Conference PaperPDF Available

Abstract and Figures

An increasing number of countries is setting objectives and obligations to replace part of their fossil natural gas consumptions by bio-methane to reduce CO2 emissions. The production of bio-methane via digestion has been developed and is implemented on a small scale. The limited amount of suitable digestible feedstock demands for development of a technology which can convert a wider range of biomass fuels, such as wood into bio-methane. Gasification is such a route. Gasification technology offers the possibility to convert lignocellulosic biomass (e.g. residual wood) into a combustible gas. This gas can be converted into natural gas quality gas (bio-methane) by catalytic processes. Bio-fuels such as bio-methane produced from biomass have the potential to become a CO2 negative fuel, because part of the biomass carbon is separated as CO2 during the production process. If this pure CO2 stream is sequestrated, these bio-fuels become even CO2 negative. This might be an attractive option for reducing the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Several bio-methane demonstration projects are underway based on thermal gasification of woody biomass. The most well known is the 20 MWth GoBiGas project in Gothenburg by Göteborg Energi and E.ON. ECN (Energy research Centre of the Netherlands) has developed an alternative gasification process (MILENA), optimized for the production of bio-methane. This system has an overall efficiency of 70% from wood to bio-methane. The technology is demonstrated at lab scale (30 kWth) and pilot scale (800 kWth). A 12 MWth demonstration plant is under preparation in close cooperation with the HVC Group who plan to act as launching customer
Content may be subject to copyright.
LARGE SCALE PRODUCTION OF
BIO METHANE FROM WOOD
C.M. van der Meijden, L.P.L.M. Rabou, A. Van der Drift,
B.J. Vreugdenhil & R. Smit
Presented at the International Gas Union Research Conference IGRC, Seoul, South Korea
(Conference 19-21 October 2011)
ECN-M--11-098
OCTOBER 2011
ECN-M--11-098 2
3 ECN-M--11-098
ABSTRACT
An increasing number of countries is setting objectives and obligations to replace part of their fossil
natural gas consumptions by bio-methane to reduce CO2 emissions. The production of bio-methane
via digestion has been developed and is implemented on a small scale. The limited amount of
suitable digestible feedstock demands for development of a technology which can convert a wider
range of biomass fuels, such as wood into bio-methane. Gasification is such a route.
Gasification technology offers the possibility to convert lignocellulosic biomass (e.g. residual wood)
into a combustible gas. This gas can be converted into natural gas quality gas (bio-methane) by
catalytic processes.
Bio-fuels such as bio-methane produced from biomass have the potential to become a CO2 negative
fuel, because part of the biomass carbon is separated as CO2 during the production process. If this
pure CO2 stream is sequestrated, these bio-fuels become even CO2 negative. This might be an
attractive option for reducing the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Several bio-methane demonstration projects are underway based on thermal gasification of woody
biomass. The most well known is the 20 MWth GoBiGas project in Gothenburg by Göteborg Energi
and E.ON.
ECN (Energy research Centre of the Netherlands) has developed an alternative gasification process
(MILENA), optimized for the production of bio-methane. This system has an overall efficiency of 70%
from wood to bio-methane. The technology is demonstrated at lab scale (30 kWth) and pilot scale (800
kWth). A 12 MWth demonstration plant is under preparation in close cooperation with the HVC Group
who plan to act as launching customer.
ECN-M--11-098 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 5
2. BIO-METHANE PRODUCTION BY GASIFICATION....................................................................... 7
3. BIOMASS GASIFICATION .............................................................................................................. 8
4. MILENA BIO-METHANE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................... 11
5. BIO-METHANE DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS ......................................................................... 15
6. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................. 16
7. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 16
5 ECN-M--11-098
1. INTRODUCTION
Energy is one of the essential ingredients of modern society. Nowadays energy comes for the greater
part from fossil fuels like oil, natural gas and coal. The proven fossil fuel reserves are declining in
most parts of the world. This demands for the development of sustainable alternative energy sources.
On top of the problem of securing the supply, the combustion of fossil fuels produces CO2, which
contributes to global warming. CO2 emissions from fossil fuels can, to some extent, be countered by
sequestration of CO2. This CO2 sequestration, however, lowers overall efficiency significantly,
resulting in a higher consumption of fossil fuels per unit of energy delivered and consequently a faster
decline of fossil fuels reserves.
Sustainable alternatives like wind, solar or biomass energy are required to replace the declining
production of fossil fuels without increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Energy from
biomass is a good addition to wind and solar energy, because of its continuous availability whereas
wind energy and solar energy are intermittent energy sources.
Natural gas plays an important role as an energy source worldwide. Natural gas is a relatively clean
primary energy carrier and is therefore often the fuel of choice in many regions of the world.
Replacing part of natural gas by Bio-Methane, produced from a sustainable primary energy source,
with the same properties as natural gas facilitates the implementation of sustainable energy since
natural gas grids are widespread in many countries.
A Substitute Natural Gas can be produced from biomass (Bio-SNG or Bio-Methane) with a high
efficiency and with low emissions from the plant itself (comparable with modern power plants).
Biomass transport can be limited by locating the Bio-Methane production facility where the biomass is
collected, but this limits the size of the installation. Large scale installations would benefit from a
location next to harbors.
The use of biomass for energy production
Biomass energy is expected to make a major contribution to the replacement of fossil fuels.
Worldwide primary energy consumption was 12.000 million tonnes oil equivalent in 2010 [1]. This
corresponds to approximately 500 EJ per year. The future world-wide available amount of biomass for
energy is estimated to be 200 to 500 EJ per year, based on an evaluation of biomass availability
studies [2].
Biomass for the production of energy is controversial for several reasons. Corn is used on a large
scale to produce ethanol to replace fossil gasoline. Palm oil is used to produce biodiesel. This
resulted in the fuel versus food discussion. Large areas of rainforest have been cut down in Malaysia
to create space for palm oil production. On top of this, some production processes for Bio-fuels
require a large (fossil) energy input for logistic reasons and to upgrade the fuel to an acceptable
quality. A well know example is the distillation of the water ethanol mixture to produce fuel quality
ethanol. Some fast growing biomasses require nitrogen fertilizers, which are normally produced from
natural gas. This has a negative effect on the overall CO2 balance of the Bio-fuel. To deal with these
issues Sustainability Criteria were introduced. These criteria include issues like the greenhouse gas
balance, competition with food, biodiversity and local environmental issues. Woody biomass performs
very well on these criteria, especially when the wood is converted into a low carbon fuel like methane.
