Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Light olefins and transport fuels from biomass residues via synthetic methanol: performance and cost analysis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A thermochemical processing route from biomass residues to light olefins (ethylene and propylene) is assessed by means of process simulation and cost analysis. A two-step process chain is proposed where (1) biomass residues are first converted to synthetic methanol in a gasification plant situated close to feedstock resources and (2) the produced methanol is transported to a steam cracking site where it is further converted in a methanol to olefins (MTO) plant. Possibilities for heat and product integration as well as equipment sharing with a steam cracking plant are discussed. Overall mass yields from dry biomass to light olefins range from 169 to 203 kg/t. Based on cursory capital cost estimates, the maximum methanol purchase price for such integrated MTO plants is estimated to be in the range of 420–450 €/t.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1 These include Shenhua Baotou’s methanol to olefins (300 kt/a ethylene and 300 kt/a propylene) and Shenhua Ningmei’s methanol to propylene (500 kt/a propylene) [4].

  2. 2 The PDU was run circa 4,000 h in pressurised oxygen-blown mode using various wood residues as feedstock.

  3. 3 The heat of combustion is defined on lower heating value basis and calculated for the wet biomass prior drying.

  4. 4 Higher costs are due to more expensive double fluidised-bed reactor/regenerator system, reactor internals, catalyst and combustion air blower.

  5. 5 Following breakdown is assumed for the O&M: personnel costs 0.5 %, maintenance & insurances 2.5 %, catalysts & chemicals 1 %.

    Table 10 Financial parameters assumed for the purpose of cost analysis
    Full size table

  6. 6 The C 4+ is valued at 80 % of the end-product value, which we assume to be 750 €/t for conventional motor fuel and 1,269 €/t for biofuel

  7. 7 Both plants having 10 % internal rate on return and paying 12 €/MWh for the feedstock

References

  1. Funk G, Myers D, Vora B (2013) A different game plan. Brochure, Hydrocarbon Engineering

  2. Ren T, Patel M, Blok K (2006) Olefins from conventional and heavy feedstocks: energy use in steam cracking and alternative processes. Energy 31(4): 425–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hyde B (2012) Light olefins market review

  4. Hyde BICIS. China develops coal-to-olefins projects, which could lead to ethylene self-sufficiency, 2012. bit.ly/MgIGE6

  5. Kreutz TG, Larson ED, Williams RH, Liu G Fischer-tropsch fuels from coal and biomass. PA, Pittsburgh, p 2008

    Google Scholar 

  6. Liu G, Larson E D, Williams R H, Kreutz T G, Guo X (2011) Making Fischer-Tropsch fuels and electricity from coal and biomass: performance and cost analysis. Energy & Fuels 25(1)

  7. Landälv I (2013) Demonstration plants for advanced biofuels production based on thermochemical pathways—status and reflections Proceedings of the 21st European Biomass Conference and Exhibition

  8. Hannula I, Kurkelaz E (2013) Liquid transportation fuels via large-scale fluidised-bed gasification of lignocellulosic biomass, VTT Technology 91. Technical Research Centre of Finland

  9. 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(0): 58–67. Overcoming Barriers to Bioenergy: Outcomes of the Bioenergy Network of Excellence 2003-2009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Katofsky R (1993) The production of fluid fuels from biomass Center for energy and environmental studies, vol 279. CEES Rpt, Princeton University

  11. Wilen C, Moilanen A, Kurkela E (1996) Biomass feedstock analyses, vol 282. VTT Publications, VTT

  12. (1994) Converter options for methanol synthesis. Nitrogen 210: 36–44

  13. Glover BLight olefin technologies, 2007. Journées Annuelles du Pétrole

  14. (2007) Wiley Critical Content—Petroleum Technology, vol.1–2, John Wiley & Sons

  15. ChemSystems, 2009. Ethylene PERP 08/09-5, Report Abstract.

  16. Wan V (2007) Methanol to olefins. Report no. 261. SRI Consulting

  17. (2003). In: Meyers R (ed) Handbook of Petroleum Refining Processes, 3rd edn. The McGraw-Hill, New York

  18. Kuechler K., Lattner J. (2000) Process for converting oxygenates to olefins with direct product quenching for heat recovery, US patent 6121504. Exxon Chemical Patents Inc

  19. Barger PUOP Advanced MTO Technology—integration of methanol-to-Olefins and olefin cracking processes, 2012. SynFuel2012 Symposium

  20. Kempf RAdvances in commercialization of the UOP advanced MTO technology, 2011. 2011 Middle East Chemical Week Conference

  21. Chen J Q, Bozzano A, Glover B, Fuglerud T, Kvisle S (2005) Recent advancements in ethylene and propylene production using the UOP/Hydro MTO process Catalysis Today, vol 106. Intenational Conference on Gas-Fuel 05, pp 103–107

  22. Stewart D G, Zimmermann J E, Furfaro A P, Vora B V (2007) Apparatus and process for light olefin recovery. U.S patent 7268265 B1, UOP LLC

    Google Scholar 

  23. Larson E D, Williams R H, Kreutz T G, Hannula I, Lanzini A, Liu G (2012) Energy, environmental, and economic analyses of design concepts for the co-production of fuels and chemicals with electricity via co-gasification of coal and biomass. Final report under contract DEFE0005373 to the National Energy Technology Laboratory, US Department of Energy. Princeton University

  24. Hannula I., Sorsamki L., Arpiainen V., Harlin A.Renewable packaging materials and chemicals from biomass—Techno-economics of methanol-to-olefins route Proceedings of the 21st European Biomass Conference and Exhibition. Denmark, Copenhagen, p 2013

  25. Smith RChemical Process Design and Integration. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex PO19 8SQ, England, 2005

  26. Liu G, Larson E D, Williams R H, Kreutz T G, Guo X (2011) Supporting information for making Fischer-Tropsch fuels and electricity from coal and biomass: performance and cost analysis. Energy Fuels 25(1)

  27. Williams R, Larson E, Katofsky R, Chen J (1995) Methanol and hydrogen from biomass for transportation, with comparisons to methanol and hydrogen from natural gas and coal. PU/CEES report, vol 292. Princeton University

  28. Hamelinck C, Faaij A (2002) Future prospects for production of methanol and hydrogen from biomass. J Power Sources 111(1): 1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. McKeough P, E. Kurkela. (2008) VTT Research Notes: 2434

  30. IHS/SRI, 2009. Process Economics Program (PEP) Yearbook

  31. Phillips S, Tarud J, Biddy M, Dutta A (2011) Gasoline from wood via integrated gasification, synthesis, and methanol-to-gasoline technologies. NREL/TP-5100-47594. National Renewable Energy Laboratory

  32. Talmadge M. (2013) Workshop on System and Integration Aspects of Biomass-based Gasification. IEA Bioenergy Task 33

  33. (2013) Platts. Biofuelscan, vol 2

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Lotta Sorsamäki, Ali Harlin and Kai Sipilä for helpful discussions during the preparation of this paper, Tom Kreutz (Princeton university) for helpful reviews of an early MTO simulation model and Eric Larson (PU) for assistance with early cost analysis. The research leading to these results was funded by VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Technical Research Centre of Finland, 02044, P.O. Box 1000, Espoo, VTT, Finland

    Ilkka Hannula & Vesa Arpiainen

Authors
  1. Ilkka Hannula
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vesa Arpiainen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ilkka Hannula.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hannula, I., Arpiainen, V. Light olefins and transport fuels from biomass residues via synthetic methanol: performance and cost analysis. Biomass Conv. Bioref. 5, 63–74 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-014-0123-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-014-0123-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation