Comparison of integration options for gasification-based biofuel production systems - Economic and greenhouse gas emission implications
Journal article, 2016

The impact of different integration options for gasification-based biofuel production systems producing synthetic natural gas, methanol and FT (Fischer-Tropsch) fuels on the NAP (net annual profit), FPC (fuel production cost) and the GHG (greenhouse gas) emission reduction potential are analysed. The considered integration options are heat deliveries to DH (district heating) systems or to nearby industries and integration with infrastructure for CO2 storage. The comparison is made to stand-alone configurations in which the excess heat is used for power production. The analysis considers future energy market scenarios and case studies in southwestern Sweden. The results show that integration with DH systems has small impacts on the NAP and the FPC and diverging (positive or negative) impacts on the GHG emissions. Integration with industries has positive effects on the economic and GHG performances in all scenarios. The FPCs are reduced by 7-8% in the methanol case and by 12-13% in the FT production case. The GHG emission reductions are strongly dependent on the reference power production. The storage of separated CO2 shows an increase in the GHG emission reduction potential of 70-100% for all systems, whereas the impacts on the economic performances are strongly dependent on the CO2e-charge.

Economic performance

System analysis

Process integration

Biomass gasification

Greenhouse gas emissions

Author

Kristina Holmgren

Chalmers, Energy and Environment, Industrial Energy Systems and Technologies

Thore Berntsson

Chalmers, Energy and Environment, Industrial Energy Systems and Technologies

Eva Ingeborg Elisabeth Andersson

Chalmers, Energy and Environment, Industrial Energy Systems and Technologies

Tomas Rydberg

IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute

Energy

0360-5442 (ISSN) 18736785 (eISSN)

Vol. 111 272-294

Subject Categories

Energy Systems

DOI

10.1016/j.energy.2016.05.059

More information

Latest update

7/27/2018