H2 PRODUCTION VIA BIOMASS GASIFICATION

Advanced Energy Pathways (AEP) Project Task 4.1 Technology Assessments of Vehicle Fuels and Technologies Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program California Energy Commission July 2007 Prepared by: UC Davis, Institute of Transportation Studies (ITS-Davis) One Shields Ave, Davis, CA 95616 Authors: Rob Williams, Nathan Parker, Christopher Yang, Joan Ogden and Bryan Jenkins 1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................................2 2. Technical Description.......................................................................................................................3 2.1 How it works Biomass gasification.......................................................................................3 2.1.1 Types of Gasifiers..............................................................................................................4 2.1.2 Co-production of Electricity..............................................................................................9 2.2 Feedstock Issues........................................................................................................................9 2.2.1 Biomass Sizing, Collection and Transport........................................................................9 2.2.2 Moisture Content..............................................................................................................11 2.2.3 Ash Content .....................................................................................................................11 2.3 Important factors controlling efficiency, emissions...............................................................12 2.4 Critical technology components..............................................................................................12 2.4.1 Feed Handling .................................................................................................................12 2.4.2 Gas Cleaning....................................................................................................................13 2.4.3 Gas Conditioning..............................................................................................................13 2.4.4 Hydrogen Separation .......................................................................................................13 2.5 Key attributes and benefits......................................................................................................13 3. Performance Metrics......................................................................................................................14 3.1 Efficiency and Energy Use......................................................................................................14 3.2 Emissions.................................................................................................................................15 3.3 R&D focus and impact on key metrics...................................................................................16 3.4 Costs........................................................................................................................................17 3.4.1 Capital Costs.....................................................................................................................19 3.4.2 Operating Costs................................................................................................................22 3.4.3 Lifecycle/levelized...........................................................................................................23 4. Penetration issues...........................................................................................................................23 4.1 Current projects.......................................................................................................................23 4.2 Feedstock issues (California Context)....................................................................................24 4.3 Key technical and economic barriers......................................................................................28 4.4 Potential Timeline For Biomass Gasification Plants..............................................................28 5. Conclusions.....................................................................................................................................28 6. References:.....................................................................................................................................30

1.

INTRODUCTION

There are several potential pathways for hydrogen production from biomass.1 These include thermochemical routes (gasification, pyrolysis, supercritical water or hydrothermal) and biochemical routes (anaerobic digestion, dark- and photo-fermentation, and direct/indirect biophotolysis) [1]. Other than anaerobic digestion to produce methane for reforming, essentially all biomass and biochemical routes to hydrogen are developmental with demonstrations at lab or pilot scale only. Direct hydrogen production via anaerobic digestion is also developmental. There are several examples of the use of biogas from anaerobic digestion (AD) to fuel stationary fuel cells.

Thermochemical conversion Direct gasification Pyrolysis Indirect gasification Biomass Supercritical water gasification Hydrogen Methane Dark fermentation Reforming, Uprading, & Separation

Anaerobic digestion

Organic acids Water

Photo fermentation

Separation

Direct/indirect biophotolysis Biochemical conversion

Figure 1

Hydrogen pathways from biomass and biochemistry (adapted from [1])

Regarding thermochemical routes, there are several principal candidate gasifier types as well as feedstock modification scenarios for hydrogen production from biomass. Candidate gasifier types are oxygen-blown direct fired entrained flow or circulating fluidized bed (pressurized or atmospheric), and indirectly heated air blown, atmospheric fluidized bed designs. Scenarios for feedstock modification or pre-treatment include pyrolysis or torrefaction to transform biomass into something more easily handled, transported, and/or fed to a gasifier. Supercritical water gasification (sometimes called hydrothermal treatment) occurs at relatively low temperature (500 700 C) and in water at high pressure (near or above the critical point, 221 bar
1

Biomass is living or recently living material. The definition in Federal statute (7 USC 7624 303) is: Any organic matter that is available on a renewable or recurring basis, including agricultural crops and trees, wood and wood wastes and residues, plants (including aquatic plants), grasses, residues, fibers, and animal wastes, municipal wastes, and other waste materials.

or 3200 psi). Biochemical routes to hydrogen include steam methane reforming of biogas from anaerobic digestion (including landfill gas), as well as direct hydrogen production from AD by inhibiting the methane forming bacteria. Dark and photo-fermentative and two stage dark/photo fermentative production of hydrogen is theoretically possible with anaerobic hydrogen producing enzymes as well as bio-photolysis of water by algae. Estimates of commercial hydrogen production capacity for biomass and biochemical routes are shown in 1 (adapted with modifications from [1] ). Because AD and steam methane reforming (SMR) are commercial technologies now and extensive development needed to commercialize the dark/photo-fermentation and biophotolysis routes, AD with SMR is expected to remain the best commercial choice for small scale biomass to hydrogen route [1, 2]. The remainder of this report discusses issues related to large scale (at least in terms of biomass) hydrogen production from biomass gasification.

Gasification / Pyrolysis Supercritical Water Gasfication Biophotolysis Dark&Photo Fermentation Anaerobic Digestion 1 10 100 Hygrogen Production Capacity (1000 kg/day 1,000
)

Figure 2

Estimated capacity ranges for biomass/bio-derived H2 production (adapted from [1])

2.

TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION

2.1 How it works Biomass gasification

Gasification is the conversion of (usually solid) carbonaceous material into fuel gases (synthesis gas, producer gas). It is commonly accomplished via partial oxidation of the feedstock using substoichiometric (insufficient) air or oxygen or by indirect heating (with or without steam). The product, or synthesis gas (syngas), is principally CO, H2, methane, and lighter hydrocarbons, H2O, PM, tar, alkali vapors, nitrogen and sulfur compounds, and depending on the process used, can contain significant amounts of CO2 and N2, the latter mostly from air. High temperature (>1200C) oxygen-gasification processes produce syngas with very low concentrations of hydrocarbons and higher concentrations of CO and H2. Gasification processes also produce liquids (tars, oils, and other condensates) and solids (char, ash) from solid feedstocks. The combustion of gasificationderived fuel gases generates the same categories of products as direct combustion of solids, but

pollution control and conversion efficiencies may be improved. The product gas, synthesis gas or syngas, from biomass gasification can be further processed to produce hydrogen or a range of liquid fuels including methanol, ethanol, mixed alcohols and gasoline- or diesel-range hydrocarbons. The raw product gas (CO, H2, light hydrocarbons, tars, particulate material, and other) undergoes extensive clean up to remove catalyst poisons and other undesirable components. This is followed by gas processing/reforming where the methane and higher hydrocarbons are reformed into CO, CO2, and H2. The gas is then sent to water gas shift reactors to convert nearly all of the CO to H 2 and CO2 (consuming some H2O vapor). The resulting gas is mainly hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The hydrogen is separated from the stream usually by pressure swing adsorption (PSA) (2.1). The PSA generally employs a molecular sieve, allowing hydrogen to pass through and adsorbing impurities at high pressure then desorbing the impurities as reject gas at low pressure. This process requires electricity input for the compression power, and hydrogen purities of 99.999% can be achieved [1].
Steam electricity Product Hydrogen PSA Reject Heat Combustor

Gasifier

Gas Cleanup

Re former

Water Gas Shift Reactors

PSA

Feedstock Processing

Ash

Figure 3

Schematic of gasification to hydrogen production system.