ECN-M--11-098 6
CO2 balance of Bio-SNG
Biomass is considered a CO2 neutral fuel, because the amount of CO2 released on burning biomass
equals the amount taken from the atmosphere during growth of the biomass. Fuels like hydrogen,
methane, Fischer Tropsch (FT) diesel and methanol produced from biomass have the potential to
become a CO2 negative fuel, because part of the biomass carbon is separated as CO2 during the
production process and can be sequestrated. This might be an attractive option for reducing the level
of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Figure 1 shows an indicative overall CO2 balance, including emissions from harvesting and transport,
for a Bio-Methane production facility based on gasification as described is this paper.
Gasification +
upgrading
CO2 balance
CO2
250
Bio-fuel
Bio-SNG
Photosynthesis
CO2
30
CO2
50
CO2
100
100 CO2
wood
CO2
70
Fossil oil
30
Figure 1: Indicative CO2 balance for Bio-SNG system based on MILENA gasification.
If the pure CO2 stream that is available from the Bio-Methane production process is not vented into
the atmosphere but sequestrated in an empty gas field or used for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR), the
net CO2 emissions become negative (-70% or a reduction of 170% compared to using conventional
natural gas). Without CO2 sequestration the CO2 reduction of Bio-Methane is approximately 70%
compared to natural gas.
Bio-Methane production pathways
There are two main options to produce Bio-Methane from biomass:
1. Anaerobic digestion (biological conversion at low temperature).
2. Gasification (thermo chemical conversion at high temperature).
7 ECN-M--11-098
Anaerobic digestion is a process carried out by bacteria. The bacteria grow by converting organic
matter into biogas (mainly CH4 and CO2). Biogas production is a proven technology. In 2007 more
than 3500 anaerobic digesters were in operation in Germany [3].
Most of the present biogas production comes from landfills and waste water treatment plants. The
biogas production from landfills is in decline, due to the ban on depositing organic material, whereas
the number of dedicated co-digestion plants using manure and food wastes is increasing. Biogas can
be used in a gas engine for electricity and heat production but can also be upgraded to natural gas
grid quality by removal of CO2, gas cleaning (sulfur removal) and compression. Biogas plant are
normally relatively small, because of the local availability of the (wet) feedstock.
Gasification of biomass is less limited by biomass supply compared to digestion, because a wider
range of biomass fuels are suitable to be used as feedstock and the amounts available are larger.
Bio-Methane production by digestion and gasification are not competing processes, because the type
of feedstocks are different.
The Energy research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN) decided almost ten years ago that the
production of Bio-Methane by gasification is an attractive option to develop and started the
development of the MILENA gasification technology that is optimized for large scale production of Bio-
Methane from (woody) biomass.
2. BIO-METHANE PRODUCTION BY GASIFICATION
The process
Figure 2 shows the process layout for the production of Bio-Methane from biomass by gasification.
The overall Bio-Methane production process uses the following production steps:
1) A gasifier where solid biomass is converted into a producer gas.
2) Gas cooling and tar removal.
3) Gas cleaning where the pollutants are removed from the producer gas.
4) Catalytic conversion of producer gas into CH4, CO2 and H2O.
5) An upgrading step where water and CO2 are removed and the gas is compressed.
In the gasifier the solid biomass (e.g. wood) is converted, at high temperature, into a combustible gas
containing mainly CO, CO2, H2, H2O, CH4, C2H4 and C6H6, but also pollutants like dust (ash), tar,
Figure 2: simplified process scheme for production of Bio-Methane by gasification.
Gasifier
(850°C)
Cooler +
dust / tar
removal
S + Cl
removal
Methanation
250-500°C
CO2 + H2O
removal
Biomass
Ash
Tar recycle
S + Cl
CO2 + H2O
Bio-Methane
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
ECN-M--11-098 8
chloride, sulfur, etc. After cooling of the gas tars and dust are removed in the primary gas cleaning.
Sulfur and chlorides are removed to below ppm level to protect the catalysts used for the
methanation. Methanation of the gas is usually done in catalytic reactors using nickel catalysts. The
cleaned gas is converted into a mixture of CH4 (and possibly C2H6), H2O and CO2. After removal of
CO2 and H2O and compression of the gas to the desired pressure, the gas can be injected in the gas
grid or can be converted to LNG.
3. BIOMASS GASIFICATION
The term gasification is applied to processes which convert solid or liquid fuels into a combustible gas
at high temperature. The heat required for the heating of the fuel and to energize the endothermic
gasification reactions is supplied by the combustion of part of the fuel (Direct gasification) or is
supplied from an external source (Indirect or Allothermal gasification).
Types of gasifiers
Gasifiers can be divided into high temperature gasifiers (typical 1300 1500°C) which produce a
syngas and medium temperature gasifiers (typical 850°C) which produce a producer gas. Syngas
contains almost no hydrocarbons like methane. Entrained Flow gasifiers are the most common
example of high temperature gasifiers. Entrained Flow gasifiers are developed to produce syngas
from coal and oil residues. Gas coming from medium temperature gasifiers contains on energy basis
up to 50% of hydrocarbons (mainly CH4, C2H4 and C6H6). The producer gas from medium
temperature gasifiers also contains some tars. Tars are heavy hydrocarbons, which can cause fouling
problems when the gas is cooled. Producer gas also contains several other pollutants like H2S, COS,
thiophenes, NH3, HCl, HCN and dust which need to be removed before application of the gas.
For processes like the synthesis of Fischer Tropsch Diesel or methanol the presence of large
quantities of hydrocarbons is unwanted, because only CO and H2 (and probably C2H4 in the case of
Fischer Tropsch synthesis) are converted into the desired product. While heavy hydrocarbons cause
fouling, other hydrocarbons can have negative effects on the downstream catalytic process due to the
risk of deactivation. For the production of SNG the presence of hydrocarbons is an advantage,
because most of the hydrocarbons are present as CH4 and the other hydrocarbons can be converted
into methane with a higher efficiency than the conversion of syngas into CH4. Hence, medium
temperature gasification is the more logical choice for production of Bio-Methane.
The medium temperature gasifiers can be divided in fixed bed down-draft gasifiers and fluidized bed
gasifiers. Down draft bed gasifiers are widely used to generate gas for gas engines. The advantage of
this type of gasifier is its simplicity and low investment cost. Down-draft gasifiers require a well defined
fuel to keep the bed of fuel particles flowing nicely downwards. Scale-up is limited to typically below 1
MWth biomass input. The conversion of the fuel is limited.
Fluidized bed gasifiers can handle a wide variety of fuels. This technology is the more logical choice
for large scale applications such as the production of Bio-Methane. Fluidized Bed gasifiers can be
divided into three main categories: Bubbling Fluidized Bed (BFB), Circulating Fluidized Bed (CFB)
and Indirect or Allothermal twin bed concepts. All Fluidized Bed gasifiers use a bed material. That can
be ordinary sand, the ash from the fuel or a catalytically active bed material like dolomite or olivine.
