Life Cycle Assessment of Forest Based Biofuels

David R. Shonnard; Ph.D. Shonnard; Robbins Ch i Professor i S t i bilit R bbi Chair P f in Sustainability Department of Chemical Engineering Director: Director: Sustainable Futures Institute

Forest Biofuels Statewide Collaboration Center Presentation Wednesday, J l 27 2011 W d d July 27,
BiomassProcessing
Biomass

Sustainable Decisions
CO2

Fuels

ForestResources

Engines/Vehicles

Managing the Carbon Cycle: g g y

A Sustainable Energy Challenge
From http://www.bom.gov.au/info/climate/change/gallery/index.shtml

Combustion f Fossil Fuels acts as a Carbon Pump C b ti of F il F l t C b P

CO2 and Temperature in the Northern Hemisphere are Rising

National Geographic, September 2004, pg 20, National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.

Wood-toWood-to-Wheels (W2W) Concept

Research Thematic Areas
Sustainability Assessments / Decision-Making

Bio-Processing Research
Photo: Glacial Lakes Energy

CO2

Woody Biomass Resource Research

Vehicle Systems Research

Presentation Outline An Overview of Life Cycle Assessment Goal and Scope Definition Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) Comparison of Forest Feedstocks and Power Generated from Wood Versus Fossil Fuels
5

Uses of Life Cycle Assessment

DecisionDecision-making in industry and government

Strategic planning, investments, product/process design

Marketing
Environmental claim, ecolabeling

Communication with stakeholders

Shareholders, regulatory agencies, policy makers

Research and Development

Early evaluations of projects, periodic re-evaluations re-

Overview of Life Cycle Assessment

D.T. Allen, University of Texas Austin Life Cycle Assessment: Lesson 1

7

Life Cycle y Stages of a Product

D.T. Allen, D T Allen University of Texas Austin Life Cycle Assessment: Lesson 1
8

International Standards for Life Cycle Assessment

International Organization for Standardization

ISO 14040: Environmental management Life cycle assessment Principles and framework ISO 14041: Goal and scope definition and

inventory analysis
ISO 14042: Life cycle impact assessment ISO 14043: Life cycle interpretation

ISO 14040 Principles and framework P i i l df k

ISO 14040
Key features of the LCA methodology

Scope must b f S t be from cradle to grave f products dl t for d t LCA studies should be transparent Specific requirements for comparative assertions p q p

Definition of a functional unit Goal and scope of the study

Goal: intended application, audience, reasons for the study Scope: product system, types of impacts, data quality

10

Functional Unit

Functional Unit examples

Incandescent versus fluorescent lamps

What is the f ti ? lighting f Wh t i th function? li hti of a space over time ti How many lamps and of what wattage are equivalent?

Fossil versus Forest-Based Transportation Fuels Forest

What is the function? transport of a vehicle over a distance 1 MJ of forest based biofuels is equivalant to 1 JM of petroleum fuel

11

Summary of LCA I t d ti S f Introduction

Motivation for LCA: Reduce environmental impacts of products over their life cycle. LCA is used for decision-making, communication, decisionmarketing, and strategic planning ISO 14040-14043 cover all elements of LCA, from 14040planning/execution to methodologies. Setting of goals and scope in LCA studies are among the most important elements of an LCA

12

Life Cycle I Lif C l Inventory (LCI) t

ISO 14041 Categories of inventory data Allocation method Data quality requirements

13

Inventory for ethylene production I t f th l d ti

LifeCycle Materials C l Stages Energy
Materials Energy Materials Energy

Crude Oil Extraction

Naphtha Refining

Ethylene Production

Ethylene

Wastes, Emissions Materials

Wastes, Emissions Energy Materials

Wastes, Emissions Energy

Transportation
Wastes, Emissions

Transportation
Wastes, Emissions

14

Categories of Inventory Data

Energy resources (process heating and electricity)
Oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, biomass

Other raw materials

Fe, NaCl, water, air, CaCO3, Ni, Zn, etc.

