ISBUC

1

• The feasibility of implementing gasification
  technology in the sugar industry
• an Australian perspective
• P.A. Hobson

ISBUC Third meeting Mauritius 29 June 3
July 2009
2
The feasibility of implementing gasification
technology in the sugar industry an Australian
perspective

• Gasification initial interest
• Drivers
• Preliminary studies
• Queensland Biomass Integrated Gasification
  program
• Development of the business plan
• Outcomes from the QBIG program
• Subsequent work
• Current directions
• Pre-processing of bagasse (torrefaction)
• Second generation biofuels

3
Gasification some preliminary studies

• Early 1980s Tests commissioned on catalytic
  gasification for methanol production (Battelle
  Labs, US)
• Renewable Energy (2000) Act
• Mandated 2 new renewable(9500 GWhe) capacity by
  2010 continuing to 2020
• 40 per MWh penalty for not meeting renewable
  power targets
• Preliminary SRI study on integrating gasification
  and factory operations (1998)
• Two-fold increase in power generation relative to
  conventional steam
• Precursor to Queensland Biomass Integrated
  Gasification project
• Australian milling industry and Sugar Research
  and Development Corporation

4
Preliminary study- impact of factory process
steam (2 M tonne crop)
5
Preliminary study- impact of additional fuel on
power generation efficiency
6
Preliminary study- year round power generation
with additional fuel from trash(2 M tonne crop)

• Crushing season
• Minimum bagasse consumed to meet process demands
• Sufficient surplus bagasse/ trash stored to fully
  utilise gasifier and GT in off-season
• Off-season
• All stored bagasse consumed

7
Preliminary study- whole of (Australian) industry
export capacityCrop size 37 M tonnes
Scenario Additional fibre from trash ( original bagasse) Crushing season export capacity (MWe) Off-season export capacity (MWe) Annual power export efficiency ()
Base case -Steam 0 360 580 10
(1) BIG/CC 0 1045 885 22
(2) BIG/CC 23 1045 1370 21
(3) BIG/CC 66 2680 3045 37
8
Preliminary study - site visits

• Varnamo, Sweden
• Sydkraft
• 6MWe/ 9MWth
• 22 bara, CFB
• Maui island, Hawaii
• IGT technology
• 100 tons/ day
• 21 bara, BFB
• Burlington, US
• Battelle technology
• 200 tons/ day
• 2 bara, indirect CFB
• Morwell, Australia
• HRL technology
• 5 Mwe GT
• 25 bara, CFB

9
Preliminary study HRL IDGCC (brown coal)
technology
10
Preliminary study some conclusions

• Approximately 100 increase in power export
• Pressurised BIG/CC appropriate to Australian
  industry
• Higher capital cost offset by greater efficiency
  for BIG/CC installations greater than 50 MWe
• All mills would have a BIG/CC capacity gt 50 MWe
• For maximum efficiency potential
• Process steam demand lt 40 SOC or
• An additional 25 fibre
• Pressurised feeding of bagasse is problematic
• Low bulk density compared with other biomass
• Bagasse binds in screw feed systems
• Large amount of additional fibre to fully utilise
  capacity in off-season
• Additional 66 of existing bagasse supply
• Approximately 350,000 tonnes storage for 2 M
  tonne factory

11
Development of the QBIG program

• Project team
• Formed prior to development of scoping study
• Team members
• Power Industry - Stanwell Corporation Ltd
• State Government Office of Energy
• RD providers SRI, University of Queensland
• Scoping study/ business case
• Critical assessment of conversion technologies
• Evaluation of power export potential and GHG
  mitigation
• Fully costed research plan
• Study externally reviewed
• Secured funding
• A 5m
• Power industry and State Government

12
Queensland Biomass Integrated Gasification
program (QBIG)

• Initiated in 2000
• Ultimate aim of commercial demonstration of high
  pressure BIGCC
• Phase I Strong focus on sugar industry specific
  feasibility issues
• Bagasse gasification kinetics
• Pressurised feeding
• Ash characterisation
• Fuel availability
• Financial viability
• Phase II - Demonstration

13
QBIG Gasification kinetics

• Bench scale reactor
• 900 C
• 25 bara
• Entrained flow
• Departure from TGA
• Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) model
• Implementation of char reactivity data
• Assist Phase II design