The purpose of the bed material is to distribute and transport the heat in the gasifier which prevents
local hot spots, mix the fuel with the gasification gas and the produced gases and, in the case of a
catalytically active material, reduce the concentration of tars. Figure 3 shows the basic principles and
differences of three types of Fluidized Bed gasifiers.
9 ECN-M--11-098
Figure 3: Schematic comparison of BFB, CFB and Indirect gasification
In a BFB gasifier the fuel is normally fed in or above the fluidized bed. The bed material is fluidized by
a gas (air or an oxygen steam mixture) entering the gasifier through nozzles distributed over the
bottom of the reactor. The air is used in the bed to combust part of the gas and/or the char to produce
the heat required for heating the biomass and the endothermic gasification processes. The typical
gas velocity in this gasifier is 1 m/s.
At higher gas velocities, the bed material gets entrained and a circulation of the bed material is
required. This type of gasifiers is called Circulating Fluidized Bed (CFB) gasifiers. Typical velocity in
the gasifier is between 3 and 10 m/s. The entrained bed material and the not completely converted
fuel particles (char) are removed from the produced gas by a cyclone or another separation device.
The particles are normally returned to the bottom of the gasifier.
Separating the gasification of the biomass and the combustion of the remaining char leads to the
Indirect or Allothermal gasification process as shown in the right part of Figure 3. The biomass fed to
the „gasifier‟ is converted into a gas and char. The heat required for the heating of the biomass comes
from the combustion reactor. This heat is transported by the circulating bed material. Char and bed
material are separated from the gas by a solid gas separation device (e.g. a cyclone). The produced
gas exits the gasifier to the gas cleaning. The char and bed material are fed to the combustion
reactor. The char is combusted to produce the required heat for the gasification reactor. The heated
bed material is returned to the gasifier reactor again. The fuel conversion in indirect gasifiers is higher
than in CFB or BFB gasifiers (direct gasifiers) because all the char is combusted. The remaining ash
contains virtually no carbon, which benefits the overall efficiency of the process.
For the production of Bio-Methane a producer gas with a low nitrogen content (< 2 vol%) is required,
because the nitrogen ends up in the Bio-Methane. All commercial BFB and CFB biomass gasifiers
use air as gasification agent. This results in a producer gas containing approximately 50 vol% of
nitrogen. Dilution of the producer gas with nitrogen can be prevented by replacing the gasification air
with a mixture of steam and oxygen. Oxygen can be produced by an Air Separation Unit (ASU), but
investment cost and energy consumption are relatively high. Experience with oxygen steam blown
fluidized bed gasification is limited, no commercial size units are in operation at the moment. Indirect
Air / O2+H2O
Biomass
Air /O2+H2O
Biomass
Biomass
Air
H2O
Producer
gas
Producer
gas
Producer
gas
Flue
gas
BFB
CFB
INDIRECT
850°C
850°C
850°C
900°C
ECN-M--11-098 10
gasifiers produce a gas that contains no or very limited amount of nitrogen, because no air is added
to the gasification process.
Most suitable gasification technology for Bio-Methane production
ECN made a comparison between the different biomass gasification technologies to determine which
one is most promising for the production of Bio-Methane [4]. Overall efficiency is seen as one of the
most important criteria. Figure 4 shows the calculated overall efficiencies for the different biomass
gasification technologies. The compared technologies are:
1. Pressurized Entrained Flow (EF) in combination with fuel pre-treatment (torrefaction)
2. Pressurized steam / oxygen blown Circulating Fluidized Bed (CFB)
3. Atmospheric indirect (or allothermal) gasification.
The shown gross efficiencies exclude electricity consumption / production. The net efficiencies include
the production of consumption of electricity. Because of the significant differences in overall
efficiencies to SNG for the different gasifiers, ECN decided to select the Indirect (Allothermal)
gasification as the preferred technology for the production of SNG. The ECN MILENA technology is
an Indirect biomass gasifier. Pressurization of the indirect gasifier will further improve efficiency.
Future development will focus on increasing the operation pressure of the MILENA gasifier.
Figure 4: Gross efficiency to SNG and net efficiency to SNG and electricity.
4. ECONOMICS
A pre-design was made for an economical evaluation of the Bio-Methane production process. As with
almost all bio-energy processes costs are mainly determined by the biomass costs, in particular at
larger scales [5]. Therefore Bio-Methane production costs are calculated for biomass prices of 0 and 2
52.7
63.5
70.3
53.2
64.1
70.9
54.3
58.1
66.8
54.7
59.2
67.8
50
55
60
65
70
75
EF Torrefaction 30 bar CFB oxygen 10 bar Allothermal 1 bar
Efficiency to SNG [%]
LHV (gross)
HHV (gross)
LHV (net)
HHV (net)
11 ECN-M--11-098
€/GJth (e.g. locally available biomass) as well as of 4 and 6 €/GJth (e.g. biomass delivered at the gate
of larger power plants). Figure 5 shows the calculated productions costs for a 1000 MWth biomass
input installation which produces 0.8 bcm / year of Bio-Methane. The Total Capital Investment for
such a plant is estimated to be 500 million €.
Figure 5: Production costs for Bio-Methane.
As can be seen from the figure the production costs for Bio-Methane are higher than for fossil natural
gas (assumed natural gas price of 6 €/GJ or ±6 €/MMBTU) when no subsidies or CO2 credits are
taken into account. The cost for Bio-Methane decreases at larger scale, because the investments
costs for the Bio-Methane production plant are strongly reduced on MWth basis when the technology
is scaled up. Because of the urgent need of reducing CO2 emissions and replacing declining fossil
fuels reserves it is to be expected that local governments will continue the incentives that were
introduced to promote sustainable energy. Bio-Methane can easily compete with other sustainable
alternatives like Bio-diesel and Bio-ethanol.
5. MILENA BIO-METHANE DEVELOPMENT
MILENA gasifier and OLGA gas cleaning
The MILENA [6] is an Indirect (or Allothermal) gasifier, it contains separate sections for gasification
and combustion. Figure 6 shows a simplified scheme of the MILENA Bio-Methane process. If the
moisture content of the biomass is too high (>30 wt% moisture) the biomass needs to be dried to
approximately 25 wt% moisture. Residual heat can be used to dry the biomass, this increases overall
efficiency.
The gasification section consists of three parts: riser, settling chamber and downcomer. The
combustion section contains two parts, the bubbling fluidized bed combustor and the sand transport
zone. The arrows in the figure represent the circulating bed material. The processes in the gasification
section will be explained first.
