Executive SummaryThe goal of the U.S. Department of Energy's Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO) is to enable the development of biomass technologies to: Reduce dependence on foreign oil  Promote the use of diverse, domestic, and sustainable energy resource  Establish a domestic bioenergy industry  Reduce carbon emissions from energy production and consumption. (DOE 2013) To meet these goals, the BETO promotes the development of liquid hydrocarbon fuels that can serve as gasoline, jet and diesel blendstocks.This report describes a proposed thermochemical process for converting biomass into liquid transportation fuels via fast pyrolysis followed by hydroprocessing of the condensed pyrolysis oil. As such, the analysis does not reflect the current state of commercially-available technology but includes advancements that are likely, and targeted to be achieved by 2017. The purpose of this study is to quantify the economic impact of individual conversion targets to allow a focused effort towards achieving cost reductions.

No abstract

No abstract

Bifunctional fixed-bed catalysts improve CFP performance.

The supply system model incorporates a combination of values and relationships obtained from other national laboratories, publications, consultation with academia and staff from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Forest Service, and published and unpublished INL data. Further details on the model are provided in Appendix F. Equipment lists for the feed handling and drying area, as well as other pertinent information, are provided in Appendix A and Appendix B. All purchased and installed equipment costs for this area are shown as zero for the plant economics because all of these capital costs are included in the delivered feedstock cost. 3.2 Area 200: Gasification The following section presents an overview, basis for design, and cost estimates for construction of the gasification facilities.

The dry basis elemental composition of the feedstock, shown in Table 2, is identical to previous NREL and PNNL design reports [20,21]. The composition was originally assumed to come from pulpwood. Recent feedstock logistics work at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) suggests that the use of blended material may be required to meet a cost target of $80/dry U.S. ton while still meeting these specifications [22]. For the purpose of this report, it is assumed that any blended material provided to meet this feedstock elemental composition will not adversely affect fast pyrolysis conversion efficiencies. Ongoing studies being conducted jointly by INL, NREL, and PNNL will provide experimental evidence of the impact of blended feedstocks on fast pyrolysis and gasification processes. Future TEA will be modified to reflect conversion impacts inferred from such studies.This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications. not considered in this design in order to focus on the core technology of in situ and ex situ fast pyrolysis vapor upgrading. Aspen Plus ModelAn Aspen Plus Version 7.2 simulation was used as the basis for this report. Since the products in pyrolysis are numerous and varied, only selected model compounds were used to represent the product slate. Additional hydrocarbon species were added to represent hydroprocessing products. Many of the desired molecular species in the desired boiling ranges for light and heavy fractions did not exist in Aspen Plus databanks and physical property parameters needed to be estimated. The biomass feedstock, ash, char, and coke were modeled as non-conventional components. Appendix F provides information about compounds selected to represent the process. The Peng-Robinson with Boston-Mathias modifications (PR-BM) equation of state was used throughout most of the process simulation. The ASME 1967 steam table correlations (STEAM-TA) were used for the steam cycle calculations. Combustor/Regenerator Temperature, °C (°F) 650 (1,202) 720 (1,328) 650 (1,202) Pressure, psia (bar) 117 (8.1) 117 (8.1) 113 (7.8) Excess air (%) 20 20 20 Solids temperature before transfer to reactor, °C (°F) 650 (1,202) 720 (1,328) 341 (645) No. of cyclones per combustor 2 2 2 Area 200 Equipment Cost EstimationsCapital costs for the equipment in this area were estimated by Harris Group. A previously developed spreadsheet tool for gasifier costs was leveraged for this exercise. Cost estimates from this tool were compared with order of magnitude estimates from technology vendors and documented in Appendix I of Worley et al.

A parametric study of the gasification of four feedstocks (corn stover, switchgrass, wheat straw, and wood) has been performed on an experimental, pilot-scale (0.5 ton/day) gasification facility. A comparison was made of the performance of the gasifier as a function of feedstock, in terms of the syngas production and composition. In these experiments, pelletized feedstock was used, so that the shapes and sizes of the materials did not influence the results. A total of 22 statistically designed experimental conditions were examined for each feedstock, including the effects of varying the temperature of the fluidized bed, the temperature of the secondary thermal cracker, and the steam-to-biomass ratio. For each experimental condition, the permanent-gas composition was measured continuously by gas chromatography (GC). Tars were measured continuously using a molecular-beam mass spectrometer (MBMS). Sulfur analysis by GC was also conducted for three of the feedstocks studied. The results from this study show that there were significant differences between the feedstocks studied in terms of light gases formed, but less apparent variation in tar formation. In general, the variations in products were smaller at higher temperatures. A preliminary analysis of gasifier efficiency was performed using an Aspen Plus process model for selected gasification conditions. Finally, a comparison was made between the results of this work and other similar biomass gasification studies.

With the world's focus on rapidly deploying second generation biofuels technologies, there exists today a good deal of interest in how yields, economics, and environmental impacts of the various conversion processes of lignocellulosic biomass to transportation fuels compare. Although there is a good deal of information regarding these conversion processes, this information is typically very difficult to use on a comparison basis because different underlying assumptions, such as feedstock costs, plant size, co-product credits or assumed state of technology, have been utilized. In this study, a rigorous comparison of different biomass to transportation fuels conversion processes was performed with standard underlying economic and environmental assumptions so that exact comparisons can be made. This study looked at promising second-generation conversion processes utilizing biochemical and thermochemical gasification technologies on both a current and an achievable state of technology in 2012. The fundamental finding of this study is that although the biochemical and thermochemical processes to ethanol analyzed have their individual strengths and weaknesses, the two processes have very comparable yields, economics, and environmental impacts. Hence, this study concludes that based on this analysis there is not a distinct economic or environmental impact difference between biochemical and thermochemical gasification processes for second generation ethanol production.