Biomass gasification for the production of hydrogen is not practiced commercially at present. Gasification technology of a type suitable for H2 synthesis has been demonstrated for electricity production using biomass feedstocks. The technology has been used extensively for liquid hydrocarbon production from coal and petroleum coke. The steam reformer, water-gas shift reactors, and PSA are components of the mature steam methane reformation (SMR) technologies, though they may require adjustment for optimal use with syngas. There is uncertainty as to the best gasification technology for producing hydrogen from biomass feedstocks especially in feedstock handling and gas cleanup. 2.1.1 Types of Gasifiers Gasifier types include the fixed bed (updraft or downdraft), fluidized or bubbling bed, circulating fluidized bed, and entrained flow (2.1.1-8). The units can operate at atmospheric or higher pressure. The gasification medium is generally either air (air-blown), oxygen (oxygenblown), steam, or a combinations of these. With direct gasification, heat for the process is supplied within the reactor by partial combustion of the feedstock. Indirect gasification refers to systems that use external heating to drive the

gasification reactions (heat must be transferred into the reactor by some mechanism; for best efficiency, the source of the external heat should be from combustion of the unreacted char (fixed carbon) from the indirect gasification reactor). Examples of indirect gasifiers include the Fast Internal Circulating Fluidized Bed (FICFB) gasifier, currently operating at Gssing, Austria and the Battelle Columbus Laboratory (BCL) design which was demonstrated in Burlington, Vermont (Figures 9 and 10).2 For high quality (high energy content) synthesis gas, direct gasification needs to be oxygen-blown in order to avoid nitrogen dilution from air. Indirect gasification can produce a suitable synthesis gas using air as oxidant.

Figure 4 Schematic gasifier [5]

of

fixed-bed

updraft Figure 5 Schematic of fixed-bed downdraft gasifier [5]

2.1.1.1 Fixed Bed Gasifiers In the fixed-bed updraft configuration, air (oxidant) flows countercurrent to the fuel. It is suitable for relatively high moisture fuels (<60% wet basis) but produces a large amount of tar requiring post-reactor catalytic cracking or dual stage air injection. It produces a low carbon ash. Cigarettes are an example of updraft (or counterflow) gasification. Air and fuel flow cocurrently in the fixed bed downdraft gasifier (though the fuel moves much slower than the air). It produces less tar than the updraft configuration but is limited to fuel with about 30% moisture or less. The residual char has relatively high carbon content. This type of gasifier was used to fuel thousands of wood gas vehicles during WWII. The updraft & downdraft gasifiers are usually small batch operated devices in which the fuel bed is
2

The FICFB gasifier in Austria has been operating since 2002 and produces about 2 MW of electricity and 4.5 MW of heat [3]. The BCL gasifier successfully demonstrated syngas production from wood chips. The scale was 200 tons/day of wood fuel. It was co-located with an existing wood fired power plant (steam cycle). The syngas was fired in the adjacent steam boiler. Funding for addition of a gas turbine (for the syngas) did not develop [4].

held stationary while the reaction front passes through it, or the bed can move through reaction or mechanical displacement. Often, they are suction type gasifiers attached to an engine. These gasifier types would not likely be the preferred choice for hydrogen or liquid fuels production from biomass, although parallel trains of such gasifiers have been used with coal for this purpose.

Product Gas

Freeboard

Product Gas Produc t Gas

Fluid Bed

Ash Biomass

Fuel
Air/Steam

Plenum

Figure 6

Bubbling bed reactor [5]

Fluidizing Air, O2, or Figure 7 Circulating fluidized bed reactor [5]

2.1.1.2 Fluidized Beds Fluidized bed reactors contain a bed of relatively small particles of inorganic material (often sand or small diameter ceramic beads or gravel). The bed is fluidized by blowing hot oxidant up from the bottom (individual particles are lifted by aerodynamic drag, and become suspended or entrained on the gas stream at velocities for which the drag force becomes equal to or exceeds the gravitational force or weight). When fluidized, the bed behaves much like a liquid. When the bed media is hot enough, biomass is injected either into the bed or onto the surface (bubbling beds) and can begin to combust or gasify depending on the amount of oxygen available. Bubbling fluidized bed reactors have relatively slow velocity air, oxygen, or steam flow and therefore have lower particle entrainment in the gas leaving the reactor. The bed material is concentrated in the lower dense-bed region because the freeboard section above the bed has a larger diameter and lower gas velocity. The gas velocity in the freeboard section is too low to continue to suspend bed particles, which fall back into the bed region. The design is simple but has lower capacity and potentially less uniform reactor temperature distribution than circulating fluidized beds. The circulating fluidized bed uses higher gas velocities but offers higher conversion rates and efficiencies. Instead of a freeboard section, the reactor diameter remains essentially constant,

which keeps bed and fuel particles suspended. The bed material flows up with the fluidizing gas and is carried over into a cyclone which separates most of the particles from the gas stream which are re-injected (recirculate) into the lower part of the bed. Ideally, the fuel particles are small enough to completely react before carried over into the cyclone, but in practice large fuel particles recirculate with bed media until small and light enough to be carried out with the product gas exiting the cyclone or other separation device. Oxygen fired circulating fluidized bed gasifiers are candidates for the production of hydrogen and liquid fuels.

Figure 8

Schematic of an entrained flow gasifier [6]

2.1.1.3 Entrained Flow Entrained flow gasifiers are used extensively by the petroleum to convert petroleum residues (e.g., petroleum coke) to useful products and energy. Most coal gasification is done with entrained flow systems. Entrained flow gasifiers have high gas velocities and high material throughput. Consequently, time for reaction (residence time) is short which requires the feedstock to be of very small particle size, a liquid or liquid slurry. The systems are generally oxygen blown and can be pressurized or atmospheric. High temperature (>1250 C) is generated from combustion in oxygen which melts the ash (sometimes called slagging gasifier) and requires reactor cooling. Little to no tar is formed as the feedstock is essentially completely converted to H2, CO, CO2, and H2O.

