Abstract
The energy and CO2 consequences of substitution of a fossil-fuel-based hydrogen production unit with a biomass-based process in a large European refinery are studied in this study. In the base case, the biomass-based process consists in atmospheric, steam–blown indirect gasification of air-dried woody biomass followed by necessary upgrading steps. The effect of gradually substituting the current refinery hydrogen production unit with this process on global energy and CO2 targets is estimated first. Few process concepts are studied in further detail by looking at different degrees of heat integration with the remaining refinery units and possible polygeneration opportunities. The proposed process concepts are compared in terms of energy and exergy performances and potential reduction in refinery CO2 emission also taking into account the effect of marginal electricity. Compared to the base case, an increase by up to 8 % points in energy efficiency and 9 % points in exergy efficiency can be obtained by exploiting process integration opportunities. According to energy efficiency, steam production appears the best way to use excess heat available in the process while electricity generation through a heat recovery steam cycle appears the best option according to exergy efficiency results. All investigated cases yield to significant reduction in CO2 emissions at the refinery. It appears in particular that maximal emission reduction is obtained by producing extra steam to cover the demand of other refinery units if high efficiency marginal electricity scenarios are considered.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- \( e_{{{\text{Co}}_{{\text{2}}} {\text{,i}}}} \) :
-
Specific CO2 emissions of fuel i (kg/GJfuel)
- Ė feedstock :
-
Exergy in feedstock(s) (MW)
- Ė \(_{{{\text{H}}_{ 2} }} \) :
-
Exergy in hydrogen output (MW)
- elin :
-
Electricity input (MW)
- elout :
-
Electricity output (MW)
- Ė net electricity :
-
Exergy in net electricity output (MW)
- Ė steam :
-
Exergy in steam output (MW)
- Feedstock in:
-
In Eq. (1), total energy in fuel input(s), on HHV basis (MW)
- H2 :
-
In Eq. (1), energy in hydrogen output, on HHV basis (MW)
- HHV:
-
Higher heating value (MJ/kg)
- HP steam:
-
High Pressure steam. In Eq. (1), energy in steam output (MW)
- HT shift:
-
Hight temperature water–gas shift reaction
- LT shift:
-
Low temperature water–gas shift reaction
- \(\dot{m}\) i,avoided :
-
Mass flow of fuel avoided (kg/s)
- η el :
-
Efficiency of marginal electricity producer
- η ex :
-
Exergy efficiency
- η tot :
-
First principle total efficiency
- PSA:
-
Pressure swing adsorption
- SMR:
-
Steam-methane reforming
- ΔCO2 :
-
Fossil CO2 emission balance (kt/y)
- ΔT :
-
Temperature difference for heat exchange used in pinch analysis (°C)
References
Agrawal R, Singh NR (2009) Synergistic routes to liquid fuel for a petroleum-deprived future. AIChE J 55(7):1898–1905. doi:10.1002/aic.11785
Andersson E, Harvey S (2007) Comparison of pulp-mill-integrated hydrogen production from gasified black liquor with stand-alone production from gasified biomass. Energy 32(4):399–405. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2006.06.021
AspenTech (2010) AspenOne Engineering v7.2. Burlington
Bejan A, Tsatsaronis G, Moran M (1996) Thermal design and optimisation. Wiley, New York
Brehmer B, Boom RM, Sanders J (2009) Maximum fossil fuel feedstock replacement potential of petrochemicals via biorefineries. Chem Eng Res Des 87(9):1103–1119. doi:10.1016/j.cherd.2009.07.010
Channiwala SA, Parikh PP (2002) A unified correlation for estimating HHV of solid, liquid and gaseous fuels. Fuel 81(8):1051–1063. doi:10.1016/s0016-2361(01)00131-4
CONCAWE (2012) EU refinery energy systems and efficiency. CONCAWE, Brussels, Belgium. http://www.concawe.be/DocShareNoFrame/docs/1/MHDCAHJBGHMPOJLPDKBPIHOOVEVCWY9DA3PDWY9DW1PD/CEnet/docs/DLS/Rpt_12-03-2012-01520-01-E.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan 2013
Čuček L, Klemeš J, Kravanja Z (2012) Carbon and nitrogen trade-offs in biomass energy production. Clean Technol Environ Policy 14(3):389–397. doi:10.1007/s10098-012-0468-3
Dincer I, Zamfirescu C (2012) Sustainable hydrogen production options and the role of IAHE. Int J Hydrogen Energy 37(21):16266–16286. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.02.133
