The techno-economic viability of bio-synthetic natural gas production utilising willow grown on contaminated land

Jonathan B. Norman; Marcelle McManus; Jonathan B. Norman; Marcelle McManus

doi:10.3934/energy.2019.3.285

AIMS Energy

2019, Volume 7, Issue 3: 285-312. doi: 10.3934/energy.2019.3.285

Previous Article Next Article

Research article Special Issues

The techno-economic viability of bio-synthetic natural gas production utilising willow grown on contaminated land

Jonathan B. Norman ^,,
Marcelle McManus

Sustainable Energy Research Team (SERT), Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bath, Bath, UK

Received: 20 November 2018 Accepted: 15 April 2019 Published: 30 May 2019

The growth of energy crops on contaminated land offers two potential advantages over their growth on agricultural land. Firstly, it can clean the land of contaminants, remediating it for future development or agricultural use. Secondly by growing energy crops on such land there is no conflict with land that is suitable for other uses (primarily agriculture). This study examines the opportunity to grow willow on contaminated land and to use this crop to produce bio-synthetic-natural-gas via the gasification processing route. The impact on the gasification system of using the contaminated materials as a feedstock is examined. A process that utilises a steam and oxygen blown gasifier with a plasma gas cleaning step and subsequent syngas cleaning is found most effective. An economic analysis of the process is undertaken to assess the viability of the opportunity. The results show that the costs associated with using the system to remediate land are lower than conventional alternatives, but require forward temporal planning which is not often evident or possible. Cost viability, if considered only for energy production, depends on the feedstock selling for a significantly lower price than virgin feedstock (in many cases requiring a gate fee), alongside a combination of strong policy incentives, natural gas prices and a long-term demand for gas products. For a 20 MW output system the feedstock would require a gate fee of £30 or £70 per tonne (depending on the policy support claimed), whilst for a 50 MW system a £25 gate fee or £30 cost per tonne are needed. Larger gasifiers are more economically viable, but provision of material grown from contaminated land would be unlikely to fulfil demand. Therefore, coupling systems with waste material as a feedstock is beneficial, but has resultant policy implications as current financial incentives are different for such materials.
- bioenergy,
- gasification,
- phytoremediation,
- bioSNG,
- economic analysis,
- uncertainty analysis,
- feedstock price
Citation: Jonathan B. Norman, Marcelle McManus. The techno-economic viability of bio-synthetic natural gas production utilising willow grown on contaminated land[J]. AIMS Energy, 2019, 7(3): 285-312. doi: 10.3934/energy.2019.3.285

Related Papers:

Abstract

The growth of energy crops on contaminated land offers two potential advantages over their growth on agricultural land. Firstly, it can clean the land of contaminants, remediating it for future development or agricultural use. Secondly by growing energy crops on such land there is no conflict with land that is suitable for other uses (primarily agriculture). This study examines the opportunity to grow willow on contaminated land and to use this crop to produce bio-synthetic-natural-gas via the gasification processing route. The impact on the gasification system of using the contaminated materials as a feedstock is examined. A process that utilises a steam and oxygen blown gasifier with a plasma gas cleaning step and subsequent syngas cleaning is found most effective. An economic analysis of the process is undertaken to assess the viability of the opportunity. The results show that the costs associated with using the system to remediate land are lower than conventional alternatives, but require forward temporal planning which is not often evident or possible. Cost viability, if considered only for energy production, depends on the feedstock selling for a significantly lower price than virgin feedstock (in many cases requiring a gate fee), alongside a combination of strong policy incentives, natural gas prices and a long-term demand for gas products. For a 20 MW output system the feedstock would require a gate fee of £30 or £70 per tonne (depending on the policy support claimed), whilst for a 50 MW system a £25 gate fee or £30 cost per tonne are needed. Larger gasifiers are more economically viable, but provision of material grown from contaminated land would be unlikely to fulfil demand. Therefore, coupling systems with waste material as a feedstock is beneficial, but has resultant policy implications as current financial incentives are different for such materials.