Emissions
to air, water, land

Other categories
Land area use (often used in Europe and Japan)
15

Inventory Categories y g (Ethylene Example)

Allen and Shonnard, Green Engineering: Environmentally Conscious Design of Chemical Processes, Prentice Hall, 2002

Boustead, I., Eco-profiles of the European Plastics Industry, Report 1-4, f f European Center for Plastics in the Environment, Brussels, May 1993.
16

Inventory Categories y g (Ethylene Example), cont.

Allen and Shonnard, Green Engineering: Environmentally Conscious Design of Chemical Processes, Prentice Hall, 2002

17

Inventory Categories y g (Ethylene Example), cont.

Allen and Shonnard, Green Engineering: Environmentally Conscious Design of Chemical Processes, Prentice Hall, 2002

18

Data D t quality requirements lit i t

TimeTime-related coverage of data:

How current is data? Averaged over what period?

Geographic coverage of data collection:

Local regional national continental, global? Local, regional, national, continental

Technology coverage of data:

Average of process mix?, best available technology?

19

Summary of lif cycle i S f life l inventory t

Possibly the most challenging part of LCA. ISO 14041 provides guidelines Categories: energy, raw materials, Commercial software tools are available, but the most , accurate inventories may be generated internally for manufacturers. TimeTime-related, geographic, and technology coverage of inventory data reduce uncertainty

20

Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) ISO 14042 Mandatory requirements for LCIA
Identify impact categories, classify inventory elements into impact categories, characterize impacts for each inventory element

Optional features of LCIA

normalization valuation

21

Identification of Impact Categories

Global warming Stratospheric ozone depletion Smog f S formation (O3) ti Acidification Human health impacts Ecosytem health Eutrophication p Biodiversity Resource depletion
22

Classify Inventory Elements y y into Categories

Inventory Elements Impact Categories

CO2 E i i Emissions ----------------------------------- Gl b l Warming Global W i NO3- in Wastewater ------------ Human Health, Eutrophication Toluene Emissions ------------------------ Human Health Smog Health, CFCs Emissions ------------- Global Warming, Ozone Depletion Coal Use --------------------- Fossil Energy Resource Depletion Energy, Water Use ------------------------ Resource Depletion, Land Use

23

Characterize Environmental Impacts

Materials Energy Materials Energy Materials Energy Materials Energy

LifeCycle Stages

Raw Materials Extraction

Chemical Processing

Product Manufacturing
Pollution Control

Use, Reuse, Disposal

Wastes

Pollution Control

Wastes

Wastes

Wastes

Midpoints global warming ozone depletion smog formation acidification ecological harm Endpoint
24

Human health and ecosystem damage d

Ozone Depletion Potential

Appendix D in: Allen and Shonnard, Green Engineering: Environmentally Conscious Design of Chemical Processes, Prentice Hall, 2002
25

Global Warming Potential

BI = infrared radiation absorbance band intensity

Appendix D in: Allen and Shonnard, Green Engineering: Environmentally Conscious Design of Chemical Processes, Prentice Hall, 2002
26

Acid Rain Potential

Appendix D in: Allen and Shonnard, Green Engineering: Environmentally Conscious Design of Chemical Processes, Prentice Hall, 2002
27

Smog Formation Potential

Appendix D in: Allen and Shonnard, Green Engineering: Environmentally Conscious Design of Chemical Processes, Prentice Hall, 2002
28

Health Impact Indicators

Lethal dose or concentrations Acute exposure Reference concentrations Chronic exposure Regulatory limits Health-based standards HealthR-Phrases European health categories

29

Valuation Approaches

Allen and Shonnard, Green Engineering: Environmentally Conscious Design of Chemical Processes, Prentice Hall, 2002
30

Summary of y Life Cycle Impact Assessment

ISO 14042 provides guidelines

Identify categories of environmental impacts, classify pollutants into categories, characterize potency of
pollutants for impact categories.

Relative risk calculation using emission estimation,

environmental fate modeling, and impact potency. Commercial software tools are available (the same tools as shown in the inventory section).

31

Summary of Life Cycle Assessment

Motivation for LCA: Reduce environmental impacts of products over their life cycle. LCA is used for decision-making, communication, decisionmarketing, and strategic planning ISO 14040-14043 cover all elements of LCA, from 14040planning/execution to methodologies. Software tools are available to aid in LCA studies Demo version of SimaPro 7.2 is useful introduction.

