From the Bioenergy list at Crest. Please note Harry Parker's comment, that the economics are driven by need:
>>The historic examples for FT synthesis are Germany in WWII and South >>Africa during the apartheid era. The South African plants continue to >>operate, since they had already made their investment, but I understand >>the economics are difficult. The SASOL fuel from coal project was set up in South Africa in the early 1950s, when South Africa was still a member of the Commonwealth and long before oil sanctions. Keith >Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 22:31:31 -0800 >From: Laszlo Paszner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: RE: GAS-L: Fischer-Trosphe Economy of Large -scale Operation >X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: Harry Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >Dear Harry, > >I have also noted the statement "the economics are of course driven >by need" as it pretty well sums up the profitability of either >gasifying or liquefying biomass. But this does not mean by a long >shot that biomass is "out of it". > >The problem has long been recognized by the petrochemical companies, >as you will not find anybody making a single low value product from >oil, since it would not be economical. As I stated on many >occasions, someone calculated that for every 100 gal oil the >industry recovers $100 worth gasoline from half of the barrel and >$27 000 in other chemicals from the other half. > >Biomass is a multi-component raw material as demonstrated at least >on a primitive level by pulping. More specifically, it consists of >68-83% carbohydrates,15-30% lignin (a polyphenol) and 3-7% >extractives (fatty acids, terpenes etc.). Biomass liquefaction >converts indiscriminantly into a single product: SYNGAS or bio-oil >(smoke condensates). Stoichimetrically, the SYNGAS is deficient of >at least 25% hydrogen, and this alone is sufficient to make >methanol/ethanol synthesis by the Fischer/Tropsch (please not the >correct spelling for Tropsch) synthesis from biomass SYNGAS >uneconomical at any scale. > >Of course, co-generation burns totally the biomass and generates >electricity and heat energy. At the moment we have several >co-generation plants operating in British Columbia; I am more >familiar with a plant at Williams Lake, BC. This plant was built in >the '80s with a government guarantee that no matter what, the >company will earn 7.5 c/kWh on selling their power to BC Hydro which >generates electricity in the 2.8 - 4.5 c/kWh range. Additionally, >the company received $4.5/T for the white wood waste they took and >were able to sell steam to saw mills for drying lumber for $7/lb. A >dandy deal but the city of Williams Lake was between a rock and a >hard place: they had to get rid of the smoke generated by Bee-hive >burners that was hanging in the valley year around. The Hydro >electricity sells to customers for 4.8 c/kWh even today. I doubt if >anybody can generate electricity by co-generation for less than 7 >c/kWh even today. The funny thing is that as the fossil energy >costs increase so do those from biomass. I understand that fossil >energy will affect the biomass harvesting and chipping costs but has >little or no effect on growing it. > >Co-generation plant size has little effect on its economics as with >increasing plant capacity the raw material collection and >transportation costs also increase significantly because for example >for a 25 MW co-generation plant about 1 286 645 T wood waste need to >be collected which works out to 3 500 T/day wood waste. Now there >are very few pulp mills of this size. No surprise that the >conversion economics actually decreases with the size of the plant >beyond 5-10 MW capacity. The conversion efficiency calulates to >less than 10%. as the efficiency is also affected by its moisture >content. > >Now converting 1 286 645 T wood to bioethanol we could produce 486 >351 810 L ethanol which would generate 145 MW electricity in simple >cycle combustion turbine generators using 116 379 666 L/yr ethanol >per 35.1 MW continuous power. The conversion efficiency jumps to >35%. When we change to SOFC fuel cells, the conversion efficiency >jumps to 65-72 % and the ethanol required to run the fuel cells >drops to 62 670 795 L/yr to produce the same amount of power Thus >the wood requirement at 380 L/T drops to 165 000 T/yr much more >reasonable. The efficiency can be further increased by running the >fuel cells on vodka-strength (40%) ethanol without loss in >conversion efficiency. > >This may all sound to you as exaggeration, but the fact is that >ethanol production from wood can be made highly profitable contrary >to the general belief that grain ethanol requires government >subsidies to make it competitive with gasoline. But we are talking >about alcohol from a different source with different conversion >economics. > >The difference in conversion economics applies only/mainly to corn >dry-milling where the products beside ethanol are limited usually >stillers dried grain (DDG). For every ton of ethanol about a ton of >DDG is produced which is now worth about $40/T due to the >over-supply. The economics is strongly affected by the grain price. >For every ton of ethanol (1267.4 L/T or 335 gal/T the value >now is $450/T) more than 50% (some $283.50) is