2.1.1.4 Raw Syngas Characteristics Air-blown gasifiers produce a low energy gas (~ 150 Btu ft-3) composed of CO, H2, CO2, CH4, higher light hydrocarbons, H2O, PM, alkali vapors, nitrogen and sulfur compounds, and 40-50% N2. The N2 is a diluent and is from the air gasification medium. Oxygen-blown gasifiers produce a medium energy gas (~ 350 Btu ft-3) composed of similar compounds but much less nitrogen. An air separation plant is needed to create a pure or enriched oxygen stream to use for the gasification medium. Properly designed and operated air-blown indirect gasifiers produce a medium Btu gas because the combustion reactor is separate from the gas producing reactor. The products of combustion and the air borne nitrogen are therefore separate from the synthesis gas stream. Table 1. Approximate composition of raw syngas from gasified biomass Air-blown Oxygen-blown Indirect-fired-steam Producer Gas Synthesis Gas gasification Synthesis (vol. %) (vol. %) Gas (vol. %) [3, 7] CO 22 38 19 H2 14 20 20 CH4 5 15 8 C2H2 and higher low 5 3 H20 2 4 38 CO2 11 18 11 N2 46 trace trace Plus tars, PM, and other

Figure 9 Schematic of the Fast Internal Figure 10 Schematic of the Battelle/FERCO Circulating Fluidized Bed (FICFB) gasifier gasifier, Gssing, Austria [8]

2.1.2 Co-production of Electricity Co-production of electricity is possible with many biorefinery configurations, including thermochemical hydrogen production from biomass. The economics of producing hydrogen can be improved by co-producing some quantity of electricity from the PSA purge gas and a portion of the synthesis gas.

2.2 Feedstock Issues

Biomass includes a great variety of possible feedstocks including residues from agriculture, forestry and forest products, and urban (municipal solid waste) to purpose-grown energy crops. Different biomass feedstocks will require different preparation and handling and perform differently in the gasification facility. Facility designs must account for the feedstocks available for use. Biomass is generally distributed and has a relatively low energy density when compared to coal, crude oil or refined liquid fuels. Consequently, the costs of gathering and transporting a dispersed resource need to be balanced against conversion plant economies of scale.

2.2.1 Biomass Sizing, Collection and Transport Some feedstocks will need to be cut, chipped or milled to smaller size. The required final form of biomass feedstock will depend on the reactor, characteristics of the biomass, transportation, storage, and handling/feeding logistics. Feedstocks such as grasses and bagasse can be densified, reducing transportation costs and simplifying handling and reactor feeding. Densification incurs costs and energy penalties so its costs should be offset by transportation and handling savings. With other situations or feedstocks, it may make sense to transform the biomass before transportation or conversion to improve logistics, handling, or feeding and/or reduce transportation costs. One example is to utilize regional pyrolysis facilities to convert biomass feedstocks into a relatively energy-dense liquid, which would then be more efficiently transported to a central facility for upgrading or hydrogen production (2.2.1). Another might be to employ a process similar to pyrolysis called torrefaction which removes moisture and some of the volatile material from biomass leaving a char that is easily ground up and behaves in a manner physically similar to coal in a gasifier.

Regional Pyrolysis Facility RP Central Refinery Resource Region or Waste Shed RP Pyrolysis oil transport RP

Figure 11 Concept of regional pyrolysis facilities with transport of bio-oils to a central refinery. (adapted from [9]) Amount of Energy in a Truckload of Biomass The maximum allowable gross vehicle weight (GVW) in California is 80,000 lbs. but is higher in some western states [10] [11]. Empty tractor-trailer combinations weigh approximately 25,000 30,000 lbs. which allows for payloads from 50,000 - 55,000 lbs [12] [13]. The net energy per truckload of several types of biomass and pyrolysis oil (bio-oil) are shown in Table 2. A truck load of woodchips contains about 250 GJ (237 MM Btu), while a load of baled switchgrass might reach 347 GJ (329 MM Btu). A load of pyrolysis oil is approximately 386 GJ (366 MM Btu). The table assumes payload for each biomass type is set at 25 tons (22.7 metric tonnes). Baled material typically has a moisture content of 15% or less to prevent excessive microbial activity that could lead to internal heating creating a combustion hazard. Woodchips or sawdust are typically 45 - 50% moisture. Energy content ranges from 16 20 MJ/kg (HHV, dry basis) for herbaceous and woody biomass, while pyrolysis oils average about 17 MJ/kg (HHV, wet basis) [14, 15]. However, whereas trucks transporting wood chips are typically weight limited, even for dried feedstock, trucks hauling bales may be volume limited and handle reduced payloads.

10

Table 2. Biomass properties and payload energy content

Rice Straw 15 16 13.6 25 21.25 22.7 19.3 308.5 292.4 1.3 Baled material Wheat Switchgrass Straw 15 15 17 18 14.5 15.3 25 21.25 22.7 19.3 327.7 310.6 1.2 25 21.25 22.7 19.3 347.0 328.9 1.1 Woodchips 45 20 11 25 13.75 22.7 12.5 249.5 236.5 1.5 Pyrolysis oils [15] 16 - 25 -17 25 -22.7 -385.6 365.5 1.0

Moisture (%) HHV (MJ/kg, dry basis)[14] HHV (MJ/kg, wet basis) Payload (tons, wet) Payload (tons, dry) Payload (Mg, wet) Payload (Mg, dry) Feedstock energy/truck load (GJ) Feedstock energy/truck load (MM Btu) Payload Energy Ratio (bio-oil/biomass)

2.2.2 Moisture Content For gasification, the biomass should have a moisture content in the range of 10-20%. Moisture contents above 30% hinder the combustion of char that fuels the gasification process. Higher moisture contents also reduce the temperatures that are achieved, causing incomplete cracking of the tars released from pyrolysis. Some moisture is required for the water gas shift reaction converting carbon and water to CO and H2, although water is formed from carbohydrate in the reaction process [16]. Facilities for processing and drying biomass feedstock would likely be included in large-scale biomass conversion plants. 2.2.3 Ash Content Ash is the inorganic material (or mineral content) in biomass. It ranges from less than 1% (dry basis) in mature bole wood to above 20% in some herbaceous crops (e.g., rice straw), and higher in some animal manures for which collection processes entrain large amounts of soil. Handling, removal, storage, and disposition of ash from large biomass conversion facilities must be considered in when designing and citing the facility. Ash compositions are also important in addition to ash concentrations. Feedstocks with low ash melting points can be difficult to gasify in some reactors. In a fluidize bed gasifier, ash slagging (ash melting) can cause the bed particles to adhere (agglomerate) and cause the bed to freeze requiring shut-down and clean-out or major overhaul of the reactor. Some gasifiers, such as oxygen-blown entrained flow types, are designed to handle melting ash which actually flows down surfaces in the reactor where its cooled into glass-like granules for easy removal from the system. Ash viscosity is of critical importance to the design of such reactors, and changes in ash compositions can lead to changes in slag removal rates and reactor performance. Alkali metals in ash (e.g., Na, K) can volatilize at temperatures reached in gasifiers depending on the compounds with which they are associated (e.g. salts vs. alkali-silicates). The alkali vapors can

11

deposit downstream on cool surfaces or particles and impede flow or heat transfer over time. They can also inhibit catalyst performance. Designing gas cleaning systems to remove alkali vapor and potential catalyst poisons is critical with biomass derived synthesis gas. Leaching of the feedstock with water can improve ash chemistry by removing many of the offending elements [17-21]. This adds expense and moisture that will need to be dealt with.