32

Potential Cellulosic Feedstocks in the Upper Midwest

Hardwoods Forest Products Softwoods Residues Agricultural Residues Energy Crops Bi Or Grasses Hybrid Poplar Hybrid Willow BioPower

Forest Feedstocks of Interest in MI

Harvest residues: 4-10 dry tac-1 from a single harvest, perhaps 0.5 dry tac-1yr-1, with no inputs Mill Residues: production depends on mill capacity and production efficiency Other removals: 5-25 dry tac-1 from a thinning treatment, with no inputs

Roundwood to Chips: more than 4 dry tac-1yr-1 in Aspen, perpetually and with no i t ll d ith inputs t
Dr. Robert Froese, School of Forest Resources and Environmental Sciences, Michigan Tech

Plantation Feedstocks of Interest in MI

Hybrid Poplar: 4-10 dry tac-1yr-1 on a 10-year rotation starting from bare land Low-Intensity, High-Diversity perennials: 2-4 dry tac-1yr-1 perpetually with low inputs Hybrid Willow: 3-14 dry tac-1yr-1 on a 3-year cycle for a 21 year rotation starting from bare land Switchgrass monoculture: 4-10 dry tac-1yr-1 in a single fall harvest, harvest perpetually and starting from bare land
Dr. Robert Froese, School of Forest Resources and Environmental Sciences, Michigan Tech

Rapid Thermal Processing RTPTM Technology

Pyrolysis Oil

Solid Biomass

plus

Commercially Proven Patented Technology

ENV 5233-04

RTPTM Product Yields

400 BDMTPD of Hardwood Whitewood
Feed, wt% Hardwood Whitewood Typical Product Yields, wt% Dry Feed Pyrolysis Oil By-Product Vapor Char 70 15 15 100

Yields For Various Feeds Yi ld F V i F d

Biomass Feedstock Type Hardwood Softwood Hardwood Bark Softwood Bark Corn Fiber Bagasse B Waste Paper Typical Pyrolysis Oil Yield, wt% of Dry Feedstock 70 75 70 80 60 65 55 65 65 75 70 75 60 80

Cellulosic Feedstock Flexible With High Yields of Pyrolysis Oil

ENV 5233-06

RTP Pyrolysis Oil Properties

P Pourable and transportable liquid fuel bl dt t bl li id f l High oxygenate content Contains 55-60% the energy content of crude-based fuel oils As produced, can be corrosive
Comparison of Heating Value of Pyrolysis Oil and Typical Fuels
Fuel Methanol Pyrolysis Oil (Wood) Pyrolysis Oil (Bark) Ethanol Light F l Li ht Fuel Oil / Diesel Di l MJ / Litre 17.5 21.0 22.7 23.5 38.9 38 9 BTU / US Gallon 62,500 75,500 81,500 84,000 138,500 138 500
ENV 5233-07

Suitable for Energy Applications

Life Cycle Pathway Diagrams

Power from Parasitic Power from Parasitic Plant (PyOil logging Plant (PyOil SRF) residue)
Wood Logging Logging Residue Logging gg g Residue Collection Logging Residue Transport PyOil Production PyOil
PyOil Combustion in Power Plant Seed Fertilizer Fuel Chemicals

Power from Co-firing Power from Co-firing CoCoPlant (PyOil logging Plant (PyOil SRF) residue)
Wood Logging Logging Residue Logging gg g Residue Collection Logging Residue Transport PyOil Production PyOil
Seed Fertilizer Fuel Chemicals

SRF Farming SRF Transport PyOil Production PyOil PyOil Combustion in Power Plant Electricity

SRF Farming SRF Transport PyOil Production PyOil

100km

100km

PyOil Combustion in Power Plant

PyOil Combustion in Power Plant Electricity l i i

Electricity

Electricity
ENV 5233-12

Feedstock Cultivation and Harvesting GHG Emissions

k kg CO2 eq/kg Bio omass

GHG Contribution by Process

Logging Residue
Total of all Processes Combustion of Diesel Diesel, Low-sulphur Building Machinery

