Negative Emission Solar-Driven Biomass Pyrolysis Plant for Bio-Fuel and Biochar Coproduction: a Techno-Economic Analysis

9 - 12 June | Conference & Exhibition 13 June | Technical Tours Valencia, Spain Negative Emission Solar-Driven Biomass Pyrolysis Plant for Bio-Fuel and Biochar Coproduction: a Techno-Economic Analysis M. Colombi, M.A. Amjed, M. Romano, M. Binotti www.pysolo.eu 2 Index 4 –Conventional/Hybrid Pyrolysis 5 –Techno-Economic Results 6 –Conclusions 1 –Introduction: the PYSOLO concept 2 –Scope of the Work 3 –Methodology and KPIs 3 Introduction: Conventional Pyrolysis •Biomass Pyrolysis is a thermal degradation induced by supplying heat (250-700°C) in inert environment, producing bio-oil, pyrogas and char. •Heat required for the reaction → usually provided by burning a fraction of the pyrolysis products (pyrogas/char) → economic and environmentally inefficient step → loss of high value biogenic carbon, reduction of the carbon efficiency, reduction of the overall yield. Biomass Bio-oil Char + PHC PHC Flue gases Fluidizing Gases CO2 Bio-oil recovery Solid Separation Fast Pyrolysis Drying Combustion Pyrogas 4 Introduction: The PYSOLO Concept •Heat for pyrolysis → provided by solid particles (e.g. sand) heated in a solar receiver. •Decoupling between solar receiver and pyrolizer → enhanced flexibility + continuous operation. •Self-sustained Mode → system can operate without solar input by using electric heating or combusting pyrogas/biochar when storage is depleted & Grid balancing services → grid ancillary services by generating power from excess pyrogas or converting surplus renewable electricity into thermal energy. Biomass Bio-oil Char + PHC PHC Flue gases Pyrogas Fluidizing Gases CO2 Cold Tank Biochar Gas Holder Combustion Engine Bio-oil recovery Solid Separation Fast Pyrolysis Drying PHC Hot Tank Combustion Induction Solar Tower /Heating PHC-Biochar Separator 5 Index Perform a preliminary techno-economic assessment of the PYSOLO concept, considering the integration of a biomass pyrolysis plant with a solar receiver (no electrical heating) 4 –Conventional/Hybrid Pyrolysis 5 –Techno-Economic Results 6 –Conclusions 1 –Introduction: the PYSOLO concept 2 –Scope of the Work 3 –Methodology and KPIs 6 Methodology & KPIs •Pyrolysis plant schematic and costs → taken from NREL [1] & scaled down to 10 MWLHV,biomass. [1] S. Jones, et al., Process Design and Economics for the Conversion of Lignocellulosic Biomass to Hydrocarbon Fuels: Fast Pyrolysis and Hydrotreating Bio-Oil Pathway, 2013. Yearly Techno-Economic Analysis (NPV=0) Solar Field and Receiver Model System Design Pyrolysis Model Biomass: Poplar Pyrolysis Conditions Techno-Economic Assumptions Assumptions Solar Field Size (SM) Thermal Storage (TES) Size Solar Field & Thermal Storage’s size Optimization to minimize Bio-oil Minimum Fuel Selling Price (MFSP) 𝜼𝒑𝒚𝒓𝒐 𝒑𝒍𝒂𝒏𝒕 =σ𝒊ሶ 𝒎𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒅,𝒊𝑳𝑯𝑽𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒅,𝒊 ሶ 𝒎𝒃𝒊𝒐𝒎𝑳𝑯𝑽𝒃𝒊𝒐𝒎 +𝑷𝒆𝒍 +𝑷𝑨𝒖𝒙 𝜼𝒆𝒍,𝒓𝒆𝒇 +ሶ 𝑸𝑷𝑯𝑪,𝒑𝒚𝒓𝒐 𝜺𝑪=σ𝒊ሶ 𝒎𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒅,𝒊 ∙𝒚𝑪,𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒅,𝒊 ሶ 𝒎𝒃𝒊𝒐𝒎 ∙𝒚𝑪,𝒃𝒊𝒐𝒎 𝐍𝐏𝐕=−𝐓𝐂𝐈+ ෍ 𝐣=−𝟐 𝟑𝟎 𝐏𝐛𝐲−𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝 ×𝐌𝐲−𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝,𝐲𝐣+𝐌𝐅𝐒𝐏×𝐌𝐨𝐢𝐥,𝐲𝐣− 𝐓𝐣−𝐂𝐎𝐏,𝐕𝐀𝐑,𝐣 −𝐂𝐎𝐏,𝐅𝐈𝐗,𝐣 −𝐋𝐣 ൫ሻ 𝟏+𝐢 𝐣 Pyrolysis Plant Efficiency Carbon Efficiency Specific Carbon Credit 𝐒𝐂𝐂=− ሶ 𝒎𝒄𝒉𝒂𝒓 𝒔𝒂𝒗𝒆𝒅 ∙𝐲𝐂,𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐫 ∙ൗ 𝟒𝟒 𝟏𝟐 ሶ 𝐦𝐨𝐢𝐥 𝒌𝒈𝑪𝑶𝟐 𝑮𝑱𝑶𝑰𝑳 Minimum Fuel Selling Price (MFSP) [for bio-oil] 7 CRECK Pyrolysis Model: Some Insights Biomass (Poplar) Elemental Analysis [%wt on dry basis] C50.94 H6.04 O41.90 N0.17 S0.03 Ashes 0.92 HHV [MJ/kg] 14 LHV [MJ/kg] 12.3 •The adopted pyrolysis model has been developed by CRECK group at Politecnico di Milano [2] [3]. [2] P. Debiagi, C. Pecchi, G. Gentile, A. Frassoldati, A. Cuoci, T. Faravelli, E. Ranzi, Extractives Extend the Applicability of Multistep Kinetic Scheme of Biomass Pyrolysis, Energy and Fuels 29 (2015) 6544–6555. