RE:Biofuels - Part 2Tried to piece together some info on biofuels & bio-oil in particular, as I also had looked into this in the past. Hope it helps:
- Biofuels (e.g. biodiesel, bioethanol), while they are renewable unlike fossil-fuels, still release a significant amount of CO2 into the atmosphere (and do add net CO2 based on their collection and supply chain activities). They also are expensive to produce in comparison to the cost of fossil fuels and offer lower energy potential in BTU/gal, therefore while they are being considered by some companies as alternative fuel vs fossil fuel, it’s not really a profitable enterprise and won’t gain major adoption as things stand.
-As you linked in that article, LKAB is testing Bio-oil for use in industrial burners. Bio-oil is different than biofuels like biodiesel [diesel substitute] or bioethanol [gasoline substitute]; it’s produced from fast pyrolysis of biomass (heating at high temperatures in the absence of oxygen) which yields about 60% bio-oil, 20% biochar (charcoal), 20% syngas (part of this is CO2). Bio-oil would be a second-generation, more advanced biofuel compared to first gen biodiesel & bioethanol. Bio-oil is not immediately suitable for replacing gasoline or diesel because there it contains too many impurities. It can be further upgraded/processed to be used as a transportation fuel, but there are large costs associated with this. There is however potential for replacing heavy fuel oil.
Advantages: -There are benefits to using bio-oil, which is why LKAB has been investing into its development: It’s a lot cheaper to produce than biodiesel & bioethanol (closer to fuel oil when produced in large quantities). It is clean than fossil fuel. Unlike fossil-fuels, bio-oil and biofuels are renewable. And clearly LKAB believes in bio-oil’s potential as they are investing a full pilot plant on it.
Disadvantages: -Bio-oil is more difficult to process than fossil fuels, it has higher viscosity which increases with time, and therefore requires more heating and pre-processing which needs to be done at the facility where it is used. It’s also more corrosive, and not as stable as fossil-fuel.
-Adding in the additional processing requires both initial capital expenditure and ongoing operating expenses, as does setting up and maintaining a supply chain for this type of fuel (electric grid is already in place). To make it infrastructure ready, the entire fuel-chain, including transportation, storage, piping & gaskets to the burner and combustion chamber must be designed to meet its special characteristics. Existing burners will need to be modified or replaced & the combustion chamber will also require modification.
-Bio-oil in most cases is made from wood-based biomass. Producing bio-oil in massive scale would require a significant amount of deforestation. As I understand, it takes quite a while before new trees grow enough to absorb the same amount of CO2/year as those cut down. There are arguments to the carbon-neutrality of biomass and biofuels since the feedstocks absorb CO2 as they grow & that amount is later released during processing / combustion the same as it would eventually be when the feedstock decomposes naturally… but this is not true as there is also GHG from harvesting, transportation of the fuels, processing activities in the production facilities & the deforestation effect on the natural carbon sink (& potential effects on bio-diversity). Alternatively, using biomass from crops to produce bio-oil is controversial because the land, fertilizer, water, and energy for growing those crops could be used to grow food crops instead, and would increase food cost & availability.
*****
Pyro’s plasma torches are a simple bolt-on replacement of existing burners and are ‘commercially ready’, whereas bio-oil is still being tested (albeit with positive initial results) & will be in continued testing for quite a while longer. LKAB has stated ‘during the trials, we will investigate the consequences of using bio-oil in the conveyor belt furnace plant, with respect to process, product, emissions, and energy efficiency.’
https://www.lkab.com/en/news-room/news/the-worlds-first-fossil-free-pellet-plant/ I’m not sure what trials specifically LKAB is referring to in the article you quoted, when they say “
the results of plasma tests are promising, but require ‘further development before full-scale implementation is possible’”; this may be from older plasma tests/research done by LKAB specifically with academia
https://www.rechargenews.com/transition/vattenfall-led-project-produces-world-s-first-fossil-free-iron-ore-pellets/2-1-852882. To my knowledge, Pyro didn’t have any dealings with LKAB during the RISE contract, where they announced
testing results were successful. Their torches can also be improved with research and testing; look at how Pyro is spending a significant amount of effort to provide the 'ideal plasma torch configuration' to Client A - it makes sense that eventually they'd have a profile of torch settings ready to match Clients' needs.