2.3 Important factors controlling efficiency, emissions

The nominal system design and biomass type and characteristics will define nominal or average efficiency and emissions. Off-spec or degraded performance of components (i.e., catalysts, gas cleaning components, emissions control systems, etc.) will affect product yield and/or emissions. Proper component monitoring and maintenance can minimize performance problems. Changes in biomass feedstock or handling can be expected to impact efficiency and possibly emissions as well. For example, increases in biomass moisture which can occur from seasonal rains falling on uncovered biomass storage, or from feedstock that is harvested, handled and prepared differently from specifications can reduce yield by requiring more up-front drying and processing. Emissions may increase as well depending on how the feedstock dryer operates, if employed.

2.4 Critical technology components

There are many examples of fixed bed, fluidized bed, and circulating fluidized bed gasifiers using biomass feedstock and air as the gasifying medium (direct gasification). The product gas is used in heat and power applications (in steam boilers or reciprocating engines). There are fewer examples of indirect gasification using biomass (i.e., Batelle/FERCO demonstration at Burlington, VT and the current FICFB gasifier at Gssing, Austria). There is limited experience with biomass in entrained flow gasifiers as well as with pressurized oxygen-blown systems. These systems need development and demonstration. Significant progress has been made with hot-gas cleaning systems for biomass integrated gasifier combined cycle (BIGCC) power systems [22]. More gas clean-up work is needed for the more stringent syngas requirements for H2, chemicals, and liquid fuels production. 2.4.1 Feed Handling Biomass handling and injection into gasifiers are critical processes needing further development. Because of short residence times in entrained flow gasifiers, the feedstock needs to be continuously added to the gasifier as small particles or as liquid slurry. For pressurized gasifiers, injecting solid fuel particles is a challenge requiring air-lock systems for fuel injection. More experience is required with feeding a range of biomass feedstocks in commercial scale entrained flow and/or pressurized gasifiers.

12

2.4.2 Gas Cleaning Cold gas cleaning has been proven in coal to liquids facilities and coal IGCC. There is less experience with hot gas cleaning, especially for stringent requirement for syngas for H2 or fuels feedstock. For best thermal efficiency, gas handling and cleaning should occur without intermediate cooling stages and near final product H2 pressures. PM, NOx, SO, alkali, H2S, and NH3 can be removed from hot gas systems. Lead, zinc, and HCN removal are more difficult at these temperatures and need further investigation [23]. 2.4.3 Gas Conditioning Syngas from biomass gasification can contain methane and higher hydrocarbons in amounts large enough that reforming to CO and H2 is required. Steam methane reforming (SMR) and autothermal reforming (ATR) are available reforming methods. SMR may be subject to carbon deposition (coking) on its catalyst because of the large amount of CO and light hydrocarbons in biomass syngas. ATR is not susceptible to coking problems but may be more expensive. More experience is needed in reforming biomass syngas. 2.4.4 Hydrogen Separation Although pressure swing absorption (PSA) is currently used to separate very high purity hydrogen from the gas stream, it is capital and energy intensive and requires a cool inlet gas. Ceramic membrane gas separation technology is promising for hot-gas systems because cooling is not necessary and it is simpler and potentially less expensive compared to PSA. The membrane can also catalyze the water gas shift reaction (in the direction of hydrogen production) so configurations where shift and separation occur in the same reactor are conceivable.[24]

2.5 Key attributes and benefits

Biomass gasification provides a pathway for producing renewable hydrogen with low life-cycle system greenhouse gas emissions. Net greenhouse gas emissions come mostly from fossil energy used in growing, harvesting (or collecting and separating in the case of residues), other agronomic GHG emissions, and transporting the feedstock, process energy at the refinery, and energy used for distribution and storage. Biomass feedstocks in combination with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology have the potential to produce hydrogen (or other fuels) with net negative greenhouse gas emissions (because the carbon in biomass feedstock is from recently fixed atmospheric carbon and is considered renewable, sequestering the CO2 from the H2 production process would be a net carbon sink). Biomass derived hydrogen is likely the lowest cost method to produce renewable hydrogen. Cost estimates for the production of hydrogen from biomass range from less than $1 per kilogram of

13

hydrogen to about $5 per kilogram of hydrogen depending on the size of the facility, the processing technology used and the cost of the feedstock.

3.

PERFORMANCE METRICS

3.1 Efficiency and Energy Use

Hydrogen conversion efficiencies for biomass gasification facilities are predicted to be between 30-80% based on the higher heating value of the input biomass (Table 3 and 3.1) [1, 23, 25, 26]. The range is due to a number of factors including amount of supplementary fuel use (natural gas, electricity), co-production of electricity, size of facility, assumptions about future technology improvements, gasifier type, and the level of integration of the system. Table 3. Summary of Energy Inputs and Performance of Biomass Hydrogen in Literature Facility Size Biomass Input Net Electricity Natural Gas Input Study3 (kg H2/day) (kg/kg H2) (kWh/kg H2) (mmBtu/kg H2) Katofsky Katofsky Katofsky Katofsky Hamelinck Hamelinck Hamelinck Lau 2003 Lau 2003 Lau 2003 Spath 2005 (NREL) Spath 2005 (NREL) NAS 2004 NAS 2004 Larson 2005 Larson 2005 Larson 2005 Larson 2005 Simbeck And Chang
3

165,000 150,000 171,000 176,000 157,710 184,361 90,659 39,000 42,050 44,150 148,966 151,400 24,000 24,000 172,800 378,720 179,280 380,160 150,000

9.74 10.60 9.37 9.03 11.73 10.04 20.41 11.34 9.54 9.95 13.43 13.21 18.38 11.90 26.28 11.99 25.33 11.95 9.90

-3.09 -4.18 -4.87 -3.87 -0.11 -2.92 19.11 -2.28 -2.04 -1.90 -1.64 -1.63 -6.44 -3.11 39.03 2.60 29.18 0.63 -4.89

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0053 0.0112 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

14

See Table 6 and [32-38] for more information.

