Feedstock Characteristics and Logistics: Impact on 2 nd Generation Biofuel Facility Scale, Location, and Technology Selection Jamie Stephen, MSc PhD Candidate, Wood Science, University of British Columbia Fellow, Queen s Institute for Energy and Environmental Policy Managing Director, TorchLight Bioresources Inc. jstephen@tlbio.com Co authors : Dr. Jack Saddler, UBC; Dr. Warren Mabee, Queen s QUEEN S INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
Overview Introduction Purpose Methodology Results Discussion & Conclusion
Introduction Existing energy infrastructure will not walk away Two primary routes to 2G biofuels Biochemical Thermochemical Variety of pretreatments & enzymes; catalysts Herbaceous vs. woody biomass
Introduction Biochemical: high moisture, large particles Hornification, bark, unproductive lignin binding Thermochemical: low moisture, small particles Entrained flow reactor Logistics typically local supply; economies of scale vs. diseconomies of scale Imported model proven valid impact on scale?
Previous Assessments Majority >1 BL yr 1
Purpose Maximum scale, from a logistics perspective, of supplying a 2G biofuel facility with feedstock Impact of biomass characteristics on preferred transportation mode and conversion technology Which existing industry is an appropriate model for 2G biofuel facilities/biorefineries? Local vs. importation of feedstock
Facility Scale Comparison Scherer Power Plant (coal) used as max rail deliveries 154,000 railcars per year from Wyoming to Georgia 3 trains of 141 cars per day Installed capacity as of 2009 actual output may vary
Analysis Variables
Bulk Energy Density
Maximum Energy Load for US Interstate Trucks
Max Load/Density * Based upon b train, 2 trailer truck with 160 m 3 volume Rail = 91 t payload; Max bulk density 433 kg/m 3 Panamax = 53,500 t payload; Max bulk density 800 kg/m 3
Biofuel Yield
Feedstock (Moisture content) Inputs Ethanol potential FT potential MT / year PJ / year Ethanol production (ML / year) US Trucks Gasoline equivalent (ML / year) FT production (ML / year) Gasoline equivalent (ML / year) Logs (46%) 3.9 39 597 392 378 425 Chips (34%) 3.9 48 811 532 488 549 Pellets (10%) 3.9 65 589 387 624 702 Biooil (25%) 3.9 61 222 146 991 1,115 Rail cars Logs (46%) 14.0 140 2,142 1,405 1,358 1,528 Chips (34%) 11.3 138 2,350 1,542 1,413 1,590 Pellets (10%) 14.0 233 2,114 1,387 2,240 2,520 Biooil (25%) 14.0 220 798 523 3,556 4,001 Panamax ships Logs (46%) 14.2 142 2,173 1,426 1,377 1,549 Chips (34%) 9.1 112 1,893 1,242 1,138 1,280 Pellets (10%) 15.8 264 2,386 1,567 2,528 2,844 Biooil (25%) 21.0 331 1,197 786 5,334 6,001
Discussion Possible to supply facilities with > 1BL yr 1 output Biochemical conversion chips & logs No max scale benefit by shipping Thermochemical conversion pellets& biooil Significant max scale benefit by shipping
Discussion Local only feedstock limits scale 500 MLGE yr 1 for biochemical 1.1 BLGE yr 1 for thermochemical Significant feedstock risks eg. MPB, annuals Benefit of intermediates limited for truck transport Economies of scale vs. diseconomies of scale apply
Discussion Thermochemical facilities greater economies of scale and acceptance of intermediates Marginal feedstock cost = average cost for import Benefit from port location enables 4x greater max scale Need to scale up and drier feedstock means greater risk if located inland
Conclusions Multi modal delivery most likely for scale up Intermediates key for scale increase Wood pellets will dominate in short term Current US DOE commercial facilities much smaller than modelled here Biorefineries will not resemble oil refineries
Contact Jamie Stephen, MSc jstephen@tlbio.com www.bioenergy.ubc.ca www.queensu.ca/qieep www.torchlightbioresources.com Co authors : Dr. Jack Saddler, UBC; Dr. Warren Mabee, Queen s QUEEN S INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
Impact of Scale on Return Consistent with Logistics Limitations Note: Feedstock cost of $35 bdt 1. Ethanol revenue of $1.206 L 1 and FT liquid revenue of $1.855 L 1 sourced from base case 200,000 bdt yr 1 with 10% IRR Scaling factor of 0.84 for ethanol and 0.5 0.6 for FT liquids
Potential Biofuel Feedstocks Harvest Residues Opportunity Wood Pulp Chips Roundwood Standing Timber Sawdust/Shavings Hog Fuel