Upgas università barcellona

25 Maggio 2012 – TERRAFUTURA- Firenze - Italy
Processi innovativi per l’upgrading del biogas – Innovative processes for biogas upgrading
1
UPGAS-LOWCO2
LIFE08/ENV/IT/000429
Environmental Assessment

2
UAB TEAM
Dr. Xavier Gabarrell
Dr. Francisca Blanquez Cano
Dr. Gara Villalba Méndez
MSc. Katherine Starr
 Katherine.starr@uab.cat
www.sostenipra.cat

3
OBJECTIVE
Environmental assessment of the 2 proposed systems - at
an industrial scale
Perceived environmental benefit = actual environmental
benefit?
Innovative elements:
 Removal and capture of CO2 from biogas. Negative contribution to
global CO2 balance.
 Use of industrial waste streams
Improvement of the environmental quality of industrial wastes
once used

4
FIRST STEPS IN ENV. ANALYSIS
Break down flows in and out of your
system
Studying those flows help you determine
impact of your system

5
CO2 ALKALI ABSORPTION WITH REGENERATION: AWR
Mixer
Pump
Column
Pump
Alkaline solution
regenerator tank
Drying of loaded
APC
Water
purificatio
n plant Water
Chemic
al Plant
KOH
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Incinerator
Air
Pollution
Control
(APC)
Residues
Landfill
Municipa
l Waste
Landfill or
Anaerobic
digester
Injection into
natural gas grid
Heat
Exchanger
CO2
rich
biogas
Humid
CO2 lean
biometha
ne
Carbonated
APC
Gas,
leachate
Dry CO2
lean
biomethan
e
Regenerated
KOH solution
Methane
loss
Washing
of APC
Washing
Waste
water
Electricity
Alkaline with Regeneration
Process Process
Flow
Emissi
ons
Legend

CO2 ADSORBTION WITH BOTTOM ASH: BABIU
MSWI BA
Weathering
Reactor
Nitrogen
gas
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Incinerator
(MSWI)
Municipal
waste
Landfill (or
anaerobic
digester)
Injection into
natural gas grid
Landfill
Loaded
bottom ash
Humid CO2
lean
biomethane
CO2
rich
biogas
Bottom
Ash (BA)
Weathered
Bottom
Ash
Unsuitable
Bottom
Ash
Gas,
leachat
e
Spent
N2
Heat
exchanger
Methane
loss
Dry CO2
lean
biomethaneChemica
l plant
Electricity
BABUI
process
Legend
Process
Flow
Emissio
ns

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS METHODS
Life Cycle Assessment
Material Flow Analysis
Exergy Analysis
Total CO2 avoided emissions
Relevance to national scenario
Preliminary data

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT
Determine the impact on the environment along
various factors
 Ecotoxicity, human toxicity, eutrophication, acidification,
global warming potential, etc.
Compare between elements
 Parts in a system
 Two or more systems
Focus on a unit of measure: 1 kWh energy
content in the upgraded gas
Software: GaBi 4.4
Database: Ecoinvent 2.2, and PE international

BALANCEPLANPROCESSESFLOWS
INPUTS
Glass
Electricity
OUTPUTS
Bottle
Glass Wastes
BOTTLE
MANUFACTURE
INPUTS
PET
Diesel Oil
Aluminium
OUTPUTS
Stopper
Wastes of Al
STOPPER
MANUFACTURE
WATER FILLING
INPUTS
Water, Energy
OUTPUTS
Bottle filled
Defective bottles
Mass
Volume
Energy
Money
CML 2001
ADP
GWP
AP
EP
EDIP
Resources, fossil fuels
Ecosystem quality
Carcinogenic effects
EI99
Resources, fossil fuels
Ecosystem quality
Human Health
TRACI
Ecotoxicity
Global Warming Air
BOTTLEOFWATERLCA

