Search

There is a lack of widespread interest in slow pyrolysis biochar pathways relative to other bioenergy pathways because of the perceived absence of biochar's market value when produced at a commercial scale. Thus, most refereed techno‐economic analyses focus on fast pyrolysis. This study quantifies the carbon price point at which the economic feasibility of the slow‐pyrolysis pathway for biochar production is equal to or greater than a fast‐pyrolysis pathway for biochar and biofuel production using baseline minimum carbon prices (MCP). These factors are then modeled under uncertainty to generate stochastic cash flows for the calculation of a 20‐year net present value and carbon abatement cost probability distributions. This article examines whether a slow‐pyrolysis pathway is ever more financially attractive than a fast‐pyrolysis pathway at realistic carbon prices. The results show fast pyrolysis to fuels and biochar achieving the lowest baseline MCP of $61.38/Mg, while the slow pyrolysis to biochar and methanol at 450 °C scenario yields the highest baseline MCP of $642.40/Mg. A notable result is the baseline MCP for the slow pyrolysis to biochar scenario achieving $123.48/Mg, when compared with the fast pyrolysis to fuels and electricity scenario, resulting in a baseline MCP of $182.03/Mg. The results suggest that carbon prices, when high enough, can incentivize biochar carbon sequestration produced from slow‐pyrolysis pathways rather than carbon abatement with biofuels, and that slow pyrolysis to biochar and methanol scenarios require a higher baseline MCP and are less financially competitive than the other pathways. © 2020 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: We evaluate the economic feasibility for two bio-oil upgrading pathways: two-stage hydrotreating followed by fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) or single-stage hydrotreating followed by hydrocracking. In the hydrotreating/FCC pathway, two options are available as the hydrogen source for hydrotreating: merchant hydrogen or hydrogen from natural gas reforming. The primary products of the hydrotreating/FCC pathway are commodity chemicals whereas the primary products for the hydrotreating/hydrocracking pathway are transportation fuels and hydrogen. The two pathways are modeled using Aspen Plus® for a 2000 metric tons/day facility. Equipment sizing and cost calculations are based on Aspen Economic Evaluation® software. The bio-oil yield via fast pyrolysis is assumed to be 65% of biomass. We calculate the internal rate of return (IRR) for each pathway as a function of feedstock cost, fixed capital investment (FCI), hydrogen and catalyst costs, and facility revenues. The results show that a facility employing the hydrotreating/FCC pathway with hydrogen production via natural gas reforming option generates the highest IRR of 13.3%. Sensitivity analysis demonstrates that product yield, FCI, and biomass cost have the greatest impacts on facility IRR. Monte-Carlo analysis shows that two-stage hydrotreating and FCC of the aqueous phase bio-oil with hydrogen produced via natural gas reforming has a relatively low risk for project investment. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

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. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: This paper evaluates the economic feasibility of biohydrogen production via two bio-oil processing pathways: bio-oil gasification and bio-oil reforming. Both pathways employ fast pyrolysis to produce bio-oil from biomass stock. The two pathways are modeled using Aspen Plus® for a 2000 t d−1 facility. Equipment sizing and cost calculations are based on Aspen Economic Evaluation® software. Biohydrogen production capacity at the facility is 147 t d−1 for the bio-oil gasification pathway and 160 t d−1 for the bio-oil reforming pathway. The biomass-to-fuel energy efficiencies are 47% and 84% for the bio-oil gasification and bio-oil reforming pathways, respectively. Total capital investment (TCI) is 435 million dollars for the bio-oil gasification pathway and is 333 million dollars for the bio-oil reforming pathway. Internal rates of return (IRR) are 8.4% and 18.6% for facilities employing the bio-oil gasification and bio-oil reforming pathways, respectively. Sensitivity analysis demonstrates that biohydrogen price, biohydrogen yield, fixed capital investment (FCI), bio-oil yield, and biomass cost have the greatest impacts on facility IRR. Monte-Carlo analysis shows that bio-oil reforming is more economically attractive than bio-oil gasification for biohydrogen production. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: The economic feasibility of a facility producing monosaccharides, hydrogen and transportation fuels via fast pyrolysis and upgrading pathway was evaluated by modeling a 2000 dry metric ton biomass/day facility using Aspen Plus®. Equipment sizing and cost were based on Aspen Economic Evaluation® software. The results indicate that monosaccharide production capacity could reach 338 metric tons/day. Co-product yields of hydrogen and gasoline were 23.4 and 141 metric tons/day, respectively. The total installed equipment and total capital costs were estimated to be $210 million and $326 million, respectively. A facility internal rate of return (IRR) of 11.4% based on market prices of $3.33/kg hydrogen, $2.92/gal gasoline and diesel, $0.64/kg monosaccharide was calculated. Sensitivity analysis demonstrates that fixed capital cost, feedstock cost, product yields, and product credits have the greatest impacts on facility IRR. Further research is needed to optimize yield of sugar via the proposed process to improve economic feasibility. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Fast pyrolysis and upgrading is a promising thermochemical pathway that produces pyrolysis oil that can be upgraded via hydroprocessing into hydrocarbon-based transportation fuels (drop-in biofuels). The internal rate of return (IRR) of a fast pyrolysis and upgrading facility is a function of feedstock cost and projected revenues. We calculate the IRR of a fast pyrolysis and upgrading facility under six different policy scenarios: (1) a baseline scenario in which the facility receives no government support; (2) a scenario in which cap-and-trade (H.R. 2454) is enacted with both carbon price and offsets; (3) a scenario in which the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) is modified to include drop-in biofuels; (4) a scenario in which the VEETC is replaced with a variable VEETC; (5) the revised Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2); and (6) the Cellulosic Biofuel Producer Tax Credit (CBPTC). Combinations of these policy scenarios are also analyzed. We find that the policies responsible for increasing the value of pyrolysis products increase facility IRR the most, whereas policies minimizing facility tax burden have an only marginal effect on IRR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]