References

[1]	gov.uk, Contaminated land (2018) Available from: https://www.gov.uk/contaminated-land.
[2]	European Environment Agency, Progress in management of contaminated sites (2017) Available from: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/progress-in-management-of-contaminated-sites-3.
[3]	Environment Agency (2016) Dealing with contaminated land in England. A review for progress from April 2000 to December 2013 with Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Bristol, UK: Environment Agency.
[4]	Science Communication Unit, University of the West of England, Bristol, (2013) Science for Environment Policy In-depth Report: Soil Contamination: Impacts on Human Health. European Commission DG Environment.
[5]	FAO, ITPS (2015) Status of the World's Soil Resources. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils.
[6]	Britt C, Bullard M, Hickman G, et al. (2002) Bioenergy crops and bioremediation - A review. London, UK: Department for Food Environment and Rural Affairs.
[7]	Gomes HI (2012) Phytoremediation for bioenergy: challenges and opportunities. Environ Technol Rev 1: 59–66. doi: 10.1080/09593330.2012.696715
[8]	Glass DJ (1999) Economic potential of phytoremediation. In: Raskin I, Ensley B, editors. Phytoremediation of toxic metals: using plants to clean up the environment. Chichester, UK: Wiley, 15–31.
[9]	Van Ginneken L, Meers E, Guisson R, et al. (2007) Phytoremediation for heavy metal‐contaminated soils combined with bioenergy production. J Environ Eng Landsc 15: 227–236.
[10]	Evangelou MWH, Conesa HM, Robinson BH, et al. (2012) Biomass Production on Trace Element–Contaminated Land: A Review. Environ Eng Sci 29: 823–839. doi: 10.1089/ees.2011.0428
[11]	Tripathi V, Edrisi SA, Abhilash PC (2016) Towards the coupling of phytoremediation with bioenergy production. Renew Sust Energ Rev 57: 1386–1389. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.116
[12]	Pandey VC, Bajpai O, Singh N (2016) Energy crops in sustainable phytoremediation. Renew Sust Energ Rev 54: 58–73. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.09.078
[13]	Tangahu BV, Sheikh Abdullah SR, Basri H, et al. (2011) A Review on Heavy Metals (As, Pb, and Hg) Uptake by Plants through Phytoremediation. Int J Chem Eng 2011: 31.
[14]	Vervaeke P, Tack FMG, Navez F, et al. (2006) Fate of heavy metals during fixed bed downdraft gasification of willow wood harvested from contaminated sites. Biomass Bioenerg 30: 58–65. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2005.07.001
[15]	Zinn E, Thunman H (2016) Göteborg Energi: Vehicle Fuel From Organic Waste. Industrial Biorenewables: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. pp. 255–265.
[16]	Mozaffarian M, Zwart RWR (2003) Feasibility of biomass/ waste-related SNG production technologies. Petten, The Netherlands: ECN-Biomass Systems.
[17]	Sadaka S (2017) Gasification, Producer Gas and Syngas. USA: University of Arkansas.
[18]	ETI (2017) Targetting new and cleaner uses for wastes and biomass using gasification. An ETI insights report. Loughborough, UK: Energy Technologies Institute.
[19]	van der Meijden CM, Rabou LPLM, Van der Drift A, et al. (2011) Large scale production of bio methane from wood. International Gas Union Research Conference IGRC. Seoul, South Korea.
[20]	gogreengas (2015) BioSNG Demonstration Plant. Project Close-Down Report. Swindon, UK: gogreengas.
[21]	Progressive Energy Ltd and Advanced Plasma Power Limited (2017) Biohydrogen: Production of hydrogen by gasification of waste. An NIA assessment of Biohydrogen production and opportunities for implementation on the gas network. Coventry, UK: Cadent Gas Ltd.
[22]	McKendry P (2002) Energy production from biomass (part 3): gasification technologies. Bioresource Technol 83: 55–63. doi: 10.1016/S0960-8524(01)00120-1
[23]	Progressive Energy and CNG Services (2010) Bio-SNG. Feasibility Study. Establishment of a Regional Project.: NEPIC National Grid and Centrica.