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Scale Bio-Methane Plant MWth on input basis
Costs €/GJ
SNG production cost (biomass 0€/GJ) SNG production cost (biomass 2€/GJ)
SNG production cost (biomass 4€/GJ) SNG production cost (biomass 6€/GJ)
Commodity price natural gas Compressed Natural Gas
Biogas(with Dutch subsidies) Biogas(with Dutch subsidies)
Biodiesel
ECN-M--11-098 12
Biomass (e.g. wood) is fed into the riser. A small amount of superheated steam is added from below.
Hot bed material (typically 925°C sand) enters the riser from the combustor through a hole in the riser
(opposite and just above the biomass feeding point). The bed material heats the biomass to 850°C.
The heated biomass particles are converted into gas, tar and char. The volume created by the gas
from the biomass results in a vertical velocity of approximately 6 m/s, creating a “turbulent fluidization”
regime in the riser and carrying over of the bed material together with the degasified biomass particles
(char). The vertical velocity of the gas is reduced in the settling chamber, causing the larger solids
(bed material and char) to separate from the gas and fall down into the downcomer. The producer gas
leaves the reactor from the top and is sent to the cooling and gas cleaning section. Typical residence
time of the gas is several seconds.
The combustor operates as a bubbling fluidized bed (BFB). The downcomer transports bed material
and char from the gasification section into the combustor. Tar and dust, separated from the producer
gas, are also returned to the combustor. Char, tar and dust are burned with air to heat the bed
material to approximately 925°C. Flue gas leaves the reactor to be cooled, de-dusted and emitted.
The heated bed material leaves the bottom of the combustor through a hole into the riser. No
additional heat input is required; all heat required for the gasification process is produced by the
combustion of the char, tar and dust in the combustor.
The flue gas leaving the MILENA installation is cooled down to approximately 100°C and is cleaned in
a bag house filter. If clean wood is used as a fuel no additional flue gas cleaning is required.
Figure 6: Simplified scheme of MILENA Bio-Methane configuration.
The hot producer gas from the gasifier contains several contaminants such as dust, tar, chloride and
sulfur, which have to be removed or lowered in concentration before the gas can be used. All
fluidized bed gasifiers produce gas which contains some tar. Tar compounds condense when the gas
is cooled, which makes the gas very difficult to handle, especially in combination with dust. The
producer gas is cooled in a heat exchanger, designed to treat gas which contains tar and dust. The
heat is used to pre-heat combustion air. Tar and dust are removed from the gas in the OLGA gas
cleaning section [7]. Tar removal is an essential process step. ECN spent many years in testing /
Biomass
Hot air
850°C
400°C
100°C
40°C
900°C
Gasifier
Tar removal
Cl & S removal
CO2 removal
Dryer
Flue gas to
stack
Steam
Air
Tar + dust
White ash
Bio SNG
Water
Water
Pre-reformer
Methanation
Producer Gas
CO2
13 ECN-M--11-098
developing different tar removal concepts, before the OLGA system was developed [8]. The OLGA
process is now commercially available from Dahlman (www.dahlman.nl). The OLGA gas cleaning
technology is based on scrubbing with liquid oil. Dust and tar removed from the producer gas are sent
to the combustor of the MILENA gasifier.
The partially cleaned producer gas, containing mainly CO, CO2, H2, H2O CH4, C2H4, C6H6 and low
concentrations of sulfur and chloride species can be used in gas engines. For further catalytic
upgrading into Bio-Methane deep removal of sulfur and chloride species is required. Several options
are available for sulfur and chloride removal. The final steps normally consist of adsorbents such as
ZnO for removal sulfur down to ppb level.
Methanation of the gas is done in catalytic reactors using nickel catalysts. The configuration shown in
the figure assumes a pre-reforming step prior to the methanation step. In the pre-reforming step the
higher hydrocarbons (e.g. benzene) are converted into a mixture of CH4, CO, CO2, H2O and H2.
Conversion of the higher hydrocarbons makes the removal of CO2 and the compression easier. After
CO2 and H2O removal the gas is converted into Bio-Methane. The configuration of the methanation
unit is still under discussion. The different suppliers of methanation technology prefer different
configurations. The configuration shown here is the basis of the experimental setup at ECN.
Overall energetic efficiency of the configuration shown here is expected to be around 70%.
Experimental facilities and results
ECN produced the first Bio-Methane in 2004, using a conventional fluidized bed gasifier. The lab-
scale MILENA gasifier was built in 2004. The installation is capable of producing approximately 8
Nm3/h methane-rich medium calorific value gas with high efficiency. The following biomass fuels were
successfully tested: wood, sewage sludge and lignite. The lab-scale gasifier is coupled to lab-scale
gas cleaning installations (including OLGA) and a methanation unit. The lab-scale gasifier and
connected gas cleaning have been operated successfully during several 100 and 200 hour duration
tests. Testing of different process conditions and catalysts is an ongoing activity. Figure 7 shows an
example of the measured gas composition after the lab-scale methanation test rig (without CO2
removal).
Figure 7: Gas composition before CO2 removal.
0
10
20
30
40
50
012 24 36 48 60 72 84
Time [hours]
Concentration [%]
CH4
CO2
H2
CO x10
ECN-M--11-098 14
A pilot scale MILENA gasification unit of 160 kg/hour (800 kWth) was taken into operation in the
summer of 2008. Figure 8 shows the MILENA and OLGA pilot plant. The plant has been used
extensively to generate engineering data for the Bio-Methane demonstration plant. Different woody
fuels were tested. Adaptations were made to solve initial problems with the design. A 250 hour test
was done in 2010 using demolition wood.
Figure 8: Pilot-scale MILENA gasifier (left) and installation of the OLGA pilot-scale gas cleaning
(right).
Results from lab-scale and pilot scale tests were used to design commercial size Bio-Methane
installations. Table I shows the calculated gas compositions when (residual) wood with 25% moisture
is converted in the MILENA gasifier into producer gas and the producer gas is catalytically converted
into Bio-Methane. Exact specifications for injection of the gas in the grid varies per region. In most
cases the gas composition can be adapted to meet the specification. The allowable H2 content in the
Bio-Methane is still a topic of discussion. The hydrogen content can be lowered by adapting the
process conditions or removal of the hydrogen.
CO
[vol.%]
0.0
H2
[vol.%]
1.2
CO2
[vol.%]
0.4
O2
[vol.%]
0.0
CH4
[vol.%]
93.4
N2
[vol.%]
4.6
LHV
[MJ/nm3]
33.7
HHV
[MJ/nm3]
37.4
Overall efficiency (LHV) basis
[%]
68.3
Table I: Calculated gas composition and heating values of Bio-Methane produced by gasification.