spent on the grain (@ >$85/T) alone. Thus it is not surprising that the economics is so >tight. The problem of course is that the price of grains is set by >their food and not the energy value. > >Now wood conversion falls into the same category as oil refining or >wet-milling of corn (I do not know specifically what the value of >co-products is in wet milling, as it is so variable depending on the >product mix). At any rate, the ethanol value (gasoline in oil >refining) in biomass refining (by the ACOS process which I >developed) is a mere 10-15 % of the revenue from the co-products. >Without going into details on the ACOS conversion, it should suffice >to say that, we first dissolve the wood (totally) into its >components (fermentable sugars, lignin and extractives) and then >refine the products into value added products. As long as the >product feeds into the organic chemicals, food, pharmaceuticals and >cosmetics markets, it will fetch a value greater than the energy >value. So, for example for every ton of wood $750-$1300 revenue can >be generated and ROI values range form 5% for 50 T/day to 75% for >500 T/day feesdtock capacity ACOS plants. Under these conditions, >the level of credit rating is set by the profit one wants to make >and therefore, ethanol can be sold for as low as $190/T (15 c/L or >57 c/gal). This price would be lower than the wholesale price of >gasoline and may be good enough for power (electricity) generation. >The ACOS process is the only wood hydrolysis process which can >produce ethanol at a competitive price with gasoline without a >government subsidy. > >The ACOS process engineering has been looked at by Fluor Daniel and >two other engineering companies (Arthur D. Little and Wardrop >Associates in Winnipeg, Manitoba) while a commercial (450 T/day pulp >capacity) organosolv pulp mill was built and operated in Germany >between 1994-1997. So the ACOS process was declared technically >feasible at even small economies of scale (50-500 T/day compared to >1000 to 2500 T/day by all other competing wood hydrolysis >technologies). We are now looking for a joint venture partner to >fund construction of a 50 T/day pre-commercial plant costing about >$55 million. > >Anyway, I wanted to disspell with this long winded description the >hope and myth that we are forced to accept the renewable energy >conversion economics driven by "need". Economics and profitability >need to be the driving forces for a change from fossil to renewable >energy. Renewable energy will never replace fossil fuels if we >would have to wish on a star for the oil companies to step aside and >make room for biomass . That just won't happen. We have to fight >them with their own bullets: i.e. competitively priced energy and >chemical products. The story of wood chemistry, of course goes far >beyond ethanol. Fermentation of sugars gives biomass the degree of >versatility seen only in refining of oil. With bacteria, yeast and >enzymes we can compete with the petrochemical companies at all >levels. Someone once said that 95% of all the chemicals can be made >from one or the other comp[onent of wood. Now that is about as far >as we can hope to go. > >Should you have further question, please do not hesitate to contact me. > >Dr. Laszlo Paszsner >Professor Emeritus >Dept. Wood Science, UBC >2681 Parkway Drive >SURREY, B.C. >CANADA, V4P 1C2 >Tel: 604 538 1349 >Fax: 604 538 5108 >e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > >At 05:14 AM 11/27/2002 -0600, you wrote: >>Hello Doug and all: >> >>Doug I liked your sentence: >> >>"The economics are of course driven by need, and when need is related to >>national wellbeing, things can happen with an acceptance of greater >>effort." >>The historic examples for FT synthesis are Germany in WWII and South >>Africa during the apartheid era. The South African plants continue to >>operate, since they had already made their investment, but I understand >>the economics are difficult. >> >>In contrast, in relatively free political and economic circumstances, >>the economies of large-scale operation are always the dominate factor. >>Both coal and natural gas are readily available on a very large scale, >>so FT transportation fuels and "petrochemicals" are now being made from >>them. Shell in Malaysia using natural gas for diesel and wax and >>Eastman Chemical in Kingsport, Tenn., US using coal for acetic >>anhydride. Conoco and others are ready to build very large natural gas >>to liquids plants whenever the price of petroleum appears to stabilize >>at a sufficient high value. >> >>Biomass residues are more competitive for uses that require relatively >>less investment that FT transportation fuels --- boiler fuel, electric >>power generation, etc. I have discussed these matters in the following >>publication: >> >>Parker, H. W., "After Petroleum is Gone, What Then?", pp. 70-76, World >>Oil, Houston, TX, Sept. (2001). >> >>(Doug, as I recall NZ built a natural gas gasoline facility using the >>M-gasoline process in the late 70's. What is its status?) >> >>Harry >> >>Harry W. Parker, Ph.D., P.E. >>Professor of Chemical Engineering >>Texas Tech University >>Lubbock, TX 79409-3121 >>(806)742-1759 fax 742-3552 Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://webconx.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