0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 Hydrogen Efficiency (--) 0.1 0.0 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 Hydrogen Capacity (kg/day) Figure 12 Energy efficiency (HHV) of biomass-to-H2 vs. production capacity
Katofsky,1993 Hamelinck,2000 Spath,et al.,2003 NAS,2004 Spath,et al.,2005 Larson,2006

3.2 Emissions
Emissions will be dependent on the design of the gasifier, the feedstock used and the source of process energy. In systems with all process energy derived from the biomass input, the net greenhouse gas emissions will be near zero. Direct oxygen-blown systems could have onsite air emissions associated with combustion of a portion of the syngas and the PSA reject gas to provide process heat, steam and/or electricity. The PSA reject gas has recoverable energy that is about 1/3 as much as the energy in the delivered H2 project (or about 20% of the energy in biomass input). PSA reject gas would contain about 18% H2, 5% CO, 2% CH4, 10% H2O, and 65% CO2 . Nitrogen and sulfur compounds would likely be reformed or removed in the gas processing [25]. The PSA reject gas is a low energy fuel (about 150 Btu ft -3 based on the composition mentioned above, or 15% of natural gas) and would have lower combustion temperatures than natural gas if burned in similar equipment (boilers or gas turbines). Indirect fired gasification systems would also use PSA reject gas for process energy. However, there would be significant criteria pollutant emissions from combustion of char that supplies the heat for the gasification reactions (the indirect gasification process). They will depend on biomass feedstock, char combustor design and the degree of pollution control applied to the exhaust stream.

15

Criteria pollutant emissions estimates taken from LEM and GREET models appear in Table 3. The assumptions used for biomass gasifier emissions in the LEM are uncertain. The values from the GREET model appear to use solid fuel boiler emission factors. Emissions were estimated independently for two gasifier classes; indirect fired gasifiers which use char combustion to supply reaction heat, and directly fired (oxygen blown) gasifiers (Table 4). For both classes, PSA reject gas is assumed to be fired with a small amount of natural gas to provide steam and reformer heat. In the case of direct fired gasifiers, the only source of air emissions are from the PSA/natural gas combustion. For indirect gasifiers, there are two significant emissions sources, the PSA/natural gas combustion and the char combustor. PSA off gas combustion emission factors are based on US EPA AP-42 emission factors for natural gas scaled by relative energy content [27]. Char combustor emissions are based on a lifecycle assessment of synthetic natural gas production from biomass gasification in the FICFB gasifier in Gssing, Austria [28]. Land use changes for growing of biomass energy crops can lead to emissions of N2O. Table 4. Emissions of Greenhouse Gases and Criteria Pollutants (g/kg H2) Biomass (Wood) Gasification GHG (CO2eq) CO NOx VOCs PM LEM 1246 15 9 6 0.3 GREET 1017 2 5 2 35
Direct Fired Gasifiers PSA reject w/ SNCR combustion NOx control 3 4.2 2.5 0.3 0.2

Table 5. Criteria pollutant emissions for indirect and direct fired gasifiers (g/kg H2)
Indirect Gasifiers (w/ char combustion) PSA reject Char w/ SNCR Total combustion combustion NOx control 4.2 5.39 9.5 7.2 2.5 9.36 12 0.3 1.03 1.4 0.2 0.15 0.4

NOx CO VOC PM

16

3.3 R&D focus and impact on key metrics

Reactor design and operation (for biomass), gas cleaning, catalyst durability and selectivity, feedstock preparation and handling, and production costs are the primary issues needing investigation [29] [22] [25, 30] [31]. Improvements in the understanding and performance of these system components will lead to improved H2 yield, co-product electricity yield, and component and system reliabilities. Ultimately, R&D that leads to

improvements in the following component areas will lead to lower hydrogen cost. Feed preparation, handling, injection The generally low bulk density and fibrous nature of biomass presents challenges in transporting, handling, and storing large quantities of biomass. While preparation and feeding systems for woody biomass in atmospheric gasifiers are developed, much work remains to develop reliable handling and feed systems for pressurized gasifiers especially when using low density fibrous and herbaceous biomass. Conversion (gasifiers) Most biomass gasification experience is with atmospheric pressure air-blown systems that produce a gas suitable for heat and power production. More understanding and experience is needed with biomass fired in oxygen-blown high pressure gasifiers. The influence of catalytic bed additives, reactor design and operating conditions on hydrogen yield in the syngas needs to be done. Low-cost and reliable high temperature heat transfer materials and strategies are needed to improve performance of indirect gasifiers. Lower cost small scale air separation/oxygen enrichment systems are needed to improve economics of biomass syngas production. Gas clean-up Significant progress has been made with hot-gas cleaning systems for biomass integrated gasifier combined cycle (BIGCC) power systems. More gas clean-up work is needed to meet the more stringent syngas requirements for H2, chemicals, and liquid fuels production. For best thermal efficiency, gas handling and cleaning should occur without intermediate cooling stages and near final product H2 pressures. Catalysts Depending on the effectiveness of gas cleaning stages, catalysts that are less susceptible to deactivation (or poisoning) from trace compounds typical to biomass (e.g., alkali metals, chlorine and sometimes sulfur) need development. Robust and effective catalysts that can be economically produced are critical to biomass syngas production and conversion.

17

3.4 Costs
Plant-gate hydrogen production costs are expected to range from about $1- $5 per kg H2 ($7-$35 GJ-1) for mature biomass to hydrogen gasification systems (Figure 12) [32-39]. Depending on design and capacity, the capital, O&M, feedstock costs, and power co-product or purchase, would contribute between 40-64%, 14-22%, 30-50%, and -33 - +9% of total hydrogen production costs respectively (3.4).

6.0
Katofsky,1993

5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 Hydrogen LCOE ($/kg) 1.0 0.0 0 200,000 400,000 600,000

Hamelinck, 2000 Spath, etal., 2003 NAS, 2004 Spath, etal., 2005 Larson, 2006

800,000

1,000,000

Hydrogen vs. production capacity Figure 13 Levelized cost of biomass-to-H2Capacity (kg/day)

150 125 100 75 50 25 0
1 2 3

Pow (+ er /-) Feedstock O& M Capital

18

Portion of Hydrogen Cost (%) -25 -50

Elect.Co-prod. No Co-prod. [Ham elinck & Faaij (2002)] No Co-prod. [Lau et al., (2002)]

Figure 14 Distribution of Capital, O&M, Feedstock, Co-product portion of H2 production cost [23, 25]

3.4.1 Capital Costs There is a wide range of capital cost estimates in the literature due to the different designs and cost assumptions. 3.4.1 shows capital cost estimates versus hydrogen production capacity from seven studies of biomass to hydrogen [32-39]. 1,000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 C, Capital Cost ($ Millions) 100 0 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 C = 0.0208M0.7768 R 2 = 0.7792
Katofsky,1993 Hamelinck, 2000 Spath, etal., 2003 NAS, 2004 Spath, etal., 2005 Larson, 2006 Lau, et al., 2003

800,000

1,000,000

M, Hydrogen Capacity (kg/day) Figure 15 Estimated Capital Cost for Biomass-to-hydrogen Gasification Facilities

