Techno-economic analysis of biomass to transportation fuels and electricity via fast pyrolysis and hydroprocessing

Abstract

A previous Iowa State University (ISU) analysis published in 2010 investigated the technical and economic feasibility of the fast pyrolysis and hydroprocessing of biomass, and concluded that the pathway could produce cellulosic biofuels for a minimum fuel selling price (MFSP) of $2.11/gal. The 2010 ISU study was largely theoretical in that no commercial-scale fast pyrolysis facilities were being constructed at the time of publication.The present analysis expands upon the 2010 ISU study by performing an updated techno-economic analysis of the fast pyrolysis and hydroprocessing pathway. Recent advances in pathway technology and commercialization and new parameters suggested by the recent literature are accounted for. The MFSP for a 2000 MTPD facility employing fast pyrolysis and hydroprocessing to convert corn stover to gasoline and diesel fuel is calculated to quantify the economic feasibility of the pathway.The present analysis determines the MFSP of gasoline and diesel fuel produced via fast pyrolysis and hydroprocessing to be $2.57/gal. This result indicates that the pathway could be competitive with petroleum, although not as competitive as suggested by the 2010 ISU study. The present analysis also demonstrates the sensitivity of the result to process assumptions. Keywords fast pyrolysis, hydroprocessing, catalytic pyrolysis, techno-economic analysis, Bioeconomy Institute, Mechanical Engineering Disciplines Industrial Engineering | Mechanical Engineering | Systems EngineeringComments NOTICE: This is the author's version of a work that was accepted for publication in Fuel. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently publishedin in Fuel, 106, April (2013) NOTICE: This is the author's version of a work that was accepted for publication in Fuel. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently publishedin in Fuel, 106, April (2013)

Regional differences in the economic feasibility of advanced biorefineries: Fast pyrolysis and hydroprocessing

“…The fast pyrolysis and hydroprocessing biorefinery modeled here employs the following steps: feedstock pre-processing, fast pyrolysis, solids removal, bio-oil recovery, heat generation, hydrotreating, hydrocracking, and refining (see Figure 1) (Brown et al, 2013). Feedstock preprocessing consists of drying to 7 wt% moisture content or lower and chopping and grinding to 3mm dia.…”

Is now a good time for Iowa to invest in cellulosic biofuels? A real options approach considering construction lead times

“…The technology data are based on the revised TEA of a fast pyrolysis plant with bio-oil upgrading using 2,000 metric tons per day (MT/day) of corn stover feedstock (Brown et al 2013). The main products after fast pyrolysis, bio-oil upgrading and refining are naphtha-range and diesel-range fuels, which can be used in the transportation sector.…”

“…We set the risk-free interest rate to be 5% because the average long-term U.S. risk preference is set to be r a = 10%. We also assume the project is financed by a commercial loan with a loan rate of 7.5%, which is consistent with that used in Brown et al 2013.…”

“…And the economic aspects determine the fixed and variable costs of project investment, as well as fuels production (Swanson et al 2010). The TEA study on fast pyrolysis and hydroprocessing technology suggests this pathway to be economically feasible, attaining a minimum fuel selling price (MFSP) of $2.57/gal gasolineequivalent (gge) (Brown et al 2013). However, the TEA method is rather primitive and does not account for risk and uncertainty or the flexibility of decision-making, which we argue are too important to overlook.…”

Integrated biorefineries: CO2 utilization for maximum biomass conversion

“…Nevertheless, research into biomass pyrolysis is multi-disciplinary and multi-dimensional. The diverse array of these research activities include advanced analytical chemistry methods for bio-oil characterization [16][17][18], developing kinetic models for the pyrolysis reactions [19], computational fluid dynamic studies [20], design of new reactors [21], developing new heating methods such as microwave assisted pyrolysis [22][23], optimizing the bio-oil yield [24], developing various bio-oil upgrading methods [25], process intensification [26], techno-economic analysis [27,28] and environmental assessment [29], in addition to enterprise-wide and supply chain optimization [30][31][32]. A recent review of the research into biomass fast pyrolysis is provided by Meier et al, [33].…”