Gode J, Martinsson F, Hagberg L, Öman A, Höglund J, Palm D (2011) Miljöfaktaboken 2011—estimated emission factors for fuels, electricity, heat and transport in Sweden (in Swedish). Värmeforsk, Stockholm
Hamelinck CN, Faaij APC (2002) Future prospects for production of methanol and hydrogen from biomass. J Power Sources 111(1):1–22. doi:10.1016/s0378-7753(02)00220-3
Hannula I, Kurkela E (2012) A parametric modelling study for pressurised steam/O2-blown fluidised-bed gasification of wood with catalytic reforming. Biomass Bioenergy 38:58–67. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.02.045
He J, Göransson K, Söderlind U, Zhang W (2012) Simulation of biomass gasification in a dual fluidized bed gasifier. Biomass Conv Bioref 2(1):1–10. doi:10.1007/s13399-011-0030-2
Hofbauer H, Rauch R (2000) Stoichiometric water consumption of steam gasification by the FICFB-gasification process. In: Bridgwater AV (ed) Progress in thermochemical biomass conversion, vol 1. Blackwell Science, Oxford
Holmberg H, Ahtila P (2005) Evaluation of energy efficiency in biofuel drying by means of energy and exergy analyses. Appl Therm Eng 25(17–18):3115–3128. doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2005.04.005
Johansson D, Franck PT, Berntsson T (2012) Hydrogen production from biomass gasification in the oil refining industry—a system analysis. Energy 38(1):212–227. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2011.12.011
Johnson E (2009) Goodbye to carbon neutral: getting biomass footprints right. Environ Impact Assess Rev 29(3):165–168. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2008.11.002
Kalinci Y, Hepbasli A, Dincer I (2012) Exergoeconomic analysis of hydrogen production from biomass gasification. Int J Hydrogen Energy 37(21):16402–16411. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.02.173
Klemes J, Friedler F, Bulatov I, Varbanov P (2010) Sustainability in the process industry: integration and optimization (Green Manufacturing & Systems Engineering). McGraw-Hill Professional, New York
Marechal F, Kalitventzeff B (1996) Targeting the minimum cost of energy requirements: a new graphical technique for evaluating the integration of utility systems. Comput Chem Eng 20((SUPPL.1)):S225–S230
Milne TA, Evans RJ, Abatzoglou N (1998) Biomass gasifier “Tars”: their nature, formation and conversion. NREL, Golden
Reinaud J (2005) The European refinery industry under the EU emissions trading scheme. International Energy Agency, Paris
Sarkar S, Kumar A (2010) Biohydrogen production from forest and agricultural residues for upgrading of bitumen from oil sands. Energy 35(2):582–591. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2009.10.029
Smith RM (2005) Chemical process: design and integration, 1st edn. Wiley, Chichester
Spath P, Aden A, Eggeman T, Ringer M, Wallace B, Jechura J (2005) Biomass to hydrogen production detailed design and economics utilizing the Battelle Colombus Laboratory indirectly-heated gasifier. NREL, Golden. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/37408.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan 2013
Tock L, Maréchal F (2012) Co-production of hydrogen and electricity from lignocellulosic biomass: process design and thermo-economic optimization. Energy 45(1):339–349. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2012.01.056
Williams R, Parker N, Yang C, Ogden J, Jenkins B (2007) H2 production via biomass gasification. Advanced energy pathways project. UC Davis, Institute of Transportation Studies, Davis
Acknowledgments
This study was co-funded by Chalmers Energy Initiative, based on strategic funding provided by the Swedish Government. Co-funding by Preem AB, as part of a global research collaboration with Chalmers University of Technology, is also acknowledged.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brau, JF., Morandin, M. & Berntsson, T. Hydrogen for oil refining via biomass indirect steam gasification: energy and environmental targets. Clean Techn Environ Policy 15, 501–512 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-013-0591-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-013-0591-9