19

Table 6. Summary of Economic Assumptions and Findings of Gasification Studies

Study - Gasifier Katofsky 1993 - BCL - IGT - MTCI - Shell Hamelinck 2000 - IGT - IGT - IGT - IGT - BCL H2 - BCL H2 - BCL H2 - BCL H2 - BCL - BCL - BCL - BCL Lau et al 2003 - IGT - IGT - IGT - IGT - IGT - IGT - IGT - IGT Facility Size (MWth) 372 368 371 368 85.7 428.4 1,701 2,142 85.7 428.4 1,701 2,142 85.7 428.4 1,701 2,142 95.3 190.7 381.3 82.5 165 330 660 100.7 Hydrogen Capacity (kg H2/day) 165,000 150,000 171,000 176,000 31,500 157,700 394,400 788,500 36,900 184,000 460,900 921,800 18,000 90,000 227,000 453,000 37,000 74,000 148,000 31,200 62,500 125,000 250,000 38,600 Feedstock H2 Eff. Over all Eff. 63.6% 56.4% 61.1% 64.5% 60.3% 60.3% 60.3% 60.3% 65.5% 65.5% 65.5% 65.5% 51.6% 51.6% 51.6% 51.6% 61.9% 61.9% 61.9% 60.0% 60.0% 60.0% 60.0% 61.6% Capital Cost (million) $223.05 $274.79 $215.30 $385.38 $61.54 $223.02 $472.31 $890.63 $79.36 $256.93 $491.20 $878.13 $80.59 $268.49 $358.27 $665.27 $36.50 $60.60 $100.90 $37.00 $61.10 $100.90 $201.80 $36.30 Capital per kg H2 Cap. $1,352 $1,832 $1,260 $2,190 $1,954 $1,414 $1,198 $1,130 $2,150 $1,396 $1,066 $953 $4,477 $2,983 $1,578 $1,469 $986 $819 $682 $1,186 $978 $807 $807 $940 Scaling Factor 0.8 0.82 0.92 0.73 0.71 0.84 0.75 0.314 0.89 0.724 0.724 0.724 0.724 1 Feedstock Cost $2.62/GJ $2.62/GJ $2.62/GJ $2.62/GJ $2.16/GJ $2.16/GJ $2.16/GJ $2.16/GJ $2.16/GJ $2.16/GJ $2.16/GJ $2.16/GJ $2.16/GJ $2.16/GJ $2.16/GJ $2.16/GJ $1.62/GJ $1.62/GJ $1.62/GJ $1.62/GJ $1.62/GJ $1.62/GJ $1.62/GJ $1.62/GJ Levelized Cost of H2 $1.62 $2.04 $1.63 $2.09 $1.52 $1.18 $1.13 $1.09 $1.64 $1.19 $1.08 $1.02 $2.55 $1.67 $1.08 $1.02 15% Switchgrass Switchgrass Switchgrass Bagasse Bagasse Bagasse Bagasse Nutshell mix $1.34 $1.16 $1.02 $1.57 $1.34 $1.18 $1.18 $1.27 IRR 15.1% CRF

Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood

72.9% 67.0% 75.8% 78.6% 60.4% 60.4% 60.4% 60.4% 70.8% 70.8% 70.8% 70.8% 34.5% 34.5% 34.5% 34.5%

10%

Table 6: Summary of Economic Assumptions and Findings of Gasification Studies (cont.)

4

Potential reporting error.

20

Study - Gasifier Spath et al (2003) - BCL - BCL - BCL - IGT - IGT - IGT NAS (2004) - Shell - Advanced Spath et al (2005) - BCL current - BCL future Larson et al (2006) - IGT H2 - IGT H2 - IGT H2 CCS - IGT H2 CCS

Facility Size (MWth) 72.7 242.1 363.2 72 239.6 359.5 95 61.5 466.9 466.9 983 983 983 983

Hydrogen Capacity (kg H2/day) 22,737 75,790 113,685 22,737 75,790 113,685 24,000 24,000 140,800 151,400 172,800 378,720 179,280 380,160

Feedstock

H2 Eff.

Overall Eff. NA NA NA NA NA NA 38.9% 61.3% 51.0% 53.3% 57.5% 67.5% 52.2% 64.6%

Capital Cost (million) $53.80 $128.80 $172.30 $72.00 $169.40 $227.20 $125.84 $61.36 $162.80 $153.10 $480.50 $462.80 $535.60 $491.90

Capital per kg H2 Cap. $2,366 $1,699 $1,516 $3,167 $2,235 $1,999 $5,243 $2,557 $1,156 $1,011 $2,781 $1,222 $2,988 $1,294

Scaling Factor 0.725 0.72 0.71 0.72 -

Feedstock Cost $0.89/GJ $2.49/GJ $2.49/GJ $0.89/GJ $2.49/GJ $2.49/GJ $2.94/GJ $1.97/GJ $1.58/GJ $1.58/GJ $3.12/GJ $3.12/GJ $3.12/GJ $3.12/GJ

Levelized Cost of H2 $2.62 $2.36 $2.19 $3.17 $2.70 $2.49 $4.82 $2.30 $1.46 $1.31

IRR 15%

Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood Wood Poplar Poplar Switchgrass Switchgrass Switchgrass Switchgrass

51.4% 51.4% 51.4% 52.0% 52.0% 52.0% 41.5% 64.1% 49.6% 53.3% 28.8% 63.2% 29.9% 63.4%

16% CRF 10%

10% $1.53 $1.27 $1.96 $1.39

21

3.4.2 Operating Costs Non-feedstock O&M costs can range between 14-22% of the hydrogen production cost. Feedstock procurement, storage, handling, and preparation costs can range from 30 to 50% of final production costs. The cost of biomass feedstock will vary greatly due to a number of factors, mainly type of biomass, harvest methods, delivery distances, preparation requirements and market factors. Whether the feedstock is a purpose grown energy crop, forest or agricultural residue or a waste stream will greatly impact the cost structure of procurement. Waste streams may be available at negative costs where a biorefinery could collect a tipping fee similar to a landfill. Forest and field residues could be made available at the full cost of harvest, this includes nutrient replacement, fire reduction benefits and other costs or benefits of the harvest. Purpose grown crops will need to receive a price that would make them an attractive agricultural commodity as they will need to compete for agricultural resources (land, water, labor).

Figure 16 Estimated biomass resource cost curve based on California resource estimates (excludes storage and onsite processing and handling costs) [40, 41] Large facilities will need to draw feedstock from increasingly large areas and competition for feedstock will be a concern. Feedstock costs may well be higher than $36/BDT ($2/GJ) with a developed liquid biofuels industry competing for purpose grown energy crops and existing resources. The harvest, transport and storage costs will depend on the feedstock, the terrain, and the geographic density of the resource. Low yielding feedstock or difficult terrain lead to high harvest costs. Transportation distances are critical for the delivered cost of biomass feedstock. For example, 3.4.2 shows how delivery distance affects the delivered cost of rice straw in California.

