Srinivasan, eds. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, p. 388.