15 ECN-M--11-098
6. BIO-METHANE DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
In Europe several Bio-Methane demonstrations projects using gasification technology are under
development. All of these projects use low temperature fluidized bed gasification technology.
SNG Demonstration in Güssing
For the complete value chain demonstration from woody biomass to SNG a 1 MW SNG
demonstration plant was built and operated in Güssing, Austria by a Swiss-Austrian consortium. The
methanation unit was developed by the Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI) and CTU. The methanation unit
was fed with producer gas from the Indirect FICFB gasifier in Güssing.
The GoBiGas project
The Gothenburg Biomass Gasification Project (GoBiGas) will be built by Göteborg Energi and E.ON.
The gasification plant is scheduled to be built in two stages, the first stage (about 20 MW of gas) to be
built during 2010-2012 and to be operational in 2013. The second stage (about 80 MW gas) will be
built when the first plant is successfully in operation.
HVC Bio-Methane demonstration plant
The Bio-Methane demonstration plant (in Dutch: Groen Gas Centrale) will be built by a consortium
consisting of HVC, ECN, Dahlman and several other companies interested in Bio-Methane. HVC
Group (situated in Alkmaar, North Holland) is a modern public service waste and energy company.
HVC converts waste streams which cannot be recycled into usable forms of energy. HVC has a large
fluidized bed waste wood boiler in operation, which produces heat and electricity. HVC expects an
important role for Bio-Methane in the future. HVC plans to supply the produced Bio-Methane to its
clients. HVC is also involved in several projects converting biogas from anaerobic digestion plants into
gas grid quality Bio-Methane. ECN is a research institute, and is responsible for the development of
the MILENA gasification technology and the OLGA tar removal technology. Dahlman
(www.dahlman.nl) is the commercial supplier of the OLGA gas cleaning technology and is responsible
for the basic engineering of the integrated MILENA OLGA plant. The technology supplier for the
methanation unit is not selected yet. Several commercial companies have expressed that they can
convert the cleaned gas into methane.
Discussion with several other large commercial companies are ongoing to join the consortium to
realize the demonstration plant. The demonstration plant will be part of the Biomass Gasification
Expert Centre and will include facilities to test new conversion technologies. Changes in the plans,
extension of the consortium and a possible change in location have delayed the project somewhat.
Construction of the demo plant is now scheduled for 2013. Figure 9 shows the MILENA gasifier as
designed for the demonstration plant in Alkmaar. The capacity of the plant will be 12 MWth biomass
input. Expected output of Bio-Methane is 0.01 bcm/year. The next step will be a plant of
approximately 50 MWth (0.04 bcm/year). The scale foreseen for a commercial single-train Bio-
Methane production facility is between 50 and 500 MWth (0.04 0.4 bcm/year).
ECN-M--11-098 16
Figure 9: MILENA 12 MWth gasifier.
7. CONCLUSIONS
Production of Bio-Methane by gasification of woody biomass is an attractive option to replace fossil
fuels and reduce CO2 emissions. In combination with CO2 sequestration net CO2 emissions can even
become negative.
Bio-Methane is a good addition to other sources of renewable energy like wind and solar energy,
because of its continuous availability whereas wind energy and solar energy are intermitting forms of
energy. Bio-Methane can easily be stored and used for additional electricity production when the
other renewable sources are not available.
Bio-Methane can be used in the transport sector as CNG. The price of Bio-Methane is higher than of
natural gas, but can easily compete with the other bio-fuels like Bio-Diesel and Bio-Ethanol.
Overall efficiency from wood to Bio-Methane can be as high as 70% when the MILENA technology is
used to gasify the biomass.
The development of the Bio-Methane production technology by gasification is on schedule. Lab-scale
and pilot-scale testing has been done. A demonstration project in Alkmaar (the Netherlands) on a
scale of 12 MWth (approx. 0.01 bcm/year) is under development. Scheduled start of construction is
2013.
8. REFERENCES
1. BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2011.
2. Dornburg, V., Faaij, A., Verweij, P., Langeveld, H., van de Ven, G., Wester, F., et al., 2007.
Biomass Assessment: Global biomass potentials and their links to food, water, biodiversity,
energy demand and economy, main report (climate change scientific assessment and policy
analysis), Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP), WAB secretariat (ipc 90),
P.O. Box 303, 3720 AH Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
3. Beurskens, LW.M., Mozaffarian, M., Lescot, D., Tuille, F.F.G., 2009. The State of Renewable
Energies in Europe, Petten, The Netherlands, ECN, ECN-O--09-011.
17 ECN-M--11-098
4. van der Meijden, C.M., Veringa, H.J., Rabou, L.P.L., 2009. The production of synthetic natural
gas (SNG): A comparison of three wood gasification systems for energy balance and overall
efficiency. Biomass & Bioenergy 34.
5. Zwart, R.W.R., Boerrigter, H., Deurwaarder, E.P., van der Meijden, C.M., van Paasen, S.V.B.,
2006. Production of Synthetic Natural Gas (SNG) from biomass; development and operation of
an integrated bio-SNG system; non-confidential version, ECN, Petten, The Netherlands, ECN-
E-06-018.
6. van der Meijden, C.M., 2010. Development of the MILENA gasification technology for the
production of Bio-SNG. Thesis, TU Eindhoven.
7. Boerrigter, H., van Paasen, S.V.B., Bergman, P.C.A., Könemann, J.W., Emmen, R., Wijnands,
A., 2005. OLGA tar removal technology, Petten, The Netherlands, ECN, ECN-C--05-009.
8. Rabou, L.P.L.M., Zwart, R.W.R., Vreugdenhil, B.J., Bos, A., 2009. Tar in Biomass Producer
Gas, the Energy research Centre of The Netherlands (ECN) Experience: An Enduring
Challenge. Energy and Fuels 23.
... This policy would then set the stage for the second stage route to renewable ethylene production using gasification of woody biomass, with the greater long term feedstock potential. 37 An emerging technology with successful pilot plants elsewhere, biomass gasification, with the right catalysts and additional of sufficient renewable hydrogen, can be used to produce different mixtures of methane, methanol, ethanol or ethylene ...
... Given the very large potential usable biomass of Canada, we would like to highlight the fact the forestry, pulp and paper and packaging sectors potentially sit at the nexus of a transformative approach to biomass for the whole Canadian energy economy. Woody biomass gasification, where wood fibre or grasses are chopped up and heated to roughly 850°C, produces a range of usable biomass based hydrocarbons (CO CO2, H2, H2O, CH4, C2H4 & C6H6) 37 . These are the key hydrocarbons needed to produce methane, methanol, ethanol, ethylene, aviation kerosene, and other hydrocarbon products. ...