PARAMETERS FOR LCA
Need to define parameters and boundaries of the study
Up-scaled to Industrial scale
Landfill gas
 50% CH4, 50% CO2
 AwR
 Regeneration rate of solution: 70%
 658 kg/hr of APC
 6649 l/hr of water
 BABIU
 8333 kg/hr of Bottom ash
 6.7 Nm3/hr of Nitrogen
Direct landfilling of carbonates
Reagents travel 50km to reach upgrading plant
Upgraded gas
 Injected directly into the grid

•Various studies conducted using different system boundaries as well as different
functional units.
• Comparison of the proposed innovative processes to commercial upgrading
technologies :
• High pressure water scrubbing (HPWS)
• Pressure swing adsorption (PSA)
• Chemical scrubbing with amine (AS)
• Membrane separation (MS)
• Cryogenic separation (Cry)
• Organic physical scrubbing (OPS)

BIOGAS UPGRADING
Conventional processes for biogas upgrading: CO2 is removed
and vented to atmosphere
Focus on global warming
potential
High Pressure Water Scrubbing
Pressure Swing Adsorption

LCA on 8 technologies across 12 indicators - Comparison of impacts of upgrading technologies
Compared across all 12 CML
2001impact categories, BABIU
has the best performance in 8
categories and the second best in
3. Only in ozone layer depletion
(ODP) potential does BABIU have
the second highest impact, behind
AwR.
AwR had the highest impact in
11 categories. In global warming
potential (GWP) it has the second
lowest impact after BABIU. The
KOH that is needed for this
process is the main cause of the
high impact across all categories.

-100%
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentage
CML 2001 Categories
CO2 storage
Transport
Reagents
Electricity
Infrastructure
Disaggregated impacts of BABIU - main impact from transport and electricity.

-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentage
CML 2001 Categories
CO2 storage
Transport
Reagents
Electricity
Infrastructure
Disaggregated impacts of AwR - The production of KOH was the main reason for all of the impacts

Comparison of the global warming potential of using KOH and NaOH at varying regeneration rates in AwR
If the KOH is replaced
by NaOH its emissions
are reduced.
As well if the
regeneration rate of
this reagent is
increased from 70% its
emissions are reduced,
though it cannot reach
the same CO2 savings
as achieved through the
BABIU process.

Comparison of global warming potential of distance of transport of bottom ash for BABIU and APC of AwR.
Transport distances between municipal
solid waste incinerators (MSWI) and the
upgrading plant are important. For this
functional unit, at a distance of 145 km
the impact of BABIU and AwR have
the same impact, and after that the
impact of BABIU is higher than that of
AwR, as it requires a large amount of
bottom ash to be transported. When the
distance between the MSWI and a
BABIU plant reaches around 1315 km
the impact from transport becomes
higher than any CO2 savings and the
process begins to have a negative
impact on the environment. For AwR,
this point is reach at a much further
distance of around 10475 km.

Exergy = energy that is useful for work
Can be used to determine efficiencies of systems
and points of improvement
Depends on amount of materials and electricity
needed and the production process of inputs
EXERGY ANALYSIS

Process Exergetic efficiency
BABIU 91%
AwR with KOH 81%
AwR with NaOH 83%
• Since BABIU uses less resources, it has a higher exergetic efficiency
than AwR
• Use of NaOH increased efficiency
•Effect of regeneration rate?
EXERGY ANALYSIS

MATERIAL FLOW ANALYSIS
Quantification of the flows and stocks coming in
and out of a system
Black box approach
 Only look at what goes in and out, not what goes on
inside
Flows of municipal solid waste
 2008 and 2009
 Spain, Italy and Austria
Flows of natural gas

Able to calculate hypothetical amount of upgraded
biogas
 Needs of the processes
 Compare to natural gas
Assume all biogas is generated within the year
 Gives a general idea to possibility and needs
Differences
 Amount of waste collected
 Landfill, Anaerobic digestor
 Organic waste concentration
 Biogas capture rate
 Impurities in selective organic fraction