[24]	Heyne S (2013) Bio-SNG from Thermal Gasification - Process Synthesis, Integration and Performance. Gotebury, Sweden: Chalmers University of Technology.
[25]	gogreengas (2017) BioSNG Demonstration Plant. Summary of Plant Design. Full scale BioSNG design and assessment of scale-up risks. Swindon, UK: gogreengas.
[26]	e4tech (2010) The potential for bioSNG production in the UK. NNFCC D. NNFCC project 10/008 NNFCC project 10/008.
[27]	e4tech (2010) Biomass prices in the heat and electricity sectors in the UK.: Department of Energy and Climate Change. URN 10D/546 URN 10D/546.
[28]	e4tech (2009) Review of Technologies for Gasification of Biomass and Wastes. NNFCC D. NNFCC project 09/008 NNFCC project 09/008.
[29]	Sikarwar VS, Zhao M, Clough P, et al. (2016) An overview of advances in biomass gasification. Energ Environ Sci 9: 2939–2977. doi: 10.1039/C6EE00935B
[30]	gogreengas (2015) BioSNG Demonstration Plant. Summary of Technical Results. Results of test and experiments on the demonstration plant. Swindon, UK: gogreengas.
[31]	van der Meijden CM, Veringa HJ, Rabou LPLM (2010) The production of synthetic natural gas (SNG): A comparison of three wood gasification systems for energy balance and overall efficiency. Biomass Bioenerg 34: 302–311. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.11.001
[32]	Gassner M, Maréchal F (2009) Thermo-economic process model for thermochemical production of Synthetic Natural Gas (SNG) from lignocellulosic biomass. Biomass Bioenerg 33: 1587–1604. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.08.004
[33]	Advanced Plasma Power (2018) Available from: https://advancedplasmapower.com/.
[34]	gogreengas (2018) Available from: https://gogreengas.com/.
[35]	gogreengas (2015) BioSNG Demonstration Plant. Summary of Commercial Results. Commercial model of full scale BioSNG plants. Swindon, UK: gogreengas.
[36]	Mleczek M, Rutkowski P, Rissmann I, et al. (2010) Biomass productivity and phytoremediation potential of Salix alba and Salix viminalis. Biomass Bioenerg 34: 1410–1418. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.04.012
[37]	Tőzsér D, Magura T, Simon E (2017) Heavy metal uptake by plant parts of willow species: A meta-analysis. J Hazard Mater 336: 101–109. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2017.03.068
[38]	Keller C, Ludwig C, Davoli F, et al. (2005) Thermal Treatment of Metal-Enriched Biomass Produced from Heavy Metal Phytoextraction. Environ Sci Technol 39: 3359–3367. doi: 10.1021/es0484101
[39]	Nzihou A, Stanmore B (2013) The fate of heavy metals during combustion and gasification of contaminated biomass-A brief review. J Hazard Mater 256: 56–66.
[40]	Gasification and syngas technologies council (2017) Available from: http://www.gasification-syngas.org/.
[41]	Advanced Plasma Power (2018) Plasmarok - Recovered from the Advanced Plasma Power Gasplasma energy from waste process. Swindon, UK: APP.
[42]	ofgem, Non-domestic Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) (2018) Available from: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/environmental-programmes/non-domestic-rhi.
[43]	Department for Transport, Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (2012) Available from: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/renewable-transport-fuels-obligation.
[44]	ofgem, Tariffs and payments: Non-Domestic RHI (2018) Available from: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/environmental-programmes/non-domestic-rhi/contacts-guidance-and-resources/tariffs-and-payments-non-domestic-rhi.
[45]	energy census, [RE]fuel Report (2018) Available from: https://www.energycensus.com/refuel-report/.
[46]	NNFCC, Biomethane RTFC Calculator (2018) Available from: https://www.nnfcc.co.uk/publications/tool-biomethane-rtfc-calculator.
[47]	Department for Transport (2018) Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation Guidance Part One Process Guidance. Year 11: 15/4/18 to 31/12/18.
