2005 OBP Bi-Annual Peer Review

EERC Center for Biomass Utilization®

Chris J. ZygarlickeEnergy & Environmental Research Center

University of North Dakota

Integrated BiorefineryNovember 16, 2005

Overview

• FY05 project start date October 2004

• 76% complete as of October 2005

• Developing and validating technologies for future biorefineries using corn, vegetable and crop oil, agricultural residue, and perennial crop feedstocks.

• Addressing end-to-end process integration, risk of pioneer technology, and plant economics.

• Total project fundingFY05 • DOE $491,000• Nonfed. Cost Share $221,614FY06• DOE $992,000• Nonfed. Cost Share $376,457• FY06 Request $1,000,000

Time Line

Budget

Barriers

• See next slide

Partners

StageExploratory

and Developmental

Research

• North Dakota (ND) Division of Community Services

• Minnesota Sustainable Partnership Program

• Wright-Patterson AFB• Agricultural Products Utilization

Commission• United Soybean Board• Minnesota Corn Research Council• South Dakota Soybean

Association• Monsanto Enviro-Chem• UND Chemical Engineering Dept.• ENSYN Inc.

• ND Soy Bean Council• Minnesota Corn Growers, South

Dakota Corn Growers, and ND Corn Growers

• Biomass Energy Resource Center (Vermont)

• Chippewa Valley Ethanol Co.• Archer Daniels Midland

Corporation• Ankur Scientific Energy

Technologies• ND State Board of Agricultural

Research

Overview (cont.) – Partners

EERC CBU Approach

• “Seed” activities or projects that consist of lower-cost, high-risk applied fundamental research

• Commercial partners get involved on the ground floor of idea development, leading to larger pilot-scale development with stronger partner or consortium support

• Partner-driven pilot-scale validation leading to commercial demonstration/implementation.

• Ethanol processing for hydrogen production

• Vegetable oil catalytic cracking for cold-flow improvement of diesel–biodiesel blends

• Utilization of low-cost biodiesel feedstocks

• Biomass gasification for distributed power

• Cuphea oil for biodiesel production• Urea fertilizer process integrated

with corn ethanol plant• Chemical feedstocks from

lignocellulose pyrolysis bio-oil

FY05 and FY06 EERC CBU Research Activities

EERC Approach

Project Goals and Objectives

• To develop and promote the use of biomass for production of biopower, biofuels, and bioproducts

Congressionally directed funds for a center for applied fundamental research

Not just one research topic

Education, training, and information dissemination

EERC CBU® Activities Highlighted

• Innovative catalytic process for utilization of lower-cost biodiesel feedstocks

• Improved cold-flow biodiesel

• Biomass gasification for distributed power generation

Lower-Cost Biodiesel Feedstocks

• Ability to utilize lower-cost crude vegetable oils and soapstocks.

– Opportunity for 25% cost reduction in biodesiel feedstock

– Low value primarily sold as feed additive

• Plentiful and difficult to process because free fatty acids promote water formation

• Supports OBP highest-priority area of petrochemical replacement with biomass-derived fuels

Bob Allan

Warren Gretz

Why are we concerned with unrefined high- FFA feedstocks?

Lower-Cost Biodiesel Feedstocks

Project Objective• Develop technologies to utilize lower-cost unrefined vegetable oil

feedstocks to reduce cost of biodiesel production

Results• Process effected 100% conversion of crude soybean oil

feedstock to methyl esters• Developed conversion process that uses a proprietary solid acid

catalyst

Challenges to Be Met• Operate in continuous-process mode at short residence time• Utilize lower required molar ratio of alkylating agent to fatty acid• Operate at low temperature and pressure

Lower-Cost Biodiesel Feedstocks Catalyst Development

• Solid acid catalysts• Homogeneous catalysts

• Install on support sufficiently tight to prohibit solubilization in oil or ester

• Utilize catalyst chemistry to prevent reverse esterification

Lower-Cost Biodiesel Feedstocks Catalyst Development

Catalyst Temp., °C Pressure, psiResidence time, hours

Conversion to MeEster, %

SA-1 150 325 4 78

SA-1 175 450 16 100

H-1 Unsupported

150 325 4 100

H-1 on Support

150 325 4 100

H-1 on support 150 325 16 100

Crude soybean oil feedstock; 28:1 MeOH:fatty acid molar ratio (4:1 volume ratio); 10 wt% catalyst (oil basis); 300-mL Parr reactor with magnetic stir bar

Results

Lower-Cost Biodiesel Feedstocks Catalyst Development Targets

Challenges to Be Met• Optimize catalyst configuration• Reduce MeOH:fatty acid molar ratio to 7:1 from

current 28:1• Reduce residence time to 1 hour from current 4

hours• Keep reaction temperature at or below 150°C

Improved Cold-Flow Biodiesel

Why are we concerned with cold flow for biodiesel?

• Improved cold flow will enable biodiesel to access large winter auto and truck diesel fuel markets.

• Cold flow @ -50°C will enable blending with jet fuel for airport emissions reduction.

