Post on 19-Jan-2017
0
9
5
0
9
27,0
5
19
5
1
76
44,0
0% 50% 100%
Electricity (%)
District heat (%)
Energy mix of OdenseOther REElectricity (hp etc.)Biomass/BiogassWasteGas & OilCoal
Odense
L ife Cycle Analysis of a biorefinary for Odense
Primary reference: Cherubini and Jungmeier biorefinery concept producing bioethanol, bioenergy and chemicals from switchgrass. Secondary references: Parajuli Life Cycle Assesment iomass and Bioenergy 68 ( 2014 ), pp. 115-‐134 ; Jungmeier burdens over the entire life cycle of a biomass CHP plant1http://www.windmeasurementinternational.com/wind-‐turbines/om-‐turbines.php ; 2Murphy & Higher vulnerability of supply (switchgrass vs. wind , Ann NY acad Sci, 1185:102-‐118
The municipality of OdenseThe plant will be situated in the municipality of Odense,and will be based on the lignocellulosic crop, Switchgrass.The switchgrass will be produced locally on the Island Fynon an area of marginalland corresponding to 1% of the areaof Fyn. Total yearly energy consumption of electricity is3300 TJ/yr and heat is 8100 TJ/yr in Odense.
Green house gass emissionsContext Description
Land production capacity in denmark is small (compared to windpower which also can use offshore windpower)Todays marginal land used for the switch grass, will in the future be feasible for food-‐productionDanish energy policies are more favorable towards wind powerLong term damages for ground wild life in case of biodiversity loss
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
OPPORTUNITIES
SW
O T
Longer term capacity contributionRefinery plant is not location specificCan produce power in every seasons (the plant produces baseloads)Lifespan +20years1
Higher utilities (can be used in transport, heating, electricity, etc.)Boost local economy (job opportunities)
Higher carbon footprint (transport, drying, processing)Larger ecological footprint (fields needed for switch grass production)Higher operation and maintenance costNeeds soil managementLower EROI than wind power (generally wind power have EROI of 18)2
Increased emission of N2O due to fertilizer
Easier implemented to energy gridUnused marginal land World Wide (e.g. in Russia) Development in efficiency for pellet transport, would reduce CO2 footprintGovernemental bodies would not have an Technologic lock-‐inecological technologies, so they would invest in more different types of technologies
THREATS
Energy and Sustainability - Assignment 2 - Group 14
Boundaries
Land
Switchgrass Cultivation
Harvesting
Transport
Drying & Pelleting
Biorefinery Plant
Heat Electricity
Particularly Energy use
Particularly Energy Output
Energy Return On (energy) Invested
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
eMergy
SWOT Analysis In Relation to Wind Energy Conclusion
Total Electricity184 TJth/area/year
Balling, Chopping and Drying0.65 TJth/area/year
Transportation0.42 TJth/area/year
Construction45.8 TJth/area/year
Total Heat28 TJth/area/year
Electricity return back to the plant
5.7 TJth/area/year
Heat return back to the plant
3.26 TJth/area/year
2·∙1017 seJ/year
7.88·∙1018 seJ/year
External Input
Rene
wab
le In
put
External Input
Total eMergy8.08·∙1018 seJ/year
UEV= =3.82·∙104 seJ/Jth EYR= =1.025
69%
5%2%3%3%
4%
14%
Pellet production
Transport of pallets
Distrubution andfinal useCombustion ofrecidues (CHP)Waste treatment
Manufacture ofauxiliary materialsConstruction of plant
05
101520253035
0 5 10 15 20
ktC0
2eq
year
C02
N20
CH4
SUMC02eq
Land use changeThe first 20 years the change in use of themarginal land will have a positive effect on thesoil organic carbon (SOC), and a positivesequastation rate of 0,6 tonne C/ha per year isassumed. After 20 years a new equlibriumoccurs and SOC will be zero.
If zero sequestation had been assumed the totalemission over 20 years would have been59ktC02eq (compared to now 30 ktC02eq)
Plant in Odense
Area = 1% of Fyn
Evaluation period is 20 years!
The switchgrasswill have a max.
transport distance of 50km. Energy output of the plant
The plants primary production is bioethanol for transport.
249
19 560
120
100200300
Transport(bioethanol)
Biomethane (heat) Phenols Electricity (CHP) Heat (CHP)
TJ/yr
Energy output to Odense (all)Focus on CHP
But in the following focus will be on the CHP-‐production only. The bioenergy will replacethe current energy from burning of coal, and contribute to an increase in the use ofbiomass and biogas in Odense of:
Electricity: +21% biomass/biogasHeat: +1% biomass/biohgas
Of current Biomassuse in Odense
Distribution of emissionsEmissions from CHP
The GHG emissions is primarily from N20due to application of N fertilizer in theagricultural process. The negative C02emissions is due to the LUC.
0,4
27,6
2,4
0,05,0
10,015,020,025,030,0
CO2 N2O CH4
kt CO2 eq
Sum of emissions
General findingsIn the Life Cycle Assessment three key parameters where identified as having crucial impacton the assessment results:
Evaluation method of Land Use Change effectsBoundary conditions (e.g. including/excluding construction of plant)Assessment period
These parameters are among others important factors when comparing results and smallchange in one of these can have great influence on the outcome.
Further more the biorefinary is based on switchgrass grown on marginal land, but todaysmarginal land may be profitable in the future for food production, which would influenceon the LCA.
Biofuels are not like most renewable energies, it can take the role of the base-‐load powerplant, unlike wind power. The Job opportunities will also increase (both in urban and ruralareas). However, due to the transportation, and not Carbon free fuel it does not have acarbon-‐free footprint like the wind power. Wind power production have an EROI around 18comparing to the 3.78 the bio-‐plant have.
Key resultsFollowing is a summarize of the most important results of the study:
Energy Output Green house gas emissionsHeat 12 TJ/yr CO2 0,02 ktCO2eq total
Electricity 60 TJ/yr N2O 1,4 ktCO2eq total
CH4 0,12 ktCO2eq total
Energy return on energy investet eMergy Yield RationEROI 3,78 EYR 1,025
Unit eMergy ValuesUEV 3,82 SeJ/Jth
EROI= =3.78
Authors: Eleni Pavlidi, Yini Xu, Georgios Vaskantiras, Mikkel Brendstrup and Kathrine Brejnrod