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

Transcription

1 in 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) 3 rd BtL-Congress October 15 th /16 th 2008, Berlin

2 Fig. 2: 23 years (1985/2008) To highlight the changing situation World population in 1985: 4.9 billion people Sources: United Nations (2007); US Population Reference Bureau (2008) World population in 2008: 6.7 billion people Growth since 1985: 1.8 billion people 2 ITAS / L. Leible et al., 3 rd BtL-Congress, October 15 th /16 th, 2008, Berlin

3 Fig. 3: Presentation outline Einsatz von Biomasse für BtL ein kritischer Blick Biomass Utilisation for BtL A Critical Look (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 from forestry (5) Comparison of BtL-fuel with electricity or heat production (6) Conclusions / Outlook 3 ITAS / L. Leible et al., 3 rd BtL-Congress, October 15 th /16 th, 2008, Berlin

4 (1) Major developments 4 ITAS / L. Leible et al., 3 rd BtL-Congress, October 15 th /16 th, 2008, Berlin

5 Fig. 5: Major developments (1) Growing world population (2) Increasing demand for food and energy (3) Increasing prices of food and energy (4) Increasing CO 2 emissions (5).. 5 ITAS / L. Leible et al., 3 rd BtL-Congress, October 15 th /16 th, 2008, Berlin

6 Fig. 6: Crude oil prices (North Sea Brent) from January 2006 until October ITAS / L. Leible et al., 3 rd BtL-Congress, October 15 th /16 th, 2008, Berlin

7 Fig. 7: German energy mix in 2007: 6.6% renewable energies Source: ewt 2008, 58 (1-2), p91 7 ITAS / L. Leible et al., 3 rd BtL-Congress, October 15 th /16 th, 2008, Berlin

8 Fig. 8: Importance of biomass as renewable energy in Germany ( ) ITAS LL/ ITAS / L. Leible et al., 3 rd BtL-Congress, October 15 th /16 th, 2008, Berlin

9 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). 9 ITAS / L. Leible et al., 3 rd BtL-Congress, October 15 th /16 th, 2008, Berlin

10 (2) Biomass resources and supply in Germany 10 ITAS / L. Leible et al., 3 rd BtL-Congress, October 15 th /16 th, 2008, Berlin

11 Fig. 11: Volume of biomass and demand for primary energy in Germany million Mg of DOM/a Primary energy demand 2007: 474 million tce 1995: 480 million tce this corresponds to about 900 million Mg DOM Conclusion: From an optimistic point of view biomass can meet 10-15% of current primary energy demand! For comparison: In 2007 biomass (including biogenic residues and wastes) covered around 4.8%. 0 Available biogenic residues Plant growth aboveground Primary energy demand DOM = dry organic matter tce = ton coal equivalent = 29.3 GJ ITAS LL/ ITAS / L. Leible et al., 3 rd BtL-Congress, October 15 th /16 th, 2008, Berlin

12 Fig. 12: Volume of biogenic waste and residues in Germany 2005 A simplified estimate shows: 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. 12 ITAS / L. Leible et al., 3 rd BtL-Congress, October 15 th /16 th, 2008, Berlin

13 Fig. 13: Logistic challenges regarding biomass supply: biomass is regionally distributed (decentral), energy density is low! Cereal straw Straw bales: specific weight: 0.14 Mg/m3 (86% DM) energy density (Hu ) 0.55 MWh/m3 Wood chips: specific weight: 0.40 Mg/m 3 (50% DM) energy density (H u) 0.90 MWh/m 3 Wood residues ITAS LL/2006 ITAS LL/2006 Crude oil: specific weight: Mg/m 3; energy density (Hu): 9-10 MWh/m3 ITAS BASF 13 LL/2008

14 Fig. 14: Supply with straw and wood residues Location studies 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 Only a few locations are suitable; these locations are mainly dominated by straw Source: Gunnar Kappler, Dissertation (2008, Uni Freiburg) 14

15 (3) Technologies for fuel production from biomass 15

16 Fig. 16: Search for alternatives: BtL is one option BtL is one option! Source: Bild der Wissenschaft 6/

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

18 (4) BtL-fuel from cereal straw and wood residues (bioliq -concept of the Forschungszentrum KA) 18

19 Fig. 19: Two-step bioliq -concept (Biomass-to-Liquid, BtL) for fuel production from straw and wood residues Conditioning Biomass supply Cereal straw and wood residues from the local area of the pyrolysis plants (1) Decentral (n=10-50) pyrolysis plants MW Production of bio-slurry* raw synthesis gas FT-products, H2, Methanol Synthesis (2) Central Gasification plant MW Gas cleaning Gas conditioning * bio-slurry: pyrolysis oil/char-suspension for material use for energy use SUBSTITUTION of fossil energy sources and raw materials ITAS LL/

20 Fig. 20 : Production costs of FT-synfuel from straw and wood residues a comparison with fossil diesel Production costs ( /litre) Pyrolyse, Vergasung, Pyrolysis, gasification,ft FT-synthesis - Synthese 0.40 Biomasse:transport Biomass: Transport Biomasse:collection Biomass: Ernte u. Konditionierung Mineral oil taxmineral ölsteuer Raffinerie Refinery 0.20 Erdöl frei Raffinerie Petroleum, free refinery plant 0 FT-Synfuel (plant capacity, million Mg/a) 1) ) Diesel (fossil) with 30 / 65 / 100 $/bbl FT-Synfuel from straw and wood residues, central plant; production costs quoted free plant, without tax; basis 2006 ITAS 20 LL/2008