[48]	Vigil M, Marey-Pérez MF, Martinez Huerta G, et al. (2015) Is phytoremediation without biomass valorization sustainable? - Comparative LCA of landfilling vs. anaerobic co-digestion. Sci Total Environ 505: 844–850.
[49]	WRAP (2017) Comparing the costs of waste treatment options. Banburr, UK: WRAP.
[50]	Edo M, Björn E, Persson P-E, et al. (2016) Assessment of chemical and material contamination in waste wood fuels – A case study ranging over nine years. Waste Manage 49: 311–319. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2015.11.048
[51]	Department for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy (2017) BEIS 2017 Updated Energy & Emissions Projections. Annex M Growth assumptions and prices.
[52]	Remer DS, Chai LH (1990) Design cost factors for scaling-up engineering equipment. Chem Eng Prog 86: 77–82.
[53]	Sas-Nowosielska A, Kucharski R, Małkowski E, et al. (2004) Phytoextraction crop disposal-an unsolved problem. Environ Pollut 128: 373–379. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2003.09.012
[54]	Kuppens T, Van Dael M, Vanreppelen K, et al. (2015) Techno-economic assessment of fast pyrolysis for the valorization of short rotation coppice cultivated for phytoextraction. J Clean Prod 88: 336–344. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.023
[55]	Lievens C, Yperman J, Vangronsveld J, et al. (2008) Study of the potential valorisation of heavy metal contaminated biomass via phytoremediation by fast pyrolysis: Part I. Influence of temperature, biomass species and solid heat carrier on the behaviour of heavy metals. Fuel 87: 1894–1905.
[56]	Brooks RR, Chambers MF, Nicks LJ, et al. (1998) Phytomining. Trends Plant Sci 3: 359–362. doi: 10.1016/S1360-1385(98)01283-7
[57]	Chaney RL, Angle JS, Broadhurst CL, et al. (2007) Improved Understanding of Hyperaccumulation Yields Commercial Phytoextraction and Phytomining Technologies J Environ Qual 36: 1429–1443.
[58]	Šyc M, Pohořelý M, Kameníková P, et al. (2012) Willow trees from heavy metals phytoextraction as energy crops. Biomass Bioenerg 37: 106–113. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.12.025
[59]	SAC (2008) Agriculture and Rural Development Factsheet. Willow Short Rotation Coppice: Is it commercially viable?
[60]	KPMG (2016) 2050 Energy Scenarios. The UK Gas Networks role in a 2050 whole energy system. London, UK: KPMG LLP.
[61]	Balat H, Kırtay E (2010) Hydrogen from biomass – Present scenario and future prospects. Int J Hydrogen Energ 35: 7416–7426. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.04.137
[62]	Ni M, Leung DYC, Leung MKH, et al. (2006) An overview of hydrogen production from biomass. Fuel Process Technol 87: 461–472. doi: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2005.11.003
[63]	Progressive Energy Ltd (2017) The Liverpool-Manchester Hydrogen Cluster: A Low Cost, Deliverable Project. Coventry, UK: Cadent.
[64]	Northern Gas Networks, Wales & west Utilities, KIWA, et al. (2016) H21 Leeds City Gate. Northern Gas Networks.
[65]	Evangelisti S, Tagliaferri C, Clift R, et al. (2015) Integrated gasification and plasma cleaning for waste treatment: A life cycle perspective. Waste Manage 43: 485–496. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2015.05.037
[66]	Evangelisti S, Tagliaferri C, Clift R, et al. (2015) Life cycle assessment of conventional and two-stage advanced energy-from-waste technologies for municipal solid waste treatment. J Clean Prod 100: 212–223. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.03.062
[67]	Tagliaferri C, Evangelisti S, Clift R, et al. (2016) Life cycle assessment of conventional and advanced two-stage energy-from-waste technologies for methane production. J Clean Prod 129: 144–158. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.092

energy-07-03-285-s001.pdf

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2019 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)