CTO Pierre Carabin said the following in one of the Modelling contract NRs:
“all the industry players we are talking to have aggressive internally set carbon reduction targets and are actively seeking commercially ready technical solutions that will have a minimal impact on their operations (hence the reason they are being approached by so many companies
). As such, we believe that PyroGenesis’ proprietary torches offer a relatively easy upgrade to existing industrial processes, such as with pelletizing furnaces, while offering major greenhouse gas reductions. This is in addition to (i) the reduction in pollution from sulfur compounds and heavy metals resulting from heavy fuel oil burners, and (ii) a cost advantage to those companies that have access to affordable hydro power as a replacement to expensive bunker fuel.” In addition, from another Pyro NR:
This all important First Phase demonstrated that replacing fossil fuel burners with PyroGenesis’ proprietary plasma torch (i) has absolutely no ancillary detrimental effects anywhere in the process or with the furnaces. In the end, Pyro is still a relative newcomer to the high-power torch business; hopefully having the first torch deal will show the true significance of Pyro’s torches for replacing burners in heavy industry, to be followed by many more. There’s a saying which applies well here: ‘The proof is in the pudding’ (something has to be experienced/utilized to prove how good it is).
dcowan wrote: Here's an article from August 5, 2020 with a very relevant quote highlighted. Biofuels are ahead or plasma.
Iron mining company LKAB as part of an initiative led by Swedish utility Vattenfall to decarbonise all steps of the steel value chain has produced the world’s first fossil-free iron ore pellets.
They are the initial result of full-scale tests that are still ongoing until next year to replace fossil oil with bio-oil in one of LKAB’ pellet plants in Malmberget, Sweden, and are seen reducing emissions for the operation by 40% during the test period, Vattenfall said.
Iron ore pellets are the raw material needed to produce steel.
Vattenfall, LKAB and steel manufacturer SSAB have teamed up in the HYBRIT initiative to develop the world’s first fossil-free, iron ore-based steel in Sweden. In the actual steel production, HYBRIT plans to use electricity and green hydrogen (made from renewable power), with the overarching goal to thereby reduce Sweden’s CO2 emissions by 10%.
“It’s very pleasing that our joint HYBRIT project is constantly taking important steps forwards, steps that will enable us to produce fossil-free steel, which has a natural place in a fossil-free society,” said Andreas Regnell, senior vice president for strategic development at Vattenfall and chairman of HYBRIT.
“We’re working in a focused way to make it possible to live a fossil-free life within a generation.”
Next to biofuels, hydrogen and plasma are also being tested to heat the iron ore pellet process. The results are promising, but require further development before a full-scale implementation is possible, the initiative said.
“Achieving positive results from different heating technologies represents an important milestone on the road to delivering the world’s very first fossil-free iron ore pellets and further on in the value chain for fossil-free steel,” said Markus Petjniemi, senior vice president for market and technology at LKAB.
“The HYBRIT initiative is a key to achieving LKAB’s goal of being a leading supplier of fossil-free iron ore, initially in a fossil-free value chain from mine to fossil-free steel, and in the long term totally carbon dioxide-free.”
Prices for fossil-free iron ore pellets today are still higher than for pellets made with fossil oil, a LKAB press official told Recharge, but added that this depended on market conditions and taxes.
As further steps in the HYBRIT initiative, construction of a pilot plant for fossil-free sponge iron (DRI/HBI) in Lule, Northern Sweden, will be completed during the summer, and preparations are under way to build a temporary hydrogen storage facility to store fossil-free hydrogen in caverns.
“More steel will be needed as the world’s population increases and cities grow. But current steelmaking generates vast amounts of carbon dioxide emissions,” said Martin Pei, chief technology officer at SSAB.
“It’s not sustainable. With the HYBRIT initiative, we’re revolutionizing an entire industry and introducing a new technology for fossil-free steel on an industrial scale. SSAB’s goal is to be able to offer fossil-free steel to the market as early as 2026 and to be totally fossil-free as a company by 2045.”(Copyright)