Exergetic evaluation of 5 biowastes-to-biofuels routes via gasification

Sues, A Anna; Juraščík, Martin; Ptasinski, KJ Krzysztof

doi:10.1016/j.energy.2009.06.027

Cited by 70 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The resulting syngas is a mixture of mainly CO and H 2 , but also CO 2 , CH 4 , C 2 H 6 and C 2 H 4 are present. A few corrosive by-products, namely H 2 S, NH 3 and HCl are also produced, and need removal before further processing of the gas [25]. Before gasification the material must be dried to 10% moisture.…”

Section: Syngas Derivativesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Limits to biofuels

Johansson

2013

EPJ Web of Conferences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary. -Biofuel production is dependent upon agriculture and forestry systems, and the expectations of future biofuel potential are high. A study of the global food production and biofuel production from edible crops implies that biofuel produced from edible parts of crops lead to a global deficit of food. This is rather well known, which is why there is a strong urge to develop biofuel systems that make use of residues or products from forest to eliminate competition with food production. However, biofuel from agro-residues still depend upon the crop production system, and there are many parameters to deal with in order to investigate the sustainability of biofuel production. There is a theoretical limit to how much biofuel can be achieved globally from agro-residues and this amounts to approximately one third of todays' use of fossil fuels in the transport sector. In reality this theoretical potential may be eliminated by the energy use in the biomass-conversion technologies and production systems, depending on what type of assessment method is used. By surveying existing studies on biofuel conversion the theoretical limit of biofuels from 2010 years' agricultural production was found to be either non-existent due to energy consumption in the conversion process, or up to 2-6000 TWh (biogas from residues and waste and ethanol from woody biomass) in the more optimistic cases.

show abstract

Section: Syngas Derivativesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…After a few circulations of the steam to increase the efficiency of the conversion, the steam is sent into a distillation column. The unconverted gas is normally used for combustion and generated electricity [25]. DME Di-methyl-Ether, DME, is synthesized by the same process as methanol, but taken one step further over an acid catalyst:…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Limits to biofuels

Johansson

2013

EPJ Web of Conferences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sulfur removal is either done by a zinc oxide filter (as with natural gas) with COS hydrolysis upstream to convert COS to H2S or by a scrubber. CO2 removal is done by an amine scrubber 9,10 .…”

Section: Gas Cleaningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The production of methanol from biomass is, on the other hand, a well investigated field (e.g. [10,11]). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technoeconomic analysis of a methanol plant based on gasification of biomass and electrolysis of water

Clausen

Houbak

Elmegaard

2010

Energy

152

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Methanol production process configurations based on renewable energy sources have been designed. The processes were analyzed in the thermodynamic process simulation tool DNA. The syngas used for the catalytic methanol production was produced by gasification of biomass, electrolysis of water, CO2 from post-combustion capture and autothermal reforming of natural gas or biogas. Underground gas storage of hydrogen and oxygen was used in connection with the electrolysis to enable the electrolyser to follow the variations in the power produced by renewables.Six plant configurations, each with a different syngas production method, were compared. The plants achieve methanol exergy efficiencies of 59-72%, the best from a configuration incorporating autothermal reforming of biogas and electrolysis of water for syngas production. The different processes in the plants are highly heat integrated, and the low-temperature waste heat is used for district heat production. This results in high total energy efficiencies (~90%) for the plants. The * Corresponding author. Fax: +45 45884325, email: lrc@mek.dtu.dk 1 specific methanol costs for the six plants are in the range 11.8-25.3 €/GJexergy. The lowest cost is obtained by a plant using electrolysis of water, gasification of biomass and autothermal reforming of natural gas for syngas production.

show abstract

“…Due to lower conversion efficiencies, FT diesel production costs are higher and GHG emission reductions are lower than those of DME and methanol fuels (Sues et al, 2010). FT diesel is therefore not considered in the model.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-effective policy instruments for greenhouse gas emission reduction and fossil fuel substitution through bioenergy production in Austria

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change mitigation and security of energy supply are important targets of Austrian energy policy. Bioenergy production based on resources from agriculture and forestry is an important option to attain these targets. In order to increase the share of bioenergy, supporting policy instruments are necessary. The cost-effectiveness of these instruments in attaining policy targets depends on the availability of bioenergy technologies. Advanced technologies such as second generation biofuels, biomass gasification for power * Correspondence to: Johannes Schmidt, Institute for Sustainable Economic Development, University of Natural Ressources and Life Sciences, Feistmantelstraße 4, A-1180 Vienna, Austria. E-Mail: johannes.schmidt@boku.ac.at 2 production and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) will likely change the performance of policy instruments. This article assesses the cost-effectiveness of energy policy instruments with respect to greenhouse gas emission (GHG) reduction and fossil fuel substitution under consideration of new bioenergy technologies for the year 2030. Instruments that directly subsidize bioenergy are compared with instruments that aim at reducing GHG emissions. A spatially explicit modeling approach is used to account for biomass supply and energy distribution costs in Austria. Results indicate that a carbon tax performs cost effective with respect to both policy targets if BECCS is not available. However, the availability of BECCS creates a tradeoff between GHG emission reduction and fossil fuel substitution. Biofuel blending obligations are costly in attaining the policy targets.

show abstract

Exergetic evaluation of 5 biowastes-to-biofuels routes via gasification

Cited by 70 publications

References 27 publications

Limits to biofuels

Limits to biofuels

Technoeconomic analysis of a methanol plant based on gasification of biomass and electrolysis of water

Cost-effective policy instruments for greenhouse gas emission reduction and fossil fuel substitution through bioenergy production in Austria

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About