Sustainable Energy UK: Meeting the science and engineering challenge May 2008 St. Anne s College, Oxford

Transcription

1 Sustainable Energy UK: Meeting the science and engineering challenge May 2008 St. Anne s College, Oxford

2 Integrated assessment of bio technology options Dr Patricia Thornley & Dr Paul Upham, University of Manchester Dr Ye Huang & Dr Sina Rezvani, University of Ulster Dr John Brammer & Mr John Rogers, Aston University

3 Supergen Bioenergy Work Package 1: Process and technoeconomic analysis to perform technical analyses of whole process options, identifying emissions and environmental burdens to assess economic and life cycle performance to examine socio-economic factors (planning, perceptions, policy, employment) to bring qualitative and quantitative analysis together through multi-criteria evaluation and stakeholder engagement

4 UK Bio: dedicated biomass stations with 8 MW capacity 2 co-firing stations with 1.2 GW capacity 3 other stations (landfill gas, sewage gas, advanced waste) with 618 MW capacity

5 UK Bio: dedicated biomass stations with 207 MW capacity 32 co-firing stations with 3.3 GW capacity 44 other stations (landfill gas, sewage gas, advanced waste) with 848 MW capacity UK RO target for 200/06:.% (source: Ofgem Renewables Obligation annual report 2006) About 4.6% of came from renewables with biomass supplying about half of that. (source: UK biomass strategy, May 2007)

6 UK Bio: 20? RO target: % by 20 Biomass task force: current resources ~7% of UK Biomass Strategy: technical potential nearly % of demand European Environment Agency: Resource ~16% of demand in 20, 22% by 2020

7 Bio needs to increase substantially to meet targets for renewables/carbon reduction TV Energy study: 8% wanted to increase renewables Wind energy: 72% supported; 2% opposed Biomass: 16% supported; 4.8% opposed

8 Supergen assessment Study the whole system Bring together technical, environmental, economic and social assessment Incorporate stakeholder views via multi criteria evaluation Accessible for non-specialist

9 Methodology Energy crop production LCA framework Spreadsheet models Industry data Full bioenergy chain Energy balance Carbon balance Crop processing, transport & storage Spreadsheet models & highways agency formulae Industry data & published data Material & environmental balance Economic assessment Social assessment 42 extended LCA indicators for each bioenergy system Entire bioenergy system Multi-criteria assessment LCA indicators & scenarios Thermal conversion Processing modelling Techno-economic modelling ECLIPSE, ASPEN, spreadsheets ECLIPSE, spreadsheets Industry data & published data

10 System scope Agricultural: eradication, establishment, growth, restoration; inputs have energy & carbon cost; emissions from agricultural vehicles quantified Transport & logistics: SRC winter harvest & chip, field dry; miscanthus winter harvest & bale, satellite bale store; < 2 MWe direct tractor transport; dry matter losses included; transport emissions included for tractors & dedicated haulage Electricity production: Power plant construction (no emissions), operation, decommissioning (no emissions)

11 Systems studied 20 kwe 2 MWe MWe 2 MWe PO CHP PO CHP PO CHP PO CHP Gas-eng Gas-atmCC Gas-pressCC 6 7 CFBC Grate Pyr-eng Pyr-GT 14 2 Co-firing =SRC =miscanthus =straw

12 Results

13 2 MWe press GCC wood 2 MWe press GCC misc Co-firing Efficiency Electrical efficiency MWe CHP grate wood MWe CHP grate wood 2 MWe CHP grate miscanthus

14 MWe grate CHP wood MWe grate CHP wood 2 MWe grate CHP misc CHP efficiency CHP Efficiency 2 MWe CHP grate wood MWe pyr CHP wood MWe pyr CHP misc

15 CO2 saved per unit 2 MWe press GCC misc 2 MWe grate misc 2 MWe grate straw CO2 saved generated MWe CHP grate wood MWe CHP grate wood 2 MWe CHP grate miscanthus

16 CO2 saved per unit energy delivered (CHP only) MWe gas-eng misc CHP 2 MWe grate wood CHP MWe pyr eng wood CHP CO2 saved energy delivered (CHP only) 2 MWe CHP grate wood MWe CHP grate wood 2 MWe CHP grate miscanthus

17 CO2 saved energy harvested 2 MWe gas-eng wood CHP MWe gas-eng wood CHP 2 MWe grate wood CHP CO2 saved energy in biomass at harvest MWe press GCC wood Co-firing MWe grate misc MWe grate wood MWe pyr GT wood

18 CO2 saved land 2 MWe press GCC misc MWe gas-eng misc CHP 2 MWe grate misc CHP farmed CO2 saved land farmed MWe grate wood 2 MWe grate straw 2 MWe pyr GT wood

19 CO per unit 2 MWe press GCC wood 2 MWe press GCC misc 2 MWe FBC wood CO generated MWe CHP grate wood MWe CHP grate wood 2 MWe CHP grate miscanthus

20 NOx per unit 2 MWe atm GCC wood 2 MWe press GCC wood 2 MWe press GCC misc NOx generated MWe pyr GT wood 2 MWe grate wood MWe pyr GT CHP

