Life cycle assessment of the Fischer-Tropsch biofuels production by supercritical water reforming of the bio-oil aqueous phase

This paper is aimed at performing an environmental evaluation regarding biofuel production. The process combines four sections: biomass fast pyrolysis to bio-oil with two phases, oil-phase upgrading by hydrotreating, using H2 obtained by steam reforming, and a new process to produce Fischer-Tropsch...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Gutiérrez Ortiz, Francisco Javier, Alonso-Fariñas, Bernabé, Campanario Canales, Francisco Javier, Kruse, Andrea
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Estado:Versión aceptada para publicación
Fecha de publicación:2020
País:España
Institución:Universidad de Sevilla (US)
Repositorio:idUS. Depósito de Investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla
OAI Identifier:oai:idus.us.es:11441/173973
Acceso en línea:https://hdl.handle.net/11441/173973
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118648
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:Life cycle assessment
Fischer-Tropsch biofuels
Supercritical water
Bio-oil
Global warming
Greenhouse emissions
Descripción
Sumario:This paper is aimed at performing an environmental evaluation regarding biofuel production. The process combines four sections: biomass fast pyrolysis to bio-oil with two phases, oil-phase upgrading by hydrotreating, using H2 obtained by steam reforming, and a new process to produce Fischer-Tropsch biofuels from supercritical water reforming of the aqueous phase. This phase can be valorised in the latter process entirely so natural gas is reformed to H2 (case-study 1), or partially so a fraction of this aqueous phase is reformed (case-study 2), or all this phase is reformed to H2 (case-study 3). The two former can include CO2 storage and aqueous phase concentrations were 15, 25 and 35 wt% organic compounds. At 25 wt%, the global warming potential is 11 g CO2-eq/MJ-biofuel for the case 2 with CO2 storage, while it was 11.3, 12.6, 27.7 and 34 g CO2-eq/MJ-biofuel for the cases 3, 2 without CO2 storage, 1 with and without CO2 storage, respectively. Thus, the case-study 2 with CO2 storage gives the minimum global warming potential, allowing significant reductions with respect to the use of fossil fuels. For the other categories, the case-study1 presents the lowest impacts. Similar trends are found at 15 and 35 wt%.