Municipal solid waste flow – Spain 2008

SPAIN 2008
MSWI BABIU AwR
Anaerobic
digester
624.036 37.651.670 185.476 182.570 1.648.882 185.857
Landfill 9.419.352 393.917.300 1.940.447 1.910.077 17.250.844 1.944.459
MSWI 1.890.000 984.007 378.000
1. AD– all
Organic
matter
9.283.654 1.067.620.203 5.259.207 5.176.815 46.754.354 5.269.998
2. MSWI –
all non
organic
matter
6.672.517 3.473.970 1.334.503
3. MSWI –
current +
landfill
waste
11.309.352 5.888.085 2.261.870
Scenarios
Waste
received
(T)
Estimated
biogas generated
(m3)
Estimated electricity production from
biomethane produced (MWh)
Actual Situtation in 2008
Possible
BA
production
(T)
BA from
MSWI
needed for
BABIU (T)
APC from
MSWI
needed for
AwR (T)
Possible Bottom Ash production and requirements

AwR with NaOH BABIU
Country
Primary Energy
Consumption (%)
Imported
(%)
Produced
(%)
Primary Energy
Consumption (%)
Imported
(%)
Produced
(%)
Spain 0.75 0.36 1922 0.75 0.26 1926
Italy 0.92 0.61 8.94 0.92 0.61 8.96
Austria 0.33 0.16 1.66 0.33 0.16 1.66
Hypothetical amount of susbtituted natural gas in 2009 –
per country

AwR with NaOH BABIU
Country
Replacing
natural gas
(T CO2 eq)
Upgrading
process (T
CO2 eq)
CH4
diverted (T
CO2 eq)
Total (T CO2
eq)
Replacing
natural gas
(T CO2 eq)
Upgrading
process (T
CO2 eq)
CH4
diverted (T
CO2 eq)
Total (T CO2
eq)
Spain 837,000 194,000 2,700,000 3,731,000 839,000 284,000 2,710,000 3,833,000
Italy 2,094,000 600,000 8,360,000 11,054,000 2,098,000 877,000 8,380,000 11,355,000
Austria 84,000 27,000 376,000 487,000 84,000 40,000 376,000 500,000
•If better separation between unsorted and selective collection of OM
•Can increase savings by 300,000 - 10,000,000 T of CO2 eq.
•If landfill gas collection increases to 100%
•Can increase savings by 16,000,000 - 25,000,000 T of CO2 eq.
Hypothetical 2009 CO2 savings – per country

CONCLUSIONS
•Both show large CO2 savings, especially compared to conventional
•BABIU
•Has lowest impact than all conventional processes
•Due to large amount of MSWI BA, transport can have large impact if
far away
•More exergetic efficiency than AwR
•Needs higher amount of industrial waste
•Currently not possible to meet all needs
• AwR
•Production of KOH causes high impact
•Change of base to NaOH and improving regeneration rate = lower
impact
•Using NaOH rather than KOH = higher exergetic efficiency
•Needs less industrial waste than BABIU
•Impact of transport distance is less pronounced
•Needs can be more easily met

DISSEMINATION
Papers:
Starr K., Gabarrell X., Villalba G., Talens L., Lombardi L., Life cycle assessment of biogas upgrading technologies. Waste
Management 2012. In press.
Conference:
Biogas Upgrading: Global Warming Potential of Conventional and Innovative Technologies, K. Starr, X. Gabarrell, G. Villalba, L.
Talens., L.Lombardi. ECOS 2012 - International Conference on Efficiency, Cost, Optimization, Simulation and Environmental
Impact of Energy Systems 26-29 June 2012 Perugia, Italy.
Potential reduction of CO2 emissions in Spain through the application of carbon capture technologies in anaerobic digestion units,
K. Starr, X. Gabarrell, G. Villalba, L. Talens. Ecotech and Tools Conference 30 November – 2 December 2011 Montpellier,
France.
CO2 balance of biogas up-grading technologies, K. Starr, X. Gabarrell Durany, G. Villalba Mendez, L. Talens Peiró, L.
Lombardi. Sardinia 2011 Thirteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium 3 - 7 October 2011 S. Margherita di
Pula (Cagliari), Sardinia, Italy

Thank you!
Questions?
www.sostenipra.cat

Upgas università barcellona

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (14)

Similaire à Upgas università barcellona

Similaire à Upgas università barcellona (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Upgas università barcellona