... • Zero GHG hydrogen from electrolysis (commercial with a sufficiently high carbon price) 8,36,59 • CO2 from woody biomass gasification (emerging) 37 • Biological production via ethylene forming enzymes (research) ...
Technical Report
Full-text available
The transition toward very low carbon heavy industry in the Canadian context: Detailed technical and policy analysis and recommendations for the iron & steel, chemicals, forestry products & packaging, and base metal mining & processing sectors. Phase II of the Canadian Heavy Industry Deep Decarbonization Project
... This "syngas" can be combusted for heat or power [18]. Alternatively, syngas can be used as an intermediate product to manufacture a range of final products, including bio-synthetic natural gas (bioSNG) [19,20], biohydrogen [21,22], liquid fuels and value chemicals [16,18]. The focus of the current work is the production of bioSNG (with the potential for biohydrogen also discussed). ...
... The technology is more easily pressurised, which can decrease the volume of equipment required and it is therefore more suitable for high capacities [24], which can be important in lowering costs [32]. The additional requirement for oxygen is an additional cost however [19] Zinn and Thunman [15] conclude that of these two technologies the best choice will be dependent on the experience and belief of the supplier and customer, with arguments for each technology. Heyne [24] found that both direct and indirect technologies performed equally well. ...
Article
Full-text available
The growth of energy crops on contaminated land offers two potential advantages over their growth on agricultural land. Firstly, it can clean the land of contaminants, remediating it for future development or agricultural use. Secondly by growing energy crops on such land there is no conflict with land that is suitable for other uses (primarily agriculture). This study examines the opportunity to grow willow on contaminated land and to use this crop to produce bio-synthetic-natural-gas via the gasification processing route. The impact on the gasification system of using the contaminated materials as a feedstock is examined. A process that utilises a steam and oxygen blown gasifier with a plasma gas cleaning step and subsequent syngas cleaning is found most effective. An economic analysis of the process is undertaken to assess the viability of the opportunity. The results show that the costs associated with using the system to remediate land are lower than conventional alternatives, but require forward temporal planning which is not often evident or possible. Cost viability, if considered only for energy production, depends on the feedstock selling for a significantly lower price than virgin feedstock (in many cases requiring a gate fee), alongside a combination of strong policy incentives, natural gas prices and a long-term demand for gas products. For a 20 MW output system the feedstock would require a gate fee of £30 or £70 per tonne (depending on the policy support claimed), whilst for a 50 MW system a £25 gate fee or £30 cost per tonne are needed. Larger gasifiers are more economically viable, but provision of material grown from contaminated land would be unlikely to fulfil demand. Therefore, coupling systems with waste material as a feedstock is beneficial, but has resultant policy implications as current financial incentives are different for such materials.
... d Data for anaerobic digestion or fermentation for the production of methane, methanol, and ethanol(De Luna et al., 2019). e Data for woody biomass gasification(Li et al., 2019;Meijden, van der Rabou, Vreugdenhil, & Smit, 2011). f Data on direct air capture of CO 2 ...
Article
Full-text available
Several recent studies have identified emerging and near‐commercial process and technological options to transition heavy industry to global net‐zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by mid‐century, as required by the Paris Agreement. To reduce industrial emissions with sufficient speed to meet the Paris goals, this review article argues for the rapid formation of regional and sectoral transition plans, implemented through comprehensive policy packages. These policy packages, which will differ by country, sector, and level of development, must reflect regional capacities, politics, resources, and other key circumstances, and be informed and accepted by the stakeholders who must implement the transition. These packages will likely include a mix of the following mutually reinforcing strategies: reducing and substituting the demand for GHG intense materials (i.e., material efficiency) while raising the quantity and quality of recycling through intentional design and regulation; removal of energy subsidies combined with carbon pricing with competitiveness protection; research and development support for decarbonized production technologies followed by lead markets and subsidized prices during early stage commercialization; sunset policies for older high carbon facilities; electricity, hydrogen and carbon capture, and storage infrastructure planning and support; and finally, supporting institutions, including for a “just workforce & community transition” and monitoring and adjustment of policy effectiveness. Given the paucity of industrial decarbonization perspectives available for in‐transition and less‐developed countries, the review finishes with a discussion of priorities and responsibilities for developed, in‐transition and less developed countries. This article is categorized under: Climate Economics > Economics of Mitigation Climate and Development > Decoupling Emissions from Development
... Woody energy crops are preferred in this study as there is experience and demonstrated potential in the selected countries, 41,42 and also because their suitability for gasification compared to other biomass types such as grasses. 69 There are other potential biomass production regions such as Canada or Scandinavia. While western Canada is an interesting prospect, the long-distance transport distances (>16 500 km) 70 are comparable to Brazil (9700 km). ...
Article
Full-text available
Synthetic natural gas (SNG) derived from biomass gasification is a potential transport fuel and natural gas substitute. Using the Netherlands as a case study, this paper evaluates the most economic and environmentally optimal supply chain for the production of biomass based SNG (so‐called bio‐SNG) for different biomass production regions and location of final conversion facilities, with final delivery of compressed natural gas at refueling stations servicing the transport sector. At a scale of 100 MWth, in, delivered bioSNG costs range from 18.6 to 25.9/GJdeliveredCNGwhileenergyefficiencyrangesfrom46.861.9/GJdelivered CNG while energy efficiency ranges from 46.8–61.9%. If production capacities are scaled up to 1000 MWth, in, SNG costs decrease by about 30% to 12.6–17.4 GJdelivered CNG⁻¹. BioSNG production in Ukraine and transportation of the gas by pipeline to the Netherlands results in the lowest delivered cost in all cases and the highest energy efficiency pathway (61.9%). This is mainly due to low pipeline transport costs and energy losses compared to long‐distance Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) transport. However, synthetic natural gas production from torrefied pellets (TOPs) results in the lowest GHG emissions (17 kg CO2e GJCNG⁻¹) while the Ukraine routes results in 25 kg CO2e GJCNG⁻¹. Production costs at 100 MWth are higher than the current natural gas price range, but lower than the oil prices and biodiesel prices. BioSNG costs could converge with natural gas market prices in the coming decades, estimated to be 18.2$ GJ⁻¹. At 1000 MWth, bioSNG becomes competitive with natural gas (especially if attractive CO2 prices are considered) and very competitive with oil and biodiesel. It is clear that scaling of SNG production to the GWth scale is key to cost reduction and could result in competitive SNG costs. For regions like Brazil, it is more cost‐effective to densify biomass into pellets or TOPS and undertake final conversion near the import harbor. © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
Chapter
Full-text available
The quest for a sustainable future for transport-fuels has led to the consideration of advanced methods of admixing fossil fuels without compromising their qualities; this is aimed at improving/complementing the properties of these fuels for high engine performance. Owing to the high abundance of biomass from which alternative fuels can be sourced for blending or improving the properties of conventional gasoline and diesel fuels, it has become pertinent to consider their use as complementary fuels towards ensuring high sustainability of the fuels as transport-fuels. The synergistic effects offered by these fuels helps to improve the properties of the fuels better than the individual components that make up the fuel mix. Hybrid gasoline-biofuel fuels offer these improved properties as a result of the complementary effects of either or both components offer in the hybrid fuels such that there is a boost in the fuel’s combustion potential owing to the degree of homogenization attained during blending. Furthermore, despite ensuring high compatibility of the individual fuels that make up the biofuel-diesel fuel mix, it is also pertinent to emphasize the need to obtain an optimum blend of the dual fuel system for the engine performance because, for specific dual fuel systems, beyond the optimum mixture composition, the performance of the engine begins to wane owing to the alteration in the properties of the fuel mix beyond favorable conditions for complete/near complete combustion of the fuels. Therefore, in this chapter, the properties of different dual fuel systems will be discussed alongside the degree of homogenization that can improve the atomization/combustion potential of the fuels towards attaining high engine BTEs, high engine power, moderate heat release rates as well as good air–fuel ratios.