22

The road type that the biomass trucks must drive will also effect the cost of delivery. The delivered biomass must be prepared to meet the requirements of the gasifier (size, moisture content, etc.). Costs for size reduction, drying, and other processing operations will need to be added to the delivered cost of the feedstock.
$4.00

DelivrdCostfRiceSraw($/GJ)

$3.00

$2.00

$1.00

Delivered Biomass Cost ($/GJ)

$0.00 0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Distance (km)

Figure 17 Delivered cost of rice straw as a function of delivery distance Other uses of biomass and the scarcity of the resource are important market factors in determining the cost of biomass feedstock. If biomass can be utilized profitably in another industry, the cost of biomass for hydrogen will reflect this opportunity cost. There is a limited supply of biomass resources and as they become more and more exploited, the scarcity of the resource will impact the cost through market interactions. This will also be important on a seasonal and yearly timeframe as fluctuations in biomass production will cause market shortages and surpluses possibly leading to volatility in biomass prices. 3.4.3 Lifecycle/levelized The levelized plant-gate hydrogen production costs are expected to range from about $1- $5 per kg H2 ($7-$35 GJ-1). The cost of hydrogen is sensitive to feedstock cost and type as well as the size of the plant.

23

4.

PENETRATION ISSUES

4.1 Current projects

There are no known operating biomass gasifiers in California. There is approximately 950 MW of operating biopower capacity in California (about 600 MW from approximately 30 solid fuel combustion steam turbine systems, 275 MW from landfill gas systems and the remainder from

biogas from waste water treatment facilities and animal manure digesters) [41]. Biomass gasifiers currently operating in power and/or heat applications worldwide include a circulating fluidized bed gasifier in Lahti, Finland (Foster Wheeler) which co-fires the gas in a coal boiler, the indirect fluidized bed gasifier in Gssing, Austria which fires reciprocating engines to produce about 2 MWe electricity and recovers water and exhaust heat for another 6 MW of thermal energy, a fluidized bed unit in Cedar Rapids, Iowa (Energy Products of Idaho), where the gas fires a boiler and steam turbine producing about 6 MW. New plants include the fixed bed updraft at Kokemaki, Finland (Condens Oy) and the 5 MWe fluidized bed unit in Skive, Denmark (Carbona) which is under construction [42]. There are several small systems in India (100 250 kWe range) firing gas engines and sometimes dual fuel diesel engines. There are many (perhaps 2000) very small systems in India and Asia that operate 5-6 hours per day for village electricity or cooking needs [42]. While coal gasification is commercially utilized for producing liquid fuels in South Africa, there are no commercial biomass gasification systems producing high quality syngas necessary for hydrogen production or liquid fuels synthesis. The technology is in an early stage of development. European biomass-to-liquids (BTL) investigations, such as those of Choren in collaboration with Shell Global Solutions [43, 44], ECN [45], Karlsruhe [46], the Sdra Cell, Chemrec, and Chrisgas projects in Sweden [47, 48], Abengoa in Spain, and the project at Gssing, Austria, are now examining biomass gasification and catalytic synthesis for making renewable diesels and gasolines [49]. The same level of effort for biomass fuels does not yet exist in the US. Several programs address liquid fuels production via thermochemical routes, such as those of GTI and Georgia Tech, and Iowa State University, but outside of the NREL Thermochemical Users Facility [50] few integrated research and demonstration facilities exist and none are currently available in California.

4.2 Feedstock issues (California Context)

At present, the three principal biomass resources in California are agricultural residues, forestry residues, and biomass from urban and industrial wastes (energy crops are not yet being produced in the state). These resources are distributed variously throughout the state (4.2). Forest biomass is available mostly in the northern and central mountain areas, agricultural biomass in the Central Valley and coastal and southern valleys, and urban biomass in the main metropolitan regions of the Los Angeles basin, the San Francisco Bay area, San Diego, and the Bakersfield to Sacramento development corridor [29]. Annual gross biomass production among all three primary categories is more than 80 million dry tons currently. The amount considered technically available is between 30 and 40 million BDT per year (4.2) Increasing population and changes in agriculture, forestry, and waste management, along with possible future increases in dedicated crops, might result in annual generation of more than 100 million tons of biomass by 2050. Developments in plant biology might also markedly increase

24

the resource potential [29].

Agriculture
Potential Feedstock

Forestry Urban Total 0 20 40

Gross Biomass

60

80

100

Biomass (Million BDT/year)

Figure 18 California biomass resource distribution and amount [29] Potential contributions to future electricity, heat, biofuels, and hydrogen supplies are significant. The current technical biomass resource in California represents 2.5 million tons per year of hydrogen potential (4.2). Although biomass will be used for multiple purposes, maximum energy potentials within any one product category based on full use of the resources presently available are of the order of 10 percent of statewide demand in each of electricity and transportation sectors [29].

25

Table 7.

Total energy potentials for available California biomass feedstock by energy category
(adapted from [29]) Biomass (Million BDT/year) 32 32 32 27 5+
Landfill gas and WWTP

Category Electricity CHP Heat Heat Biochemical Biofuel Thermochemical Biofuel Biomethane Hydrogen (bio + thermal)

Energy in Product (Trillion Btu/year) 118 (35 TWh) 230 350 188 250 106 305

Total Capacity 4,650 MWe 9,050 MWt 11,700 MWt 2.3 BGY ethanol equivalent 1.7 BGY diesel equivalent 106 BCF/y methane 2.5 Million tons/y

32

BDT = bone dry ton. BCF = billion cubic feet. BGY = billion gallons per year. MWe = megawatt electric. MWt = megawatt thermal (heat). TWh = terawatt-hour (billion kWh). WWTP = wastewater treatment plant. 1 ton = 2000 lbs. Biochemical conversion is based on fermentation to ethanol. Thermochemical is based on gasification followed by Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. Biomethane is methane derived from anaerobic digestion of biomass. Biofuel capacities shown are based on assumed low yields for dedicated crops (see [29] for more detail). Tonnage for thermochemical biofuel assumed to be constrained by moisture content.