Residue Logging Biomass Yield odt/ha/yr GHG kg CO2-eq/kg Biomass 0.027 0.62

SRF Crops Willow Poplar

0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 Reis and Shonnard, 2007

11.95

13.50

0.032

0.053

GHG Contribution by Process

0.035 k kg CO2 eq/kg Bio omass 0.03 0.025 0 025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0.000 Heller et al., 2003

Willow

GHG Contribution by Process

k kg CO2 eq/kg Bio omass 0.050 0.045 0.040 0.035 0.030 0.025 0.020 0.015 0.010 0.005 0.000 Gasol et al., 2008
ENV 5233-13

Total of all Processes N2O Emissions from N Fertilizer Use CO2 Emissions from Diesel Combustion Ammonium Sulfate, as N, at Regional , , g Storehouse/RER S Diesel, Low-sulphur, at Regional Lowstorage/RER S CO2 from Heavy Fuel Oil Combustion Other

Hybrid/Poplar

Total of all Processes Ammonium Nitrate CO2 Emissions from Diesel Combustion N2O Emissions from N Fertilizer Use Single Superphosphate, as P205 Diesel, Low-sulfur LowOther

GHG Emissions

Pyrolysis Oil Production

gCO2 eq /MJ Biomass Cultivation and Harvesting Biomass Transportation Pyrolysis Total

PyOil Logging Residue 2.08 3.84 8.59 14.51 14 51

PyOil Willow 2.41 0.87 8.59 11.88 11 88

PyOil Poplar 4.0 0.82 8.59 13.42 13 42

PyOil Waste 0 0 8.59 8.59 8 59

rcircle=

F 2 (Wright et. al. 2008) * * 3 * Y * f

: the tortuosity factor of the road (1.5) p (0.1) f : fraction of land devoted to biomass crops ( ) F: feedstock biomass required (400*365 metric tons / acre / yr) Y: yield of biomass (metric tons / acre / yr)
ENV 5233-14

Sensitivity Analysis of Transportation: y y p

f Value (Fraction of Land in Cultivation)
Transportation Distance vs. f
f=0.03 rcircle (miles) Poplar rcircle (miles) Willow rcircle (miles) Residue f=0.1 f=0.3 f=0.6 f=0.9

PyOil GHG Emissions vs f

20 18 16 14

20.05 21.34 93.74

10.98 11.69 51.34

6.34 6.75 29.64

4.48 4.77 20.96

3.66 3.90 17.11

gCO2eq/M MJ

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 f=0.03 f=0.1 f=0.3 f=0.6 f=0.9

PyOi l fromPopl a r PyOi l fromRes i due PyOi l fromWi l l ow PyOi l fromWa s te

Py

Py Oi lf r

gCO2eq/MJ 12 14 16 10 0 2 4 6 8
om P o pl ar iti c) ar as

Oi lf r om P o pl ar (P om R es id ue Py

Py Oi lf r om R es id ue (P ar as iti c) W ill ow Py Oi lf r om W ill ow (P ar as iti c) Py Oi lf r Oi lf r om Oi lf r

Oi lf r

Py

Pyrolysis

Sensitivity Analyses of Power Source

Imported Power (US Grid Mix) vs. Parasitic vs System

Feedstock Transportation p Feedstock Cultivation/Harvesting

Py

om W om as W te as te (P ar as iti c)

Pyrolysis Oil (non-parasitic) vs. Fossil Fuel (nonComparison of GHG Emissions

120 100

gCO2 eq/MJ

80 60 40 20 0
Petroleum Crude Oil Hard Coal

through production

Life Cycle GHG Emissions

Pyrolysis Oil Production foot print similar to other energy alternatives i il t th lt ti

Assumed biomass transport distances

200 km for logging residues 25 km for short rotation forest crops

Natural Canadian PyOil PyOil Gas Oil Sands from from Crude Oil Logging Willow Residues PyOil from Poplar

120 100

gCO2 eq/MJ

80 60 40 20 0
Petroleum Fuel Oil Hard Coal Natural Gas

through combustion

Life Cycle GHG E i i Emissions

Pyrolysis Oil Life Cycle foot print Greener th other alternatives G than th lt ti 70-88% lower GHG emissions SOx emissions similar to Natural Gas

