This document discusses resource efficient applications of biofuels in British Columbia. It outlines that BC's biomass resources are limited and efficient utilization is required. The Fischer-Tropsch process is presented as an option to produce drop-in fuels from biomass that are compatible with existing infrastructure. While biofuels have potential, combining biomass with coal or solar energy can maximize carbon utilization and reduce costs compared to biomass-only approaches. The document concludes electrification should be prioritized where possible, with biofuels like Fischer-Tropsch fuels playing a role in transportation sectors that require long range.

1. Resource Efficient
Application of Biofuels in
British Columbia
Part 1: Fischer-Tropsch
Drop-in Fuels
Thomas Cheney

2. Bioenergy is limited
BCs Bioenergy
Resources are
limited
Efficient utilization is
required

3. Using bioenergy right
The Right Process
• Energy Efficiency
• Cost effective
The Right Fuel
• Allows use of non-food
• Compatible with the infrastructure
feedstock
• Scalable
• Cost effective
• Clean-burning
• Distribution
• Range

4. Why Resource Efficiency Matters
BC Biomass
resources are
limited
• Equivalent to 40% of
BC fossil fuel use
• Mountain Pine Bettle
fibre supply spike
• 300 PJ sustainable
potential

5. Not all biofuels are created equal
• Some biofuels produce far more fuelhectare
than others

6. BC Energy Use

7. BC Energy Use breakdown
Sector PJ PJ Biomass can meet 25-
Transportation 404 30% of Provincial
Industry 362 energy demand
Agriculture 18
Residential 136
Comm., Instit. & Public Admin 105
Power Generation 35
Total 1060
Biomass Capacity 250-300

8. An American Perspective
• Biomass is not a panacea
“If all biomass were used in CBTL-CCS systems
designed to maximize liquids output, 5.9 million
bbl/day transport fuels could be produced. ≈ U.S.
domestic crude oil production. ≈ ½ of U.S. oil
imports” This assumes that the process with driven
with coal with biomass providing the carbon atoms!

9. BC’s GHG Emissions
Sectore % total
Marine 3.96%
Off-Road 5.40%
Rail 0.72%
Air 2.52%
Passenger Vehicles 14.04%
Heavy Duty Vehicle 9.36%

10. BC Transportation
• 300 Petajoules of energy use
• Assuming conversion efficiency rate of 40%, 120 PJ of fuel
could be realized. This however leave very limited
bioenergy resources available for sectors other than
transportation fuel

11. Electric vs. Biofuel Vehicles
empr.gov.bc.ca
• Vast electric • Limited liquid fuel
supplies supplies
• Limited Range • Long range with
simple refuelling

12. We need both
Apply the right
technology in the
right place
The “Algaeus” biofuel plug-in
• Electricity should be seen as the dominant
prime mover in B.C
• Biofuels hydrogen for range extension

13. How do we get biofuels?
• Thermochemical Pathway
o Fischer-Tropsch
o Di-Methyl ether (DME) and Methanol
 Green Gasoline
o Biomass Synthetic Natural Gas
o Hydrogen
• Biochemical Pathways
o Ethanol
o Others based on proprietary organisms (LanzaTech)

14. Thermochemical Process can
produce many energy products

15. Thermochemical Fuel Cycles
• Gasification, Gas Cleaning, Chemical
Synthesis

16. One Option is FT-Biofuels
CHOREN Biofuels Plant in Germany

17. FT FUEL
• CO + H 2  CH2 + H2O
• Used for coal since 1930s

18. Biomass-Based FTFuels
• Clean syngas is essential
• Entrianed flow gasifiers are considered
to be the most mature technology
• Biomass feeding is a challenge
• Similar technologies used in Coal to
Liquids

19. FT Advantages
• 40% efficiency
• Drop-in fuel!
• Established for coal
and gas to liquids
• Biomass specific
technology pre-
Coal to Liquids Plant in South Africa commercial
http://s2.hubimg.com/u/5090925_f260.jpg

20. FT Compared to the Cellulosic
ethanol
http://mitei.mit.edu/system/files/kreutz-fischer-tropsch.pdf
<2.5 units of biomass are required per unit of
fuel.

21. Economics of FT
Competitive with oil at $115 per barrel gasoline without
carbon price
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/liquid_trans_tech.pdf

22. Biomass injection
Particular challenges to BtL
o Use of coal based systems have energy use
challenges
 biomass grinding to 100 um uses 8% of energy
in biomass
o Coal-based systems use a lock hopper
o Biomass based systems using screw injection
leads to greater energy efficiency
 Less pressurisation needed
 Less dilution

23. Piston Feeding of Biomass
• Biomass specific feeding system appear best
rather than the systems adapted for coal.
o Greater efficiency
o Van der Drift et al. 2004 covers these issues in detail
o “ENTRAINED FLOW GASIFICATION OF BIOMASS: Ash behaviour, feeding issues, and system analyses”

24. Van der Drift Syngas Preparation
Preliminary gasification (option D) offers highest
efficiency approach.

25. Choren
• Low temperature gasification followed by high-
temperature gasification to clean gas.
• Pre-treatment low-temperature gasification to resolve
challenges with biomass gasification of woody biomass

26. Solar Assisted Fuels
• Uses solar energy to drive
endothermic reaction for
biofuels.
• Hydrogen created from
solar energy avoiding loss
of carbon through reverse
gas shift
Hertwich, E. G. and Zhang, X (2010) “Concentrating-Solar biomass gasification process for
a 3rd generation biofuel

27. Solar fuels
• Solar cogeneration for electrolysis and
gasification heat to increase process carbon
efficiency

28. Cost Analysis for solar fuel
analysis
• 7.5$ per GJ of fuel produced (2001 $)
Input costs $2.5 per GJ
• 60% Less land total
• 67% less land for biofuels
• Assumes a $100 /tC
Indicators Solar- Bomass Coal
Biomass Fuel
Fuel Productivity 121.0 39.9 62.2
(kg fuel/100 kg resource)
Cost ($2001/GJ) $7.5 $8.9 $10.8
Efficiency 60.9% 42.0% 36.5%

29. Coal Biomass FT Fuels
• Coal with carbon capture
and storage can leverage
the biomass
1.5 units of coal + 1 unit biomass = 1
unit fuel + 1.5 units sequestered
CO2
565 liters gasoline equivalent with
coal +CCS versus 25l lge!
http://mitei.mit.edu/system/files/kreutz-fischer-tropsch.pdf

30. Remember This:
• Coal with CCS allows for low- mitigation cost
• Very low CO2 fuel

31. Carbon-Neutral Coal Based biofuel
• 38% biomass +
CCS leads to
carbon neutral
biofuel.
• Coal cheaper than
biomass, reduces
fuel production
canindia.com
costs even with
CCS costs included
http://mitei.mit.edu/system/files/kreutz-fischer-tropsch.pdf

32. Economics
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/liquid_trans_tech.pdf
CBTL with CCS costs less than BTL without CCS!

33. Conclusions
• Look at combining biomass and coal or
biomass with solar to maximize carbon
utilization
• Ethanol is a distraction!
• Electrify has much as possible
• Next SNG fuels using compressed
biomethane and liquified biomethane

34. THANK YOU!
://puregreencars.com/files/SunDiesel-Choren.jpg