Article
Full-text available
China encounters heavy air pollution caused by coal consumption. China and the EU aim to decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Shifting to biogas from residues contributes to solving both problems. This study assesses China's biogas potentials and related water footprints (WFs) and compares results with potentials and WFs for the EU. Starting from a literature review on EU biogas potentials, it analyzes information resulting in a calculation methodology, its validation and application to China. Finally, it estimates WFs and makes a comparative assessment of biogas potentials of the EU and China. In the EU, biogas from agricultural, forestry and other residues might contribute 8% (5300 PJ) to primary energy consumption, in China 10% (13,275 PJ.) In the EU, agriculture contributes 41%, forestry 26%, other residues 23%, and manure 10%. The corresponding results for China are agriculture (67%), forestry (23%), manure (7%) and other residues (3%). In the EU, biogas might contribute 45% to total gas demand; in China more biogas can be produced than consumed in 2018 (185% of demand). The EU results fall in the range of residue potentials from earlier studies. Maize, wheat, barley and rapeseed contribute 78% to the EU agricultural biogas potential. In China, dominant crops are maize (49%), rice (18%), wheat (12%) and seed cotton (6%). For water, there are large differences among WFs of specific crop residues, but also between WFs for EU and Chinese crop residues. Most Chinese crop residues have larger WFs than the EU residues. Biogas from sugar beet residues has the smallest WFs, biogas from tobacco residues the largest. Although using residues for energy does not change total national WFs, it reallocates WFs over main products and residues. The comparative assessment supports better use of biogas potentials from residues with lower WFs and is also applicable for other regions and countries.
Chapter
One of the major constituents of greenhouse gases is carbon dioxide whose concentration in the atmosphere is increasing at an alarming rate due to the disorganized human activities. Therefore, capturing CO2 and utilizing it to make various value-added chemicals is regarded as a green transformation, which thereby balances the carbon footprint. In this chapter, the advances in CO2 as the C1 source by utilizing it as a carbonylating agent for important organic transformations for the synthesis of cyclic carbonate, substituted urea, cyclic urea, carbamates, glycerol carbonate and dimethyl carbonate are discussed. These products have a wide range of applications as specialty solvents, starting materials/intermediates for polymer, paint, agrochemicals, pesticides, herbicides and pharmaceutical industries. Also, a few products like dimethyl carbonate have potential applications as fuel additives. Although CO2 is thermodynamically and kinetically stable molecule, it can be activated by basic sites in the catalyst due to the electron deficiency of the carbonyl carbon at appropriate reaction condition. Various catalyst systems such as metal oxides, mixed metal oxides, supported metal oxides, metal-organic framework, bifunctional catalysts and importance of solvent have been highlighted and discussed in detail for the efficient production of these commercially important chemicals from CO2.
Chapter
Full-text available
Numerous types of adsorbents have been studied and used in industrial scale during upgradation of biogas by employing pressure swing adsorption. This chapter provides an insight into the working principle, efficiency, and energy consumption of this method in comparison with other processes. The most recent advancement includes the addition of subsequent units, omissions of additional stages, and the use of novel adsorbents in the process that determine the productivity, separation efficiency, and cost of the technology. Based on the literature review, research gaps were identified concerning the biogas upgradation to deliver renewable natural gas to the combined heat and power industries or to the natural gas pipelines as a vehicular fuel. The main setbacks for this sustainable sector are initially due to the digester conditions that lower the biomass conversion to methane, inadequate pre-treatment of biogas for removal of other contaminants, followed by production and selection of appropriate low-cost adsorbent in the final upgradation stage to maximize carbon dioxide elimination. In recent years, biowastes have been found to have the potential of transforming into mesoporous and nanoporous adsorbents upon carbonization and activation techniques which would enhance the adsorption activity. Also, reformation of the simple biochemical and thermochemical methods has intensified the methane yield at digester and reactor levels, respectively. Nonetheless, analyzing the effects of the process parameters for upgradation of biogas and production of adsorbents will lead to further investigation and innovative outcomes. Conclusions are drawn to augment the recent developments and sustainable technologies for broader adoption of renewable natural gas.
Chapter
Industrial Revolution has led to an unprecedented rise in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. Among various methods available for carbon capture from the industrial emissions such as flue gas, carbonic anhydrase (CA)-based carbon capture techniques have been evolved and gained immense attention in the recent years. Carbonic anhydrase (CA) is a zinc metalloenzyme, which is an essential biocatalyst for all living beings. It plays a role in accelerating the hydration and dehydration of carbon dioxide. This enzyme can be utilized in vitro for capturing carbon from industrial emissions. Thermo-alkali stable CAs from prokaryotes are the most promising candidates for biomimetic carbon sequestration owing to the high temperature of flue gas and alkaline condition needed for precipitation of calcium carbonate formed in the reaction. These CAs can be essentially immobilized on various solid supports and matrices for developing bioreactors and their continuous operation. This chapter reviews developments in utilizing CAs of prokaryotes in carbon capture technologies.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Power to Gas (PtG) technology is a promising method for energy storage in medium and large scale, allowing also counteracting the destabilization of power systems in which intermittent sources play an important role. It typically involves the use of electricity from renewable sources (such as wind and solar) for hydrogen production in the electrolysis process (in which oxygen is also produced). Hydrogen can be used directly (e.g. as fuel for transport), stored, injected to the grid (however, with some restrictions) or further processed into fuels or chemicals. From the energy systems point of view an interesting option is to produce synthetic natural gas (SNG) as it has a very similar composition to natural gas and can be used within well-known power generation technologies (such as gas engines and gas turbines), easily stored or injected directly to the natural gas grid. In order to produce SNG from renewable hydrogen several components have to be added to the system, in particular a methanation unit, in which carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide is converted into methane with the use of hydrogen. These many solutions of PtG systems should be assessed from the thermodynamic and economic points of view. In this paper various concepts of PtG structures are presented and characterized. The possible sources of electricity, use of hydrogen and oxygen, carbon sources for the methanation process and potential uses of SNG are briefly discussed. A simplified case study of a system composed of a renewable energy source, electrolyzer, biomass gasification, methanation installation and gas engine was made. Finally, a simplified SWOT analysis was made to assess the main advantages and disadvantages of the proposed solution.