• Focus on char
• Initial char yield
• Subsequent char gasification rate

14
QBIG Pressurised feeder

• Bagasse particularly difficult to feed!
• Continuous feeder developed
• Tested to 25 barg
• Minimal leakage with bagasse
• Leakage problems with bagasse/ woodchip blend
• Demonstrated at 75 of 15 MWth
  commercial demonstration scale

• Design criteria
• High volume
• Continuous
• High pressure
• Sealed

15
QBIG fuel availability

• Whole of cane biomass harvesting
• Factory separation
• QBIG separator
• Demonstrated at commercial scale (150 tch)
• Low cane losses (lt 1)
• High trash recovery (98)

16
QBIG Financial viability

• Multiple scenarios - factory integration, fuel
  and operational
• Conventional steam and IG/CC compared
• Conversion of existing boiler to HRSG reduces
  capex for IGCC
• Steam plant dominated by fuel costs, IG/CC by
  capital costs
• Figures below based on 2000 2002 costs
  revenues (very different now!)

Options Total capacity (MW) Net energy export (GWh) Total capital (A million) IRR ()
1. Steam base case 66 180 74 14
2. Option 1 80 trash 156 495 126 14.2
3. BIG/CC 80 trash (10 month operation) 155 829 203 16.6
17
QBIG Outcomes

• Phase I
• Essentially complete
• Ash characterisation deferred to phase II
• Phase II
• Australian renewable energy target scheme
  inadequate
• Value of RECs lower than anticipated
• Initial projections of A40 per MWh
• Actual value dropped to A16 per MWh
• Bid at the time to increase 2 federal target to
  5 rejected
• Escalating capital costs
• Decision by main stakeholders not to proceed

18
Integration of gasification in the Australian
sugar industry

• Major feasibility study
• Federal and Queensland state funded Sugar
  Industry Renewable Energy program
• Industry-wide staged introduction
• Technical and financial analysis
• Some findings include
• Confirms QBIG economic study
• Optimum mix of conventional and IG/CC power would
  deliver 66 of the federal renewable target of
  9500 GWh
• Capex 2.8 times conventional steam - a major
  impediment
• High cost of trash at A15 - A25 per tonne
  reduces IG/CC viability
• Lapse of federal governments renewable energy
  target in 2020 provides insufficient revenue
  certainty for emerging technology

19
Current directions whats changed?

• Mandated Renewable Energy Target
• Originally 9,500 GWh new capacity
• Extended to 45,000 GWh by 2020
• Carbon Pollution Reduction scheme
• Implementation by 2010
• Emissions reduction relative to 2000
• Long-term target 60 by 2050.
• Medium-term 5 to25 by 2020.

20
Current directions

• Diversification - value adding to fibre
• Current projects at QUT - fuel and chemicals
• Flash pyrolysis for furfural production
• Biorefinery demonstration plant
• Ionic liquids for fractionation
• Value adding to lignin
• Hydrolysis of cellulose to C6 sugars
  fermentation to ethanol
• Direct liquefaction of bagasse
• Hydrothermal liquefaction for bagasse
  fractionation
• Phenolic compounds from lignin
• Levulinic acid from cellulose
• Torrefaction
• Use of catalysts to reduce residence time
• Impact of pre-processing on supply chain
  logistics and costs

21
Gasification technology

• Flexible power, fuels, chemicals
• Efficient
• Power export increased by factor of 2.5
• 330 L ethanol per tonne dry fibre
• 140 L diesel per tonne dry fibre
• Issues
• Lack of commercial demonstration
• Economies of scale
• Material handling
• Transport
• Large scale storage
• Feeding

22
Torrefaction as a pre-process - strategic
advantage

• Coal-like energy density and handling properties
• Capitalises on decades of coal technology
  development
• Synergies with short and long term development
  horizons
• Conventional power generation (co-firing)
• Advanced cycle power generation (IG/CC,
  pressurised combustion)
• Coal to liquid fuel production (Fischer Tropsch
  hydrocarbons and alcohols)
• Emerging technologies (supercritical
  gasification, direct liquefaction,
  hydropyrolysis)
• Low technical and commercial risk
• Engineering challenge reduced to development of
  a low pressure/ temperature pre-process
• Utilisation of significant existing coal RD
  facilities

