Environmental, exergetic and economic tradeoffs of catalytic- and fast pyrolysis-to-renewable diesel

RENEWABLE ENERGY

卷:162

Article

Spatari, S.^1,8  Larnaudie, V.²  Mannoh, I.³  Wheeler, M. C.^4,5  Macken, N. A.⁶  Mullen, C. A.⁷  Boateng, A. A.⁷ 

[1] Drexel Univ, Civil Architectural & Environm Engn, 3141 Chestnut St, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA

[2] Univ Republica, Fac Ingn, Dept Bioingn, Montevideo 11300, Uruguay

[3] Drexel Univ, Dept Chem & Biol Engn, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA

[4] Univ Maine, Chem & Biomed Engn, Orono, ME 04469 USA

[5] Univ Maine, Forest Bioprod Res Inst, Orono, ME 04469 USA

[6] Swarthmore Coll, Dept Engn, Swarthmore, PA 19081 USA

[7] ARS, USDA, Eastern Reg Res Ctr, Wyndmoor, PA 19038 USA

[8] Technion Israel Inst Technol, Fac Civil & Environm Engn, IL-3200003 Haifa, Israel

关键词: Biofuel policy;    Renewable diesel;    Life cycle assessment;    Techno-economic analysis;    Biomass conversion;    Bio-oil upgrading;   

DOI  :  10.1016/j.renene.2020.08.042

来源: Elsevier

【 摘 要 】

This paper compares the cost and life cycle environmental performance of renewable diesel produced from upgraded catalytic fast pyrolysis (CFP) and fast pyrolysis (FP) bio-oils produced from forest residues. Integrating zeolite catalyst into the pyrolysis reactor in CFP requires upgrading in one catalytic hydro -cracking step, whereas FP requires upgrading by multiple catalytic hydrotreating and hydrocracking steps, raising capital costs. The FP system considers hydrogen production from co-produced biochar, further raising capital costs but eliminating the large external hydrogen need. Despite lower capital costs, due to higher operating costs from catalyst replacement and purchased hydrogen, the estimated minimum selling price of CFP fuel ($2/L) is greater than FP fuel ($1.68/L). Utilities, hydrogen and catalyst contributions to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, exergy and annual cost are sizeable for CFP. However, GHG emissions for CFP (-72 to 32 g CO(2)e/MJ) are low and negative when considering credits for biochar due to a high biochar to fuel product ratio (2:1). In contrast, FP with catalytic upgrading maintains a high biofuel yield and low GHG emissions (8-13 g CO(2)e/MJ) that meet energy policy objectives with more favorable economics compared to CFP. Neither fuel is cost competitive with petroleum-diesel even with renewable fuel credits. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

【 授权许可】

Free