Comparative analysis and benchmarking of commercial and emerging fast pyrolysis technologies
Source abstract
Abstract
It is well established that producing sustainable fuels and replacing the fossil-based ones is one of the key solutions to achieving net-zero emissions goals. One of the most advanced commercial-scale pathways to biofuels available today is fast pyrolysis. However, due to the need for a supportive regulatory environment and mitigation strategies for uncertainties related to costs and feedstock quality, fast pyrolysis is not yet being widely implemented. In this case study, three fast pyrolysis technologies with a technology readiness level (TRL) of 6 and above have been compared to distinguish between them and identify the conditions under which they are economically viable. The circulating fluidized bed (CFB), rotating cone (RC), and mechanically assisted fluidized bed (MFB) fast pyrolysis technologies were considered. First, the flow diagram and a mass and energy balance comparison were addressed. It was revealed that the RC configuration has better bio-oil yields because it can handle smaller particles. The MFB configuration has a progressive condensation unit at the end of the process, which produces a nearly dry oil having a higher energy content. Four implementation scenarios were studied. The first was the fast pyrolysis standalone process, where all options had marginal economic attractiveness, and the RC configuration economically outperformed the other two. Integration of a fast pyrolysis plant into a sawmill in the second scenario was found to bring significant improvements in revenues and internal rate of return (IRR). Realization of the full value of bio-oil (the third scenario) brought significantly more revenues for the MFB. Finally, the fourth scenario involved adding a progressive condensation unit, which increased the capital expenditure (CAPEX) by 3%–4% while increasing revenues by 32%–35%. A sensitivity analysis highlighted the importance of financial support towards capital cost and the full valuation of bio-oil for the economic viability of fast pyrolysis processes. Progressive condensation leading to more added-value bio-oil makes the standalone fast pyrolysis process more profitable.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Thermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes · Biofuel production and bioconversion · Energy and Environment Impacts
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (43)
Show source-provided references
1. Pattiya, A., Direct Thermochemical Liquefaction for Energy Applications (L. Rosendahl, Ed.), Woodhead Publishing, Sawston, UK, 2018, pp.3-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-101029-7.00001-1.10.1016/B978-0-08-101029-7.00001-1 ↗
2. Bioeconomy Institute, “Fast pyrolysis pilot plants,” Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 2021. Available [Online] https://www.biorenew.iastate.edu/research/thermochemical/fastpyrolysis <01May2023>.
3. Bioeconomy Institute, “Iowa State University, BEI Partner in RAPID Institute,” Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 2021. Available [Online] https://www.biorenew.iastate.edu/research/rapid <01May2023>.
4. Bridgwater, T., Johnson Matthey Technol. Rev. 62(1): 118(2018). https://doi.org/10.1595/205651318X696693.10.1595/205651318X696693 ↗
5. Bridgwater, T. and Maniatis, K., in Molecular to Global Photosynthesis (M.D. Archer and J. Barber, Eds.), Series on Photoconversion of Solar Energy: Volume 2, World Scientific, Singapore, 2004, pp. 521-611. https://doi.org/10.1142/9781860945496_0010.10.1142/9781860945496_0010 ↗
6. Wright, M.M., Daugaard, D.E., Satrio, J.A., et al., “Techno-economic analysis of biomass fast pyrolysis to transportation fuels,” Technical Report NREL/TP-6A20-46586, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA, 2010. https://doi.org/10.2172/993332.10.2172/993332 ↗
7. Bridgwater, A.V., Meier, D., and Radlein, D., Org. Geochem. 30(12): 1479(1999). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0146-6380(99)00120-5.10.1016/S0146-6380(99)00120-5 ↗
8. Bridgewater, A., Therm. Sci. 8(2):21(2004). https://doi.org/10.2298/TSCI0402021B.10.2298/TSCI0402021B ↗
9. Ringer, M., Putsche, V., and Scahill, J., “Large-scale pyrolysis oil production: A technology assessment and economic analysis,” Technical Report NREL/TP-510-37779, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA, 2006. https://doi.org/10.2172/894989.10.2172/894989 ↗
10. Polin, J.P., Peterson, C.A., Whitmer, L.E., et al., Appl. Energy 249: 276(2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.04.154.10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.04.154 ↗
11. Wagenaar, B.M., Venderbosch, R.H., Carrasco, J., et al., in Progress in Thermochemical Biomass Conversion (A.V. Bridgwater, Ed.), Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford, UK, 2001, pp. 1268-1280.10.1002/9780470694954.ch105 ↗
12. Wagenaar, B.M., Kuipers, J.A.M., Prins, W., et al., in Advances in Thermochemical Biomass Conversion (A.V. Bridgwater, Ed.), Springer, Dordrecht, 1993, pp. 1122-1133. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-1336-6_87.10.1007/978-94-011-1336-6_87 ↗
13. Roy, C., Blanchette, D., De Caumia, B., et al., in Advances in Thermochemical Biomass Conversion, Springer, Dordrecht, 1993, pp. 1165-1185. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-1336-6_90.10.1007/978-94-011-1336-6_90 ↗
14. Lago, V., “Application of mechanically fluidized reactors to lignin pyrolysis,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada, 2015.