Article
Full-text available
The substitution of natural gas by a renewable equivalent is an interesting option to reduce the use of fossil fuels and the accompanying greenhouse gas emissions, as well as from the point of view of security of supply. The renewable alternative for natural gas is the so-called green natural gas, i.e. gaseous energy carriers produced from biomass comprising both biogas and Synthetic Natural Gas (SNG). Via this route can be benefited from all the advantages of natural gas, like the existing dense infrastructure, trade and supply network, and natural gas applications. To implement green natural gas in the Dutch energy infrastructure a phased approach is suggested. On the short term is started with the route of upgraded biogas produced by biological digestion of biomass materials like manure. The main source of green natural gas on the long term, however, will be synthetic natural gas (SNG) that is produced via gasification of biomass and subsequent methanation of the product gas. The potential for natural gas substitution by SNG is in fact 100%, a potential limitation might be set by the requirement for large amounts of biomass. In order to demonstrate that this bio-SNG can comply (at least after blending) with these specifications, an experimental bench-scale line-up for SNG production from biomass has been developed and implemented, consisting of a biomass gasifier and several gas cleaning and conditioning steps.
Book
Full-text available
The production of Substitute Natural Gas from biomass (Bio-SNG) is an attractive option to reduce CO 2 emissions and replace declining fossil natural gas reserves. The Energy research Center of the Netherlands (ECN) is working on the development of the MILENA gasification technology that is ideally suited to convert a wide range of biomass fuels into a gas that can be upgraded into Bio- SNG. Production of a synthetic natural gas that can be readily injected into the existing natural gas infrastructure is a major challenge to make a big step into bringing renewable energy to the public. To achieve such a goal it is necessary to produce an SNG with similar properties as natural gas and also at a price that makes it competitive with current and future prices. The objective of the development described in this thesis was to design an up-scalable biomass gasification process with a high cold gas efficiency (> 80% for dry wood) producing a gas which is suitable to be converted into Bio-SNG with a higher overall efficiency than the alternative biomass gasification processes. The nitrogen content of the producer gas should be below 3 vol.%, to prevent dilution of the Bio-SNG.
Article
Full-text available
The increased use and potential growth of biomass for energy has triggered a heated debate on the sustainability of those developments as biomass production is now also associated with increased competition with food and feed production, loss of forest cover and the like. Besides such competition, also the net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is questioned in case land-use for biomass is associated with clearing forest, with conversion of peat land, as well as with high fossil energy inputs for machinery, fertilisers and other agrochemicals. Although available studies give a reasonable insight in the importance of various parameters, the integration between different arenas is still limited. This causes confusion in public as well as scientific debate, with conflicting views on the possibilities for sustainable use of biomass as a result. This study aims to tackle this problem by providing a more comprehensive assessment of the current knowledge with respect to biomass resource potentials.
Article
The production of Synthetic Natural Gas from biomass (Bio-SNG) by gasification and upgrading of the gas is an attractive option to reduce CO2 emissions and replace declining fossil natural gas reserves. Production of energy from biomass is approximately CO2 neutral. Production of Bio-SNG can even be CO2 negative, since in the final upgrading step, part of the biomass carbon is removed as CO2, which can be stored. The use of biomass for CO2 reduction will increase the biomass demand and therefore will increase the price of biomass. Consequently, a high overall efficiency is a prerequisite for any biomass conversion process. Various biomass gasification technologies are suitable to produce SNG. The present article contains an analysis of the Bio-SNG process efficiency that can be obtained using three different gasification technologies and associated gas cleaning and methanation equipment. These technologies are: 1) Entrained Flow, 2) Circulating Fluidized Bed and 3) Allothermal or Indirect gasification. The aim of this work is to identify the gasification route with the highest process efficiency from biomass to SNG and to quantify the differences in overall efficiency. Aspen Plus® was used as modeling tool. The heat and mass balances are based on experimental data from literature and our own experience.
The State of Renewable Energies in Europe
  • Lw M Beurskens
  • M Mozaffarian
  • D Lescot
  • F F G Tuille
Beurskens, LW.M., Mozaffarian, M., Lescot, D., Tuille, F.F.G., 2009. The State of Renewable Energies in Europe, Petten, The Netherlands, ECN, ECN-O-09-011.
  • H Boerrigter
  • S V B Van Paasen
  • P C A Bergman
  • J W Könemann
  • R Emmen
  • A Wijnands
Boerrigter, H., van Paasen, S.V.B., Bergman, P.C.A., Könemann, J.W., Emmen, R., Wijnands, A., 2005. OLGA tar removal technology, Petten, The Netherlands, ECN, ECN-C--05-009.
Biomass Assessment: Global biomass potentials and their links to food, water, biodiversity, energy demand and economy, main report (climate change scientific assessment and policy analysis), Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP), WAB secretariat
  • V Dornburg
  • A Faaij
  • P Verweij
  • H Langeveld
  • G Van De Ven
  • F Wester
Dornburg, V., Faaij, A., Verweij, P., Langeveld, H., van de Ven, G., Wester, F., et al., 2007. Biomass Assessment: Global biomass potentials and their links to food, water, biodiversity, energy demand and economy, main report (climate change scientific assessment and policy analysis), Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP), WAB secretariat (ipc 90), P.O. Box 303, 3720 AH Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
OLGA tar removal technology
  • H Boerrigter
  • S V B Van Paasen
  • P C A Bergman
  • J W Könemann
  • R Emmen
  • A Wijnands
Boerrigter, H., van Paasen, S.V.B., Bergman, P.C.A., Könemann, J.W., Emmen, R., Wijnands, A., 2005. OLGA tar removal technology, Petten, The Netherlands, ECN, ECN-C-05-009.