21 (5) Comparison of BtL-fuel with electricity or heat production 21

22 Fig. 22: Straw/wood Diversity/competition regarding energy use FT-plants 5000 Plant capacity (MWth) FT-plants to to 55 Power plants 350 to to to 7.5 Power plants CHP plants 60 to 8 18 to 5 Heating plants to 10 CHP plants to 440 Heating plants (Local, district heat) 3 to to to 0.2 Biomass demand *) Supply radius **) Investment (1000 Mg/a) (km) (million ) 0.01 Heat Heat + electricity Electricity FT-fuel Biomass: straw and wood residues *) at 86% DM and LHV = 4.0 MWh/Mg FM **) Availability: 100 Mg FM/km2 ITAS 22 LL/2008

23 Fig. 23: Production costs of heat, electricity and FT-Synfuel from wood residues and cereal straw (basis 2006) Production costs ( /MWh) Heat Electricity combustion FT-Synfuel gasification pyrolysis and gasification CHP decentral integrated reference: heat from heating oil (30 kww ) reference: fossil diesel (65 $/bbl) reference: coal-fired power plant (500 MWe) a) Industrial wood (pellets, 92% DM) b) Wood residues (chips, 50% DM) c) Two-step BtL-concept 5000 MWth (1.26 million Mg FT) 1500 MWth (0.37 million Mg FT) 500 MWt h (0.12 million Mg FT) Co-gasification b) (approx. 4% of 500 MW e) Fluidised bed b c) ( MW e) Fixed bed b) (460 kw e) Co-combustion bc) (10% of 500 MWe) Power plant bc) (20-45 MWe) CHP plant bc) ( MWe) CHP plant bc) (10-67 MW in) b) Heating plant (500 kw w) Small furnace a) (30 kw w) 0 bc) Straw (bales, 86% DM) ITAS 23 LL/2008

24 Fig. 24 : CO2 mitigation costs producing heat, electricity and fuel from straw and wood residues (basis 2006) Heat Electricity combustion FT-Synfuel gasification Reference from 50 to 100 /Mg CO2 eq. (reduction scenarios according tobmwi (2001)) decentral integrated a) Industrial wood (pellets, 92% DM) b) Wood residues (chips, 50% DM) c) 5000 MWth (1.26 million Mg FT) 1500 MWth 500 MWth (0.12 million Mg FT) Co-gasification b) (approx. 4% of 500 MW e) Fluidised bed b c) ( MW e) Fixed bed b) (460 kw e) Co-combustion bc) (10% of 500 MWe) Power plant bc) (20-45 MWe) CH P plant b c) ( MWe) CHP plant bc) (10-67 MW in ) -50 Heating plant b ) (500 kw w) 0 (0.37 million Mg FT) pyrolysis and gasification CHP Small furnace a) (30 kw w) CO2 mitigation costs ( /Mg CO2 eq.) 350 Two-step BtL-concept bc) Straw (bales, 86% DM) ITAS LL/

25 Fig. 25: CO2 mitigation costs results from other studies (WBA 2008) Maximum values from other studies Minimum values from other studies 700 1,700 WBA-calculations 600 Fuels 500 Heat CHP & electricity w oo d M C H P: ): S ch C ip os co m bu C ost co io m n :s bu tra st w io n :w oo d ch B ip io s d ie se l: ra pe Et se ha ed no l: wh ea B io t g as (f ue l ): LM +L M +L M in ( fe as B io g (e le c s ed tr.& (e le c he a tr.): t) : S S M +L M M LM t): s B io ga B io ga (e le c tr.& :c he a er ea l ch B io ga s H ea tin H ea t in g g :w oo -100 ip s 0 d CO2 mitigation costs ( /Mg CO 2 equivalents) 800 SM = silo maize; LM = liquid manure Co-combustion in coal-fired power plant Source: WBA (2008), modified 25

26 Fig. 26: Conclusions/Outlook Einsatz von Biomasse für BtL ein kritischer Blick Biomass Utilisation for BtL A Critical Look 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 BtLtechnologies makes sense! 26

27 Fig. 27: Conclusion/Outlook for long-term perspective of biomass use Origin Utilization VERWENDUNG HERKUNFT Specific cultivated Gezielt plants angebaute Pflanzen Material use Stoffliche Biomass Nutzung Biomasse Biogenic residues Biogene from: Reststoffe Agriculture/ Forestry Land-/ Forstwirtschaft Landscape conservation Landschaftspflege Naturschutz Energy Energetische use aus: Production Industries Produzierendes Gewerbe Public waste management Öffentliche Abfallentsorgung Ölgetränkte Krümel Nutzung Food Nahrungsmittel Animal feed Futtermittel Chem. / techn. Raw materials Chem. / techn. Rohstoffe Electricity Elektrischer Strom Heat Wärme Fuels Kraftstoff Honigartige Suspension (Slurry) 27 ITAS LL/2006 ITAS LL/2007

28 Fig. 28: Fuel from hard coal (biomass) (not) a new subject in Germany? Thank you for your attention! Source: Benzol-Verband, ARAL (Eds.), 1936, Bochum, 18pp. ITAS LL/