15. Barry, D., Barbiero, C., Briens, C., et al., Biomass Bioenergy 122: 472(2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2019.01.041.10.1016/j.biombioe.2019.01.041 ↗
16. Mohan, D., Pittman, C.U., and Steele, P.H., Energy Fuels 20(3): 848(2006). https://doi.org/10.1021/ef0502397.10.1021/ef0502397 ↗
17. Bridgwater, A.V., Biomass Bioenergy 38: 68(2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.01.048.10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.01.048 ↗
18. Puy, N., Murillo, R., Navarro, M.V., et al., Waste Manage. 31(6): 1339(2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.01.020.10.1016/j.wasman.2011.01.020 ↗
19. Huang, Y.-F., Chiueh, P.-T., and Lo, S.-L., Sustainable Environ. Res. 26(3): 103(2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.serj.2016.04.012.10.1016/j.serj.2016.04.012 ↗
20. Beneroso, D., Monti, T., Kostas, E.T., et al., Chem. Eng. J. 316: 481(2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2017.01.130.10.1016/j.cej.2017.01.130 ↗
21. Kostas, E.T., Beneroso, D., and Robinson, J.P., Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 77: 12(2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.135.10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.135 ↗
22. Sherrad, A., “Pyrocell selects TechnipFMC and BTG-BTL to build Swedish bio-oil plant,” Bioenergy Int., 16 September 2019. Available [Online] https://bioenergyinternational.com/technology-suppliers/pyrocell-selects-technipfmc-and-btg-btl-to-build-swedish-bio-oil-production-plant <01May2023>.
23. Ensyn, “Côte Nord: Port-Cartier, Quebec – Biocrude expansion,” Ensyn, Ottawa, 2015. Available [Online] http://www.ensyn.com/quebec.html <01May2023>.
24. Anon., “Bio-TechFar,” Bio-TechFar Inc., Riga, Latvia, 2016. Available [Online] https://www.bio-techfar.com/ <01May2023>.
25. Abbati de Assis, C., Gonzalez, R., Kelley, S., et al., Biofuels, Bioprod. Biorefin. 11(3): 549(2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1765.10.1002/bbb.1765 ↗
26. Clerc, F., Chambost, V., and Stuart, P., TAPPI J. 14(9): 609(2015). https://doi.org/10.32964/TJ14.9.609.10.32964/TJ14.9.609 ↗
27. Buchner, G.A., Zimmermann, A.W., Hohgravë, A.E., et al., Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 57: 8502(2018). https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.8b01248.10.1021/acs.iecr.8b01248 ↗
28. Trottier, É., Myers, C., and Stuart, P., Front. Sustain. 2: 759191(2022). https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2021.759191.10.3389/frsus.2021.759191 ↗
29. Hytönen, E. and Stuart, P.R., TAPPI J. 11(4): 9(2012). https://doi.org/10.32964/TJ11.4.9.10.32964/TJ11.4.9 ↗
30. Oehmen, J. and Seering, W., in The Future of Design Methodology (H. Birkhofer, Ed.), Springer-Verlag, London, 2011, pp. 47-54.10.1007/978-0-85729-615-3_4 ↗
31. Quintero-Bermudez, M.A., Janssen, M., Cohen, J., et al., TAPPI J. 11(11): 9(2012). https://doi.org/10.32964/TJ11.11.9.10.32964/TJ11.11.9 ↗
32. Benali, M., “I-BIOREF software: Modeling and analysis for technical, economic, and environmental assessment of biorefinery processes,” Brochure, Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa, 2015. Available [Online] https://natural-resources.canada.ca/sites/nrcan/files/canmetenergy/files/pubs/I-BIOREF-brochure_EN.pdf <01May2023>.
33. EPA, “Renewable identification numbers (RINs) under the Renewable Fuel Standard Program,” United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Available from: https://www. epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/renewable-identifica-tion-numbers-rins-under-renewable-fuel-standard <01May2023>.10.2139/ssrn.3143805 ↗
34. Deloitte, “Oil and gas price forecast: New realities for energy security and decarbonization,” Deloitte, Calgary, AB, Canada, 20 June 2022. Available [Online] https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/ca/Documents/energy-resources/ca-en-energy-resources-industrials-o-g-price-forecast-report-Q2-fy23-aoda.pdf <01May2023>.
35. EPA, “RIN trades and price information: 2022,” United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Available[Online] https://www.epa.gov/fuels-registration-reporting-and-compliance-help/rin-trades-and-price-information <01May2023>.
36. NRC, “Average retail prices for diesel in Canada,” Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa. Available [Online] https://www2.nrcan.gc.ca/eneene/sources/pripri/prices_byyear_e. cfm?ProductID=5 <01May2023>.
37. Government of Canada, “The federal carbon pollution pricing benchmark,” Government of Canada, Ottawa. Available [Online] https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/pricing-pollution-how-it-will-work/carbon-pollu-tion-pricing-federal-benchmark-information.html <01May2023>.10.1163/9789004322714_cclc_2017-0028-035 ↗
38. Trading Economics, “Lumber. 2022,” Trading Economics, New York. Available [Online] https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/lumber <01May2023>.
39. Bridgwater, A., Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 4(1): 1(2000). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-0321(99)00007-6.10.1016/s1364-0321(99)00007-6 ↗
40. Ben, H., Wu, F., Wu, Z., et al., Polymers (Basel) 11(9): 1387(2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/polym11091387.10.3390/polym11091387 ↗
41. Bartoli, M., Frediani, M., Briens, C., et al., Processes 7(10):658(2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/pr7100658.10.3390/pr7100658 ↗
42. Cools, E., “Scaling up 2021: ‘a clear but challenging path’ ahead for Canada's bioeconomy,” Canadian Biomass, 17 November 2021. Available [Online] https://www.canadianbiomassmagazine.ca/scaling-up-2021-a-clear-but-challenging-path-ahead-for-canadas-bioeconomy/ <01May2023>.
43. Wang, A.B., “Biden signs sweeping bill to tackle climate change, lower health-care costs,” The Washington Post, 16 August 2022. Available [Online] https://www.washingtonpost. com/politics/2022/08/16/biden-inflation-reduction-act-signing/ <01May2023>.