Existing biopower facilities consume about 5 million BDT/year of biomass. About half the amount comes from forestry and forest product residues and about 1/3 is from urban wood residues [41]. Another 6 8 million BDT per year is processed in compost and mulch facilities [51]. We consider residual biomass as a near to mid term source for hydrogen production in California. The technically available resource rules out biomass that is impractical to collect such as manure from range cattle or a portion of the forest thinnings in steep terrain or far from roads. Also excluded are a fraction of agricultural residues that must be left in the fields for erosion control and soil health and biomass in protected forest and riparian zones and wetlands. With the exception of mill residues and some urban wood and green waste, most of this resource is currently not being used. Hydrogen production from much of this diverse resource base can be accomplished with two technologies, gasification and biogas reforming. Gasification produces hydrogen from dry biomass feedstocks through the process described earlier. Most estimates place gasification conversion efficiency between 51% and 65% (the full range of estimates is 30-80%, Figure 12). Biogas, a methane-rich gas, can be produced from the wet biomass feedstocks through anaerobic digestion. Biogas, including landfill gas, can be converted to hydrogen through steam methane reformation. Current-practice steam methane reformers achieve 70% efficiency [NAS]. Biogas reformers may be less efficient. The statewide biomass hydrogen production potential from the technically available waste biomass

26

resource is calculated with assumed conversion efficiencies of 55% for gasification and 65% for biogas reforming. Waste biomass resources in California could provide 6,500 tonnes of hydrogen per day for transportation fuel. As seen in Figure 19, the biomass in municipal solid waste (MSW) represents the single largest resource available for exploitation. Waste products from various forestry operations, including forest and chaparral thinning operations for fire prevention, are the four next largest resources. Other important resources are the residues from orchards and field crops and landfill gas. On an energy basis, the biomass hydrogen production potential represents 16% of the gasoline consumed in California in 2004. Additionally, the greater efficiency of a fuel cell vehicle should be taken into account when comparing hydrogen and gasoline energy. A hydrogen fuel cell vehicle is expected to achieve fuel economies up to 2.5 times that of conventional gasoline internal combustion engine powered vehicle with the same level of performance (Weiss et al. 2003, NRC 2004). We estimate that 8.1 million vehicles could be fueled by Californias biomass hydrogen potential. This assumes hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are driven 15,000 per year with a fuel economy of 51.5 miles per gasoline gallon equivalent (current fleet fuel economy is 20.6 mpg). For reference, there are currently over 25 million light duty vehicles in California. It is not likely that all the technically available biomass will be economically viable for hydrogen production. Despite these limitations, the result found here points toward significant contributions possible from biomass hydrogen.
7,000
2

per 6,000 day)

5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000

Waste Water Biogas Landfill Gas Food Processing Wastes Orchard Prunnings Field Crop Residues Manures Chaparral Forest Thinnings Logging Slash Mill Residue Biomass in MSW

27

0 Hydrogen Production Potential (tonnes H

Figure 19 Hydrogen Production Potential from Biomass Residue in California

4.3 Key technical and economic barriers

Biomass gasification for electricity production has not yet been demonstrated to be competitive with conventional fossil power generation, especially in the absence of CCS or greenhouse gas reduction requirements, which is the primary reason few systems are currently operating. Biomass gasification systems that produce both heat and power (combined heat and power, or CHP) are more cost effective when a thermal host is available, and several dozen facilities are operating, mostly in Europe. For biomass systems that would produce high quality syngas for hydrogen, biofuels, or chemical production, the main technical and economic barrier is the lack of commercially operating or largescale demonstration facilities. There is much interest in biomass gasification for liquid fuels production and large research efforts are ongoing in Europe, but no commercial systems are operating. Efforts in the US have lagged since the US DOE de-emphasized thermochemical conversion systems in favor of the sugar fermentation platform for biofuel research (i.e., research on enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose).5 Systems components, such as hot gas cleaning, reformer catalysts, etc. need proving at commercial or near commercial scale. Experience and learning from multiple demonstrations will improve efficiencies and reduce costs. Commercial scale demonstration of high quality syngas from gasified biomass is needed.6

4.4 Potential Timeline For Biomass Gasification Plants

Hydrogen from biomass gasification is not expected to develop in the near term due to costs, lack of demonstrated technology and lack of widespread hydrogen market and infrastructure. Depending on the amount of research effort and market pull, viable biomass gasification for hydrogen production is estimated to be possible in as little as 5 years to as long as 20 years. Gasification for liquid fuels synthesis may, however, spur development of commercial systems in the nearer term, benefiting the eventual application to hydrogen generation. As part of the California Hydrogen Highway action plan, the state has indicated that it intends to initially implement a 20% RPS for hydrogen production which will increase over time (including a goal of 33% renewable by 2010). This would have a large impact on the importance of biomassbased H2 production, since it is expected to be the least cost renewably produced H2.

28

5.

CONCLUSIONS

Hydrogen from biomass would be considered renewable and have low lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions. Biomass derived hydrogen pathways include thermochemical routes (gasification,
5

Though in August, 2006, the National Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee recommended new federal effort in the thermochemical biofuels platform. The status of the Choren facility in Germany (demonstration of biomass to Fischer-Tropsch diesel) is uncertain.

pyrolysis, supercritical water) and biochemical routes (anaerobic digestion, dark and photo fermentation, and direct/indirect biophotolysis). With the exception of stationary fuel cells operating on biogas from anaerobic digestion and methane reforming, essentially all biomass to hydrogen routes are developmental with demonstrations at lab or pilot scale only. The thermochemical pathways, gasification and pyrolysis followed by gasification, are best suited for larger scale biomass to hydrogen production (20 200 tonnes H2 per day). Candidate gasifier types are oxygen-blown direct fired entrained flow or circulating fluidized bed (pressurized or atmospheric), and indirectly heated, air blown, atmospheric fluidized bed designs. Conversion efficiencies for hydrogen from biomass gasification are predicted to be between 3080% (based on HHV of input biomass) depending on gasifier type, amount of coproduct electricity, feedstock characteristics, and future technology improvements. With potential technical biomass resource in California approaching 35 to 40 million dry tons per year, biomass derived H2 production potential is 2.5 million tons annually (assuming use of all available biomass). Plantgate hydrogen production costs are expected to range from about $1- $5 per kg H 2 ($7-$35 GJ-1) for mature biomass to hydrogen gasification systems. The price range depends on scale, feedstock costs, and conversion system design, among others. Biomass can be difficult to gather, handle, store, and prepare. The conversion technology for hydrogen generation is in an early stage of development. There are no commercial biomass gasification systems producing the high quality syngas necessary for hydrogen production or liquid fuels synthesis. Components needing RD&D include reactor design and operation, gas cleaning, catalyst durability and selectivity, and feedstock cost and availability, preparation, handling, and feeding, Pilot and commercial scale systems need demonstrating with a variety of feedstocks. At projected costs, biomass is likely to be the lowest cost resource for the production of renewable hydrogen, at least in the nearer term. Depending upon whether the technical and political issues surrounding nuclear energy and carbon capture and sequestration are resolved, it may also be the lowest cost low-carbon H2 production resource. While biomass is not expected to provide enough primary energy to supply a majority of H2 for light-duty transportation, biohydrogen is likely to be an important contributor to near-to-medium term hydrogen supplies, especially if renewable H2 standards are widely enacted. Biomass-to-hydrdogen via the gasification/syngas route will benefit from the research and development efforts directed at the thermochemical production of liquid biofuels. By the time hydrogen vehicles and infrastructure are widely deployed, advanced biofuels will have been commercialized and much of the needed component R&D needed for biomass-toH2 systems completed. With sustained emphasis on basic research and pilot- and larger-scale facility demonstration, biomass will likely prove an early contributor to renewable and sustainable hydrogen production.

29

6.

REFERENCES:

30