Techno-economic assessment of gasoline production from Fe-assisted lignocellulosic biomass hydrothermal liquefaction process with minimized waste stream

IF 9.9 1区 工程技术 Q1 ENERGY & FUELS
{"title":"Techno-economic assessment of gasoline production from Fe-assisted lignocellulosic biomass hydrothermal liquefaction process with minimized waste stream","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.enconman.2024.118982","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Techno-economic analyses were conducted on an iron-assisted hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) process for converting lignocellulosic biomass into gasoline, comparing two approaches for minimizing by-product streams. The primary difference between the two approaches lies in their hydrogen (H₂) source for upgrading bio-crude to bio-gasoline. Scheme 1 utilizes residual water-soluble and gaseous compounds from the process to generate the H₂ needed for upgrading. Scheme 2, on the other hand, converts these waste streams into heat to supply part of the required energy, while external H₂ from steam methane reforming (with or without CO₂ capture) or water electrolysis (green hydrogen) is used for upgrading. Both schemes use pinewood and red mud as feedstocks. Red mud, after the reduction of Fe₂O<sub>3</sub> to metallic iron, is employed in the HTL reactor as a hydrogen producer, enhancing both the yield and quality of the bio-crude while minimizing the H<sub>2</sub> consumption in the upgrading unit. The HTL reactor was modeled based on optimal operating conditions experimentally determined while sensitivity analyses were performed on the other scheme’s units to determine their optimal conditions. A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) was also conducted to measure the environmental impact of the two scenarios.</p><p>Both schemes produce 459 tonnes of gasoline equivalent per day, consuming 33 tonnes of H<sub>2</sub>. Scheme 2 achieves a minimum fuel selling price (MFSP) of $0.94 per liter of gasoline equivalent (LGE), with methane reforming and CO₂ capture providing the lowest emissions (1.13 kg CO₂-Eq per kg of LGE). Scheme 1 has a slightly higher MFSP of $0.96 per LGE but is more environmentally sustainable, with a LCA showing 1.11 kg CO₂-Eq per kg of LGE.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":11664,"journal":{"name":"Energy Conversion and Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196890424009233/pdfft?md5=2107223e53012bd7422f955a269d0fa8&pid=1-s2.0-S0196890424009233-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Energy Conversion and Management","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196890424009233","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENERGY & FUELS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Techno-economic analyses were conducted on an iron-assisted hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) process for converting lignocellulosic biomass into gasoline, comparing two approaches for minimizing by-product streams. The primary difference between the two approaches lies in their hydrogen (H₂) source for upgrading bio-crude to bio-gasoline. Scheme 1 utilizes residual water-soluble and gaseous compounds from the process to generate the H₂ needed for upgrading. Scheme 2, on the other hand, converts these waste streams into heat to supply part of the required energy, while external H₂ from steam methane reforming (with or without CO₂ capture) or water electrolysis (green hydrogen) is used for upgrading. Both schemes use pinewood and red mud as feedstocks. Red mud, after the reduction of Fe₂O3 to metallic iron, is employed in the HTL reactor as a hydrogen producer, enhancing both the yield and quality of the bio-crude while minimizing the H2 consumption in the upgrading unit. The HTL reactor was modeled based on optimal operating conditions experimentally determined while sensitivity analyses were performed on the other scheme’s units to determine their optimal conditions. A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) was also conducted to measure the environmental impact of the two scenarios.

Both schemes produce 459 tonnes of gasoline equivalent per day, consuming 33 tonnes of H2. Scheme 2 achieves a minimum fuel selling price (MFSP) of $0.94 per liter of gasoline equivalent (LGE), with methane reforming and CO₂ capture providing the lowest emissions (1.13 kg CO₂-Eq per kg of LGE). Scheme 1 has a slightly higher MFSP of $0.96 per LGE but is more environmentally sustainable, with a LCA showing 1.11 kg CO₂-Eq per kg of LGE.

利用铁辅助木质纤维素生物质热液液化工艺生产汽油并最大限度减少废物流的技术经济评估
对将木质纤维素生物质转化为汽油的铁辅助热液液化(HTL)工艺进行了技术经济分析,比较了两种将副产品流最小化的方法。这两种方法的主要区别在于将生物原油升级为生物汽油的氢气(H₂)来源。方案 1 利用加工过程中残留的水溶性和气态化合物来产生升级所需的氢₂。另一方面,方案 2 将这些废液转化为热能,以提供所需的部分能源,同时利用蒸汽甲烷重整(含或不含 CO₂捕集)或水电解(绿色氢气)产生的外部氢₂进行升级。这两种方案都使用松木和赤泥作为原料。赤泥在将₂O3 铁还原成金属铁后,可在 HTL 反应器中用作制氢剂,从而提高生物原油的产量和质量,同时最大限度地减少提纯装置中的氢气消耗量。高温液化反应器是根据实验确定的最佳运行条件建模的,同时对其他方案的装置进行了敏感性分析,以确定其最佳条件。此外,还进行了生命周期评估(LCA),以衡量两种方案对环境的影响。两种方案每天都能生产 459 吨汽油当量,消耗 33 吨 H2。方案 2 的最低燃料销售价格(MFSP)为每升汽油当量(LGE)0.94 美元,甲烷转化和 CO₂ 捕获的排放量最低(每千克 LGE 排放 1.13 千克 CO₂-Eq)。方案 1 的 MFSP 略高,为每升 LGE 0.96 美元,但环境可持续性更强,其 LCA 显示每公斤 LGE 的 CO₂-Eq 为 1.11 公斤。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Energy Conversion and Management
Energy Conversion and Management 工程技术-力学
CiteScore
19.00
自引率
11.50%
发文量
1304
审稿时长
17 days
期刊介绍: The journal Energy Conversion and Management provides a forum for publishing original contributions and comprehensive technical review articles of interdisciplinary and original research on all important energy topics. The topics considered include energy generation, utilization, conversion, storage, transmission, conservation, management and sustainability. These topics typically involve various types of energy such as mechanical, thermal, nuclear, chemical, electromagnetic, magnetic and electric. These energy types cover all known energy resources, including renewable resources (e.g., solar, bio, hydro, wind, geothermal and ocean energy), fossil fuels and nuclear resources.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信