4.7 Article

Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions analysis of catalysts for hydrotreating of fast pyrolysis bio-oil

Journal

BIOMASS & BIOENERGY
Volume 86, Issue -, Pages 136-145

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.01.019

Keywords

Biofuel; Catalyst; Bio-oil; Hydrotreating; Life cycle analysis; Greenhouse gas

Funding

  1. US Department of Energy Bioenergy Technologies Office
  2. U.S. Department of Energy [DE-AC05-76RL01830]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Bio-oil from fast pyrolysis of biomass requires multi-stage catalytic hydroprocessing to produce hydrocarbon drop-in fuels. One process design currently in development involves fixed beds of ruthenium-based catalyst and conventional petroleum hydrotreating catalyst. As the catalyst is spent over time as a result of coking and other deactivation mechanisms, it must be changed out and replaced with fresh catalyst. A main focus of bio-oil upgrading research is increasing catalyst lifetimes to 1 year. Biofuel life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) assessments typically ignore the impact of catalyst consumed during fuel conversion as a result of limited lifetime, representing a data gap in the analyses. To help fill this data gap, life cycle GHGs were estimated for two representative examples of fast pyrolysis bio-oil hydrotreating catalyst, NiMo/Al2O3 and Ru/C, and integrated into the conversion-stage GHG analysis. Life cycle GHGs are estimated at 5.5 kg CO2-e/kg catalyst for NiMo/Al2O3. Results vary significantly for Ru/C, depending on whether economic or mass allocation methods are used. Life cycle GHGs for Ru/C are estimated at 80.4 kg CO2-e/kg catalyst using economic allocation and 13.7 kg CO2-e/kg catalyst using mass allocation. Contribution of catalyst consumption to total conversion-stage GHGs at 1-year catalyst lifetimes is 0.5% for NiMo/Al2O3 and 5% for Ru/C when economic allocation is used (1% for mass allocation). This analysis does not consider the use of recovered metals from catalysts and other wastes for catalyst manufacture and therefore these are likely to be conservative estimates compared to applications where a spent catalyst recycler can be used. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available