Dimensioning of value chains for production of

(1)

Johan Ahlström - Chalmers University of Technology

Karin Pettersson - Chalmers University of Technology & SP Elisabeth Wetterlund - Luleå University of Technology

Simon Harvey – Chalmers University of Technology

Dimensioning of value

chains for production of

liquefied bio-SNG

(2)

Part of an ongoing work, presented as part of research school “Forskarskola energisystem”

Project founded by The Swedish Energy agency

(3)

IMAGE SAMPLE

AGENDA

• Why liquefied SNG (LBG)?

• Studied value chain

• Objective

• Methods

• Resulting energy balance and GHG emissions

(4)

BACKGROUND

Decrease CO₂-emissions from transport sector

Interest from transportation sector and industry LBG might increase benefits! SNG!

(5)

STUDIED VALUE CHAIN

Transport LBG Branches, roots and tops Logs Transport H E A T Tr a n s p o rt

Wood chips, saw dust bark

(6)

(7)

OBJECTIVE

• Investigation of LBG production process integrated with a general Nordic sawmill

• Comparison between different dimensioning criteria’s for the LBG-process in relation to the sawmill

• Evaluation of the importance of different aspects of the entire value chain - from well to tank

• Quantification of performance through:

• CO₂-emissions per net biomass

(8)

(9)

• 50, 250 resp. 500 m3_{sawn wood annually} • Feedstock case • Heat case • 500 MW LBG • Uptake area • Exporting of woodchips

Five dimensioning cases for three sawmill sizes were investigated.

(10)

RESULTS

IMAGE SAMPLE

(11)

RESULTS

• GCC for remaining 4 cases 250 m³ sawmill a) Heat b) 500 MW (Very large) c) Uptake area d) Exporting of woodchips a) c) d) b)

(12)

RESULTS

• GCC of a) 500 MW LBG and 50 000 m³ sawmill b) 500 MW LBG and 500 000 m³ sawmill IMAGE SAMPLE a) b)

(13)

RESULTS

• Geographical distribution of sawmills and LNG-

terminals

• Statistical distribution

• Same average distance for small and medium

• Shorter distance for large

(14)

RESULTS

• Net emission reduction for all studied cases

• Replacement of fossil fuels most important parameter

• Reduction of electricity consumption second largest impact on

GHG-performance

(15)

RESULTS

• Limited impact of transport related emissions

(16)

CONCLUSIONS

• Impacts on vale chain from a GHG perspective

• Most important parameter; efficient use of excess heat and electricity

• Impact of transport distance and methane slip – limited impact on value chain performance

• Scale of production might have a negative influence on the performance, if efficient process integration not possible

• Economic evaluation likely to show different results

(17)

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!

(18)