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.5b01753. [3] S. Pielsticker, P. Debiagi, F. Cerciello, C. Hasse, R. Kneer, Comparative analysis of pyrolysis models including SFOR, CRECK, and Bio-CPD to predict reaction kinetics and products from extracted biomass components, (2024). https://doi.org/10.18154/RWTH. •The CRECK model has been calibrated to characterize each biomass type based on its elemental composition, mapping it onto CRECK reference species (e.g., various forms of lignin, hemicellulose, cellulose), for which detailed thermal degradation mechanisms have been developed. •Based on the Reactor Network Model approach,the pyrolysis reaction is simulated in afluidised bed reactor, a component which has been manually integrated in Aspen Plus. Perfectly Stirred Reactor Plug Flow Reactor 8 Index 4 –Conventional/Hybrid Pyrolysis 5 –Techno-Economic Results 6 –Conclusions 1 –Introduction: the PYSOLO concept 2 –Scope of the Work 3 –Methodology and KPIs 9 Solar Pyrolysis Plant (10 MWLHV) •Pyrolyzer outlet temperature: 434°C (oil yield maximization) •PHC Inlet Temperature: 609°C. •Pyrolyzer Net Thermal Request: 1.65 MWTH 𝑻𝑰𝑵 𝑷𝑯𝑪 =ሶ 𝑸𝑷𝒀𝑹𝑶 16 Techno-Economic Results: Sensitivity 17 Index 4 –Conventional/Hybrid Pyrolysis 5 –Techno-Economic Results 6 –Conclusions 1 –Introduction: the PYSOLO concept 2 –Scope of the Work 3 –Methodology and KPIs 18 Conclusions •Solar-based pyrolysis can achieve over 90% carbon efficiency (50% in bio-oil, 35% in biochar, 8% in pyrogas), 20% percentage points higher than the conventional case. •Similarly, hybrid pyrolysis can achieve net negative emissions of -67.8 kgCO2/GJOIL compared to the conventional pyrolysis ones equal to -47.4 kgCO2/GJOIL (30% reduction). •MFSP reduction of 8% is obtained with respect to the conventional plant for the hybrid plant. •Even when subject to a 50% variation in key economic and profitability parameters, the hybrid system maintains a clear competitive advantage over the conventional alternative. eubce.com Thank you 9 - 12 June | Conference & Exhibition 13 June | Technical Tours Valencia, Spain Marco Colombi, STEN PhD at Politecnico di Milano [email protected] 20 Back Up Slides… 21 Conventional Pyrolysis Plant (10 MWLHV) •The pyrolyzer outlet temperature is 434°C (oil yield maximization). •PHC Inlet Temperature: 609°C. •Pyrolyzer Net Thermal Request: 1.65 MWTH Component Flow [kg/h] % C Yield Biomass 30% wt 2930 100 Bio-Oil 1337 49 Sludge 0 0 Biochar 350 25 Pyrogas 0 0 Flue Gases 4686 26 Design power used as the basis for the solar plant design. ሶ 𝑸𝑷𝒀𝑹𝑶 = Whole System Carbon Balance •Overall Electricity Consumption: 374 kWEL 22 Economic Analysis – Back-up The costs of pyrolysis plant components are based on Jones et al. [1], adjusted for the smaller plant scale and actualized. Factors accounting for installation, other direct costs, indirect costs and land costs are also included, following the methodology outlined in Jones et al. [1] [1] S. Jones, et al., Process Design and Economics for the Conversion of Lignocellulosic Biomass to Hydrocarbon Fuels: Fast Pyrolysis and Hydrotreating Bio-Oil Pathway, 2013. 𝐶𝐢𝒏𝒔𝒕,𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟗 =𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡 ×𝐶0,𝑥 ×𝑆𝑋 𝑆0 0.7 𝐶𝐸𝑃𝐶𝐼2019 𝐶𝐸𝑃𝐶𝐼𝑥 [M€2019] Conventional Hybrid Pyrolizer + Oil Recovery 8.91 8.91 Solid Combustor 0.94 0.76 Gas Combustor - 0.48 Biomass Pretreatment 1.24 1.24 Utilities and Auxiliaries 0.48 0.48 Total Installed Cost 11.57 11.87 The costs of the solar plant components are estimated based on data from the literature: Component Cost Heliostat Field Cost [€/m 2]120 Receiver Specific Cost [k€/m2] 76.3 Tower Specific Cost [€/m 1.9274] 148.4 Thermal Energy Storage Specific Cost [€/m 2]1000 Bauxite Particles Cost [€/kg] 400 Particle Elevator Cost [€ s/m kg] 53.55 QTH = 5 MWTH | hTES = 20 Total Installed Cost [M€] 5.34