• Supports OBP highest-priority area of petrochemical replacement with biomass- derived fuels and Task 5.4 Oils Production and Utilization

Improved Cold-Flow Biodiesel

Project Objectives• Utilize catalytic cracking to produce a vegetable oil-based fuel

with improved cold-flow performanceResults• Conducted preliminary thermal cracking experiments with

soybean oil and SME• Used existing batch autoclave reactor• Achieved marginal yields of JP-8-compatible material—

demonstrates need for catalytic crackingChallenges to Be Met• Optimize process for production of fuel with carbon chain

length similar to that of No. 1 diesel and JP-8 • Operate in continuous process mode• Effect cracking at olefinic bonds to improve resulting fuel

stability• Utilize lower-cost unrefined vegetable oils versus methyl esters

Improved Cold-Flow Biodiesel

Specification parameters in JP8/SME Blends ASTM Tests Standard JP-8 2% SME Blend 10% SME Blend 20% SME Blend Total Acid Number, mg KOH/g (D3242)

Max 0.015

0.000 0.008 0.022* 0.040*

Aromatics, %vol (D1319)

Max 25.0

15.9 17.2 22.6* 30.4*

Distillation-Residue, % vol (D86)

Max 1.5

0.7 1.8* 1.6* 1.0

Distillation-EP, deg C (D86)

Max 300

256 288 339* 344*

Freezing Point, deg C (D5972)

Max -47

-44* -50 -27* -19*

Existent Gum, mg/100mL (D381)

Max 7.0

1.0 10.2* 14.8* 228.0*

Viscosity @ -20deg C, cSt (D445)

Max 8.0

4.4 4.3 5.1 Failed*

Particulate Matter, mg/L (D5452)

Max 1.0

0.2 0.3 3.9* Failed*

Water Reaction (D1094)

Max 1B

1b 4* 4* 4*

FSII (DiEGME), % vol ( D5006)

0.10-0.15 0.07* 0.05* 0.05* 0.05*

Conductivity, pS/m (D2624)

150-600 176 129* 93* 135*

*Did not meet specification; all blends were premixed.

Current biodiesel unacceptable for blending with jet fuels

Improved Cold-Flow Biodiesel

Early Production Run EERC Cracked Biodiesel

JP-8 and Biodiesel

Results

Cracked biodiesel produces a product very similar to JP-8.

0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

7000000

8000000

SME cracked at 420°C

Carbon Num ber

BiodieselJP-8 (POSF3773)

n -C 1 2

9000000S

igna

l, a.

u.

BiodieselJP-8 (POSF3773)

0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

7000000

8000000

9000000

Sig

nal

, a.

u.

n -C 11

C 8 C 9

E ERC B F26291.C DR

Biomass Gasification for Distributed Generation

Why are we concerned with small-scale biomass gasification?

• Fits DOE OBP goals of biomass syngas for electricity and potentially other products

• Qualifies under federal or state renewable energy programs

• Reduces greenhouse gas emissions• Eventual attractive ROI (5–10 years)• Waste utilization for energy• Green electricity and heat• Lower pollutant emissions• No boiler license requirement• Economic residue disposal• Portable technology can address fuel

transportation cost issues

Biomass Gasification for Distributed Generation

• 72 hours of continuous testing on wood chips and sawdust (25% moisture)

• Average dry gas, 198 scfm• 68.4 efficiency• Particulates, 42.5 mg/Mm3

• Tars, 200–500 mg/Nm3

• 80% substitution of diesel fuel load ~ 100 hp

• Automation of gasifier operation and solids and liquids handling

• Condensate disposal and water cleanup• Process development to improve efficiency• Increased fuel flexiblity (ag-residues)• Addressing It-B Commercial-Scale

Demonstration and It-E Sensor and Controls

Results

Remaining Technical Barriers

Biomass Gasification for Distributed Generation

Parameter Units Sawdust Chips Pellets

Hydrogen % 15.7 13.3 15.8

CO % 18 13.9 16.6

CO2 % 12 14.3 13.2

CH4 % 2.4 1.8 2.5

N2 % 50.4 55.3 51.5

O2 % 1.5 1.5 0.5

Particulate mg/Nm3 32.3 1.95

Tar mg/Nm3 252 256

Heating Value Btu/scf 130.7 103.6 127.7

Syngas Composition and Heating Value for Selected Feedstocks

Overall Project Strategic Fit

• Research activities within the EERC CBU support the Integrated Biorefinery platform specifically in:

• Developing technologies for producing fuels, chemicals, and power, as related to biorefinery operations by 2012.

• High-risk applied research that could help U.S. industry establish large-scale biorefineries based on agricultural residues or commodity seed oils by 2018.

• Biomass gasification technology being developed for commercially competitive electricity generation could be adapted to produce syngas at $3.84 per millon Btu by 2030 from lignin or wood.

• Company fit:• The EERC has been performing thermochemical conversion of carbon for over 50

years.• Laboratory infrastructure and project experience for converting complex organic

structures in coal and biomass into marketable chemical feedstocks has been ongoing at the EERC for over 30 years

• USDA-funded National Alternative Fuels Laboratory® at the EERC has focused on biobased and renewable fuels, products, and process technologies since 1991.

