Posez n’importe quelle question sur les cours, conférences, exercices, recherches, actualités, etc. de l’EPFL ou essayez les exemples de questions ci-dessous.
AVERTISSEMENT : Le chatbot Graph n'est pas programmé pour fournir des réponses explicites ou catégoriques à vos questions. Il transforme plutôt vos questions en demandes API qui sont distribuées aux différents services informatiques officiellement administrés par l'EPFL. Son but est uniquement de collecter et de recommander des références pertinentes à des contenus que vous pouvez explorer pour vous aider à répondre à vos questions.
Thermochemical biomass-to-fuel conversion requires an increased hydrogen concentration in the syngas derived from gasification, which is currently achieved by water–gas-shift reaction and CO2 removal. State-of-the-art biomass-to-fuels convert less than half of the biomass carbon with the remaining emitted as CO2. Full conversion of biomass carbon can be achieved by integrating solid-oxide electrolyzer with different concepts: (1) steam electrolysis with the hydrogen produced injected into syngas, and (2) co-electrolysis of CO2 and H2O to convert the CO2 captured from the syngas. This paper investigates techno-economically steam- or co-electrolysis-based biomass-to-fuel processes for producing synthetic natural gas, methanol, dimethyl ether and jet fuel, considering system-level heat integration and optimal placement of steam cycles for heat recovery. The results show that state-of-the-art biomass-to-fuels achieve similar energy efficiencies of 48–51% (based on a lower heating value) for the four different fuels. The integrated concept with steam electrolysis achieves the highest energy efficiency: 68% for synthetic natural gas, 64% for methanol, 63% for dimethyl ether, and 56% for jet fuel. The integrated concept with co electrolysis can enhance the state-of-the-art energy efficiency to 66% for synthetic natural gas, 61% for methanol, and 54% for jet fuel. The biomass-to-dimethyl ether with co-electrolysis only reaches an efficiency of 49%, due to additional heat demand. The levelized cost of the product of the integrated concepts highly depends on the price and availability of renewable electricity. The concept with co-electrolysis allows for additional operation flexibility without renewable electricity, resulting in high annual production. Thus, with limited annual available hours of renewable electricity, biomass-to-fuel with co-electrolysis is more economically convenient than that with steam electrolysis. For a plant scale of 60 MWth biomass input with the renewable electricity available for 1800 h annually, the levelized cost of product of biomass-to-synthesis-natural-gas with co-electrolysis is 35 $/GJ, 20% lower than that with steam-electrolysis.
Jeremy Luterbacher, Songlan Sun, Lorenz Perry Manker, Shasha Zheng