21 Particulates per unit 2 MWe press GCC wood MWe pyr eng wood MWe pyr eng wood CHP Particulates generated kwe gas-eng wood 20 kwe gas-eng wood CHP 2 MWe CHP grate wood

22 VOC s per unit MWe pyr eng wood Co-firing MWe pyr eng wood CHP VOC's generated MWe atm GCC wood MWe CHP grate wood 2 MWe CHP grate miscanthus

23 Break-even selling 2 MWe grate wood 2 MWe grate misc Co-firing price Break even selling price MWe gas-eng CHP 2 MWe CHP grate wood 2 MWe CHP grate miscanthus

24 Specific investment per unit 2 MWe grate wood installed capacity 2 MWe grate misc Co-firing Specific investment installed electrical capacity MWe gas-eng CHP 2 MWe CHP grate wood 2 MWe CHP grate miscanthus

25 Employment per unit 2 MWe grate wood CHP 2 MWe grate misc CHP MWe pyr eng wood CHP Employment created MWe grate misc 2 MWe grate straw Cofiring

26 Land take per unit 2 MWe pressgcc misc 2 MWe grate misc MWe gas-eng misc CHP Land take MWe grate wood CHP MWe grate wood CHP MWe pyr GT wood CHP

27 Vehicles per unit time 20 kwe gas-eng wood 20 kwe CHP wood 2 MWe gas-eng CHP wood Number of delivery vehicles per unit time MWe grate wood 2 MWe grate misc 2 MWe grate straw

28 Vehicle distance 20 kwe gas-eng wood 20 kwe gas-eng wood CHP MWe gas-eng wood CHP Vehicle distance travelled MWe grate misc 2 MWe grate straw 2 MWe grate misc

29 Footprint: 20 kwe gas-eng wood 20 kwe engine SRC PO Electrical efficiency Technology novelty Capacity factor CO2 saved CO2 saved CO2 saved CO per unit of Nox per unit of Particulates VOC's per unit of Bottom ash fly ash Effluent Cost to produce a Specific investment Employment created per Land take Number of delivery Total vehicle km per unit

30 Footprint: 2 MWe GCC wood 2 MWe atmos GCC SRC PO Electrical efficiency Capacity factor CO2 saved energy in biomass at CO per unit of generated Particulates generated Bottom ash Effluent Specific investment installed Land take Total vehicle km

31 Footprint: 2 MWe grate wood 2 MWe grate SRC PO Electrical efficiency Capacity factor CO2 saved energy in biomass at CO per unit of generated Particulates generated Bottom ash Effluent Specific investment installed Land take Total vehicle km

32 Footprint: 2 MWe grate misc 2 MWe grate misc PO Electrical efficiency Capacity factor CO2 saved energy in biomass at CO per unit of generated Particulates generated Bottom ash Effluent Specific investment installed Land take Total vehicle km

33 Footprint: 2 MWe cofiring PF Co-firing Electrical efficiency Capacity factor CO2 saved energy in biomass at CO per unit of generated Particulates generated Bottom ash Effluent Specific investment installed Land take Total vehicle km

34 Footprint: MWe pyr-eng wood MWe pyrolysis engine SRC PO Electrical efficiency Capacity factor CO2 saved energy in biomass at CO per unit of generated Particulates generated Bottom ash Effluent Specific investment installed Land take Total vehicle km

35 Footprint: 2 MWe grate misc 2 MWe grate misc PO Electrical efficiency Capacity factor CO2 saved energy in biomass at CO per unit of generated Particulates generated Bottom ash Effluent Specific investment installed Land take Total vehicle km

36 Footprint: 20 kwe gas-eng wood CHP 20 kwe engine SRC CHP 20 0 Electrical efficiency Technology novelty CO2 saved CO2 saved CO per unit of Particulates Bottom ash Effluent Specific investment Land take Total vehicle km

37 Footprint: 2 MWe grate misc 2 MWe grate misc PO Electrical efficiency Capacity factor CO2 saved energy in biomass at CO per unit of generated Particulates generated Bottom ash Effluent Specific investment installed Land take Total vehicle km

38 Early work: stakeholders & informed public Like small/medium CHP Higher energetic efficiency Better local employment & associated social benefits Better local environmental impact

39 Later work: stakeholders Preferences more diverse Large power plants economies of scale, high power potential; transportation problems Scepticism of 20 kwe system: emissions, efficiency, grid

40 Stakeholder priorities Carbon savings Transport impacts Agricultural jobs Emissions

41 Conclusions carbon savings Do not follow efficiency Do not vary much with technology/scale except CHP Miscanthus better than SRC Cofiring as good as other technologies

42 Conclusions transport impacts Number of journeys minimized with smaller plants, SRC feedstocks and gasification Transport per unit output is best for small and large gasification systems; with grates and CHP worst

43 Conclusions agricultural jobs Jobs is fairly constant across technologies/scales, but higher for CHP Miscanthus creates more agricultural jobs than SRC but both much less than arable farming

44 Conclusions - emissions Smaller facilities generally produce higher levels of emissions electrical output than larger ones Gasification facilitates a reduction in emissions for large plants Cofiring compares well for emission categories studied 44% of NOx & 70% of particulates can be upstream of conversion plant Contribution of haulage lorries not significant

45 Dr Patricia Thornley Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research University of Manchester