PyOil from Logging Residues

PyOil from Willow

PyOil from Poplar

ENV 5233-15

LCA Results for Pyrolysis Oil to Power

400 BDMTPD Multiple Scenarios Evaluated

Co-firing Cases (lowest capital)

Fuel Oil Power Plant Coal Power Plant Natural Gas Power Plant

Advanced Power Facilities (highest efficiency)

Gas Turbine Combined Cycle (GTCC) with heat recovery Distributed Diesel Generator located at site

Comparison to Direct Biomass Combustion (BC) C i Di Bi C b i

Dedicated facility at 18% efficiency (existing BC1) Dedicated facility at 25% efficiency ( y y (modern BC2) )

Pyrolysis Oil Co-fired in Coal Power Plant Co(400 tonnes/day biomass feed 33% efficiency) tonnes/day feed,
1200

1000

g CO2 eq/kWh eq/

800

US Coal PyOil Combustion il b i PyOil Transportation (100km) Pyrolysis Feedstock Transportation Feedstock Cultivation/Harvesting

600

400

200

PyOil PyOil PyOil Substitution Substitution Substitution Coal (poplar) Coal (residue) Coal (waste)

PyOil Substitution Coal (willow)

US Coal

GHG Savings

84.7%

83.5%

89.8%

86.3%

Advanced Power Generation Scheme -1 Pyrolysis Oil Combusted in GTCC w/HR

(9.62MW, 42.9% efficiency, net efficiency 39%)
1200

1000

g CO2 eq/kW eq/kW Wh

800

US C l Coal PyOil Combustion Pyrolysis Feedstock Transportation Feedstock Cultivation/Harvesting F d t k C lti ti /H ti

600

400

200

PyOil from poplar

PyOil from residue

PyOil from waste

PyOil from willow

US Coal

GHG Savings

95.5%

95.5%

99.6%

96.9%

Advanced Power Generation Scheme - 2 Pyrolysis Oil Combusted in Diesel Generator

(5MW at site, 45% efficiency, net efficiency 40.9%)
1200 1000

g CO2 eq/kW C eq/kW Wh

800

US Coal PyOil Combustion Pyrolysis Feedstock Transportation Feedstock Cultivation/Harvesting

600

400

200

PyOil from poplar

PyOil from residue

PyOil from waste

PyOil from willow

US Coal

GHG Savings

95.8%

96.3%

99.6%

97.2%

Comparisons of LC-GHG Emissions LCwith Di ith Direct Bi t Biomass C b ti Combustion (BC)

180 160 140 g CO2 eq/kWh h 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 BC1 BC2
5-10 MW scale Advanced Power Facility Dedicated Direct Combustion Low Capex Pyrolysis Oil Co-firing Co-

Poplar Residue

Coal co- Coal co- NG cofire 33% fire 37% fire 42%

NG cofire 58%

PyOil GTCC

Py Oil Diesel Gen. G

BC1= existing combustion/steam turbine unit at 18% efficiency BC2= modern combustion/steam turbine at 25% efficiency

Summary and Conclusions

There is a variety of forest resources that can be converted to pyrolysis bio-oil using RTPTM process technology bioPyrolysis bio-oil can be utilized by a wider spectrum of power y y bioy p p generation technologies compared to biomass combustion
Biomass combustion: limited to co-firing with coal co Pyrolysis bio-oil: compatible with NG, coal, and oil systems y y biop , , y

Greenhouse gas emissions of pyrolysis bio-oil electricity bio GHG impacts of RTPTM pyrolysis oil production ~ fossil fuels Pa asitic p ol sis oil production reduces GHG b ~ Parasitic pyrolysis p od ction ed ces by Savings of GHG emissions of between 76 99% is achieved for pyrolysis oil electricity compared to US Grid electricity Hi h efficiency applications for pyrolysis oil electricity are more High ffi i li ti f l i il l t i it favorable compared to direct biomass combustion electricity

Acknowledgement:

This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under award number DEEE0000280.
Disclaimer: This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe disclosed, privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, or service by trade name, trademark, manufactured, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by h U i d S b the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and G h f Th i d opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

Questions?

Midwestern land cover (USFS North Central Research Station image)