• Situated in heart of the Red River Valley and the breadbasket of the northern Great Plains, the EERC has learned to collaborate with agricultural industries, grower groups, and related agencies.

Milestones – Go/No-Go Decision

Lower-Cost Biodiesel Feedstocks• Finish lab-scale optimization February 2006 • Pilot-scale process demonstration June 2006• Go/no-go decision – Are projected commercial- scale costs below current conventional biodiesel

production costs?

Improved Cold-Flow Biodiesel• Finish vegetable oil cracking February 2006 • Combustion testing – Wright Patterson AFB March 2006• Go/no-go decision – Did engine testing establish acceptable performance and emissions at a 20%

blend with JP-8?

Biomass Gasification for Distributed Power• Adequate control of tars in water March 2006 • Gasifier automated controls developed June 2006• Commercial demonstration being negotiated July 2006

Project Collaboration

• The EERC CBU has had over 40 industrial and commercial partners over the last 5 years collaborating on projects.

• The EERC sponsors an annual Renewable Energy Conference to disseminate information and interface with interested parties.

• Through DOE funding, the EERC has published/presented 16 papers over the last two years.

• Collaboration with:• University of North Dakota Chemical Engineering Department, Dr. Wayne

Seames and Dr. Michael Mann• Wright Patterson Air Force Base – principle investigator Dr. Edwin Corporan• Montana State University -- Dr. Alice Pilgeram, Director of the Biobased

Products Institute, Dr. Chengci Chen and Dr. Duane Johnson (lignocellulosics to biochemicals at MSU).

• Mr. Bruce Miller, Energy Institute, Pennsylvania State University • North Dakota Department of Commerce Division of Community Services, Mr.

Kim Christianson• Purdue University, Dr. Klein Ileligi, Agricultural & Biological Engineering• University of Minnesota, Dr. Douglas Tiffany, Research Fellow, Department of

Applied Economics

Low-Cost Biodiesel Feedstocks• Seed oil-manufacturing and crushing plants• Biodiesel producers

Improved Cold-Flow Biodiesel• Biodiesel producers and fuel distributors• Automotive, farm implement, and grower groups• U.S. motorists

Biomass Gasification for Distributed Power• Industrial plants with low-cost biomass resource (i.e.,

waste wood)• Power producers and utilities• Ethanol plants

Market and Customers

Duration of opportunity window?• The projects being investigated at the EERC have both near-

and far-term opportunities as a result of risks associated with national security and ever-increasing costs of petroleum, petroleum products, and energy production.

Competing technology?• Petroleum industry and coal-based power generation.Why is this a better approach?• The use of renewable fuels offers the advantage of near-zero

greenhouse gas production and increased national security.What could dramatically alter the market?• Dramatic decreases in costs of lignocellulosic material

conversion to transportation fuel.• Huge leaps forward in the efficiency and cost of power

production.

Competitive Advantage

Project Stage

• EERC CBU activities are in the detailed investigation and development stages. Biomass gasification system needs more turnkey control and automated systems; bioproducts from seed oil residues and lignocellulosics need further development and then will proceed from lab to pilot-scale testing.

Improved Cold-Flow Biodiesel = ICFD

ICFD

Lower-Cost Biodiesel Feedstocks = LCBF

Biomass Gasification for Distributed Power = BGDP

LCBF BGDP

Progress and Accomplishments

• Addressed in Results and Challenges to Be Met sections of project descriptions

Future Work• Lower-Cost Biodiesel Feedstocks

− Optimize catalyst efficiency and durability, and evaluate process with variety of economically attractive feedstocks

− Optimize and commercialize EERC-developed catalytic processes for conversion of biodiesel coproduct glycerol to high-cetane diesel fuel additives and high-octane gasoline additives

• Improved Cold-Flow Biodiesel− Evaluate and develop product options for non-fuel-quality material yielded from catalytic

cracking process− Conduct fuel evaluation and optimization work in recently purchased and soon-to-be-

installed microturbine system• Industrial-scale biomass gasifier

− Develop biomass-processing and feeding methods for nonwood resources, possibly including straws, corn stover, switchgrass, sunflower hulls, and agri-residue pellets (2006).

− Design automated and sensor-instrumented controls for feed automation, gas cleaning, fuel drying, charcoal handling, and condensate (tars) disposal (2006–2007).

Project Management

Overall Project Manager: Chris J. Zygarlicke• Maintains clear lines of accountability and

responsibility through regular meetings with principal investigators

• Ensures project quality and performance• Maintains reporting requirements to DOE OBP• Communicates with DOE OBP to keep projects

within OBP target research goals and objectives• Individual activity principal investigators • Ted Aulich, Edwin Olson, Darren Schmidt, Chad

Wocken, and Wayne Seames.• Carry out day-to-day research on specific activities

or subprojects within the EERC CBU• Develop cooperative partnerships to leverage DOE

investment• Publish DOE reports and papers and present results

at international conferences and meetings