Drop‐in biofuels have been defined as functionally equivalent to petroleum‐based transportation fuels and are fully compatible with the existing petroleum infrastructure. They will be essential in sectors such as aviation if we are to achieve emission reduction and climate mitigation goals. Currently, ‘conventional’ drop‐in biofuels, which are primarily based on upgrading of lipids / oleochemicals, are the only significant source of commercial volumes of drop‐in biofuels. However, the necessary increased, future volumes will likely come from ‘advanced’ drop‐in biofuels based on biomass feedstocks such as forest and agriculture residues. Biocrudes / bio‐oils produced from lignocellulosic feedstocks using thermochemical technologies such as gasification, pyrolysis, and hydrothermal liquefaction need to be further upgraded to drop‐in biofuels. However, advanced drop‐in biofuels have been slow to reach commercial maturity due to significant technical challenges, high capital costs, and the challenge of generally lower oil prices. It is likely that the co‐processing of drop‐in biofuels with conventional petroleum refining could considerably reduce capital costs. Initially, co‐processing is likely to be established through the upgrading of conventional / oleochemical feedstocks (lipids). Lipids are readily available in large volumes (global production in 2017 was ~185 million metric tonnes) and can be more easily integrated into oil‐refinery processes. In contrast, lignocellulose‐derived biocrudes / bio‐oils are not yet available in significant volumes and are more complex to co‐process in a refinery. The likely strategies for co‐processing of oleochemicals (lipids) and bio‐oil and biocrude feedstocks based on different insertion points within the refinery infrastructure are discussed. © 2019 The Authors. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining published by Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundThe hydrotreatment of oleochemical/lipid feedstocks is currently the only technology that provides significant volumes (millions of litres per year) of “conventional” biojet/sustainable aviation fuels (SAF). However, if biojet fuels are to be produced in sustainably sourced volumes (billions of litres per year) at a price comparable with fossil jet fuel, biomass-derived “advanced” biojet fuels will be needed. Three direct thermochemical liquefaction technologies, fast pyrolysis, catalytic fast pyrolysis and hydrothermal liquefaction were assessed for their potential to produce “biocrudes” which were subsequently upgraded to drop-in biofuels by either dedicated hydrotreatment or co-processed hydrotreatment.ResultsA significant biojet fraction (between 20.8 and 36.6% of total upgraded fuel volume) was produced by all of the processes. When the fractions were assessed against general ASTM D7566 specifications they showed significant compliance, despite a lack of optimization in any of the process steps. When the life cycle analysis GHGenius model was used to assess the carbon intensity of the various products, significant emission reductions (up to 74%) could be achieved.ConclusionsIt was apparent that the production of biojet fuels based on direct thermochemical liquefaction of biocrudes, followed by hydrotreating, has considerable potential.

Co-processing biogenic feedstocks in oil refineries will reduce the greenhouse gas emissions normally associated with fossil-derived transportation fuels. The fluid catalytic cracker (FCC) within a refinery is a robust processing unit and will probably be a preferred insertion point if biocrudes, produced by the liquefaction of biomass, are co-processed within a refinery. Fluid catalytic cracking results in a wide range of intermediate products which can be upgraded to gasoline, diesel, heavy fuel oil and liquified petroleum gas blendstocks. Coke is also produced and provides heating for feedstocks, the endothermic catalytic cracking reactions and the regeneration of the FCC catalyst. However, coke combustion also generates carbon dioxide and is a significant source of refinery greenhouse gas emissions. As detailed here, the continuous nature of the process makes the physical evaluation of any biogenic coke fraction, via methods such as C14 isotope analysis, quite challenging. However, quantifying the stack gases provides one way of assessing the renewable content of the carbon dioxide derived from coke combustion. The hourly data from 1 year of commercial operation was assessed using linear and Bayesian ridge regression to quantify the burning coefficient of the coke when co-processing lipids at the FCC.