23
The torrefaction process

• 200 - 300C
• Near atmospheric pressure
• Absence of air
• Residence time of 10 30 mins
• Volatilisation of hemicellulose component
• Feedstock thickness lt 4cm
• Heating rate
• lt50C/min

off-gas
30
10
torrefied product
dry biomass
100
70
Torrefaction
90
100
90
1.3
Energy densification 1 x
70
Energy
Mass
24
Torrefied biomass

• Typically 24 MJ/kg (HHV)
• Hydrophobic (maintains 3 moisture)
• Stable in long term storage
• Friable
• 10 of the comminution energy required for
  untreated biomass
• Compatible with conventional coal milling
  equipment
• Readily pelletised
• 50 of energy required to pelletise raw biomass
• High residual lignin (bonding agent)
• Volatiles retained
• 50 to 60 volatiles retained
• Rapid combustion/ gasification
• A smokeless fuel

25
Comparison with other pre-processes

• Supply chain study by Uslu (et al., 2008)
• Process efficiency
• Torrefied and then Pelletised Bagasse (TPB) - 94
• Pelletised biomass - 84
• Bio-oil (from flash pyrolysis) - 64
• Cost of biofuel production using TPB
• 86 of cost using pelletised biomass
• 63 of cost using pyrolysis

26
Comparison of pelletised torrefied biomass (TOP)
with pelletised and unprocessed biomass1

• 1Kiel, J. (2007) IEA Bioenergy Task 32 workshop
  Fuel storage, handling and preparation and
  system analysis for biomass combustion
  technologies, Berlin

27
Preliminary financial evaluation
Torrefaction plant
Fischer Tropsch (FT) diesel
Mill A
Biomass to liquid fuel (BTL) plant
Mill B
55
Year round operation
Mill C
110
Maintenance season
Mill D
165
Crushing season
Mill E
220 km
28
Torrefaction - material inputs
Mill A Mills B to E (per mill)
Cane (tonnes) 2,200,000 1,100,000
Surplus bagasse (tonnes) 285,000 143,000
Bagasse storage (tonnes) 165,000 82,000
Crushing season (hours) 3,600 3,600
29
Torrefaction - financial inputs
Mill A Mills B to E (per mill)
Capital cost (Am) 33 19
Operating and maintenance (Am) 3.1 1.7
Project hurdle rate () 15 15
Project life (years) 20 20
30
Storage transport costs
31
Gasification and biofuel production

• Conversion efficiencies (energy basis)
• Biomass to syngas 80
• Syngas to FT diesel 71
• Capital cost based on Boerrigter (2006)
• Assumed same as CTL1 costs after pre-processing
• CTL estimated by inflating known GTL2 costs
• Additional reactor costs
• Additional oxygen enrichment
• Operating fixed percentage of capex
• Assume long term 50 excise discount or
  equivalent for renewable fuels

1CTL Coal to liquid fuels 2GTL Gas to
liquid fuels
32
Diesel production costs
33
Impact of pre-processing on gasification costs

• TPB has lower transport costs than bagasse for
  distances greater than 100 km
• Break-even (15 IRR) oil price for diesel
  production
• 97 US/ bbl without local TPB production and
  transport
• 76 US/ bbl with local TPB production and
  transport
• Potential for further reduction in costs
• Accessing TPB from greater distances (i.e. gt 200
  km)
• TPB from biomass sources other than bagasse
• Co-firing in CTL plants (e.g. SASOL)
• Integration of advanced cycle power plants (IG/CC)

34
In conclusion ...

• Development of a good business case worth doing
  well but can be a costly process
• Ideally syndicate members should be identified
  prior to preparation of the business case
• Peer review prior to issue
• Robust financial analysis investigating key
  drivers
• Look for highest value end product
• Focus RDD on sugar industry specific issues
• Should be technically well differentiated from
  other/ previous projects
• Minimise technical risk - look for opportunities
  to utilize proven/ commercial technology

35
Acknowledgements

• Compagnie Sucrière du Sud and Queensland
  University of Technology for their sponsorship
• Jean Claude Autrey and Manoel Regis Leal for the
  invitation to attend this meeting

36
Thank you