07.power Biomass To Liquid - An Option For SAF

Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery (2024) 14:16199–16217
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-022-03671-y
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Power Biomass to Liquid — an option for Europe’s sustainable

and independent aviation fuel production
Felix Habermeyer1 · Julia Weyand1 · Simon Maier1 · Esa Kurkela2 · Ralph‑Uwe Dietrich1
Received: 12 October 2022 / Revised: 11 December 2022 / Accepted: 13 December 2022 / Published online: 22 February 2023
© The Author(s) 2023
Abstract
The European Union guides its member states to a gradual uptake of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) from 2% vol. in 2025 to
63% vol. by 2050 with the ReFuelEU proposal as part of the Fit-for-55 package. A promising production pathway for SAF
presents itself in the Power Biomass to Liquid (PBtL) process, which converts non-crop-based biomass residue and renew-
able power via the Fischer–Tropsch route. In this study, a techno-economic and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission analysis
of a small-scale (50 MWth) PBtL process concept, developed in the EU project FLEXCHX, is presented. The analysis is
conducted with a thermodynamic process model implemented in Aspen Plus®, which relies on experimental project data.
For the PBtL base case production costs of 1.09 €2020/l are estimated, whereby electricity and investment into the alkaline
electrolyzer constitute the largest cost drivers. At low electricity prices (< 39.2 €/MWh), the PBtL process is more cost effec-
tive than the reference process Biomass to Liquid (BtL). To identify improvements to the base case design, different design
options are considered under varying economic boundary conditions: Solid oxide electrolysis is more economic than alkaline
electrolysis at higher electricity prices due to its higher system efficiency. Maximizing the product yield by increased CO2
recycling is only economically reasonable below an electricity price threshold, which is found at 20 €/MWh for the base
case. Further, PBtL is heavily dependent upon the availability of low GHG electricity in order to produce SAF with a low
carbon footprint. Assuming full utilization of the EU’s non-crop-based biomass residues, the EU jet fuel demand for 2030
could be met with the PBtL process.
Keywords Power and Biomass to Liquid · Biomass to Liquid · Fischer–Tropsch · Techno-economic analysis · Alkaline
electrolysis
Abbreviations HEFA Hydrotreated ester and fatty acids
ACC Annual capital cost HPS High pressure steam
AEL Alkaline electrolysis HRSG Heat recovery steam generation
AR Agricultural residue IR Interest rate
ASU Air separation unit LCA Life-cycle assessment
BtL Biomass to Liquid LPS Low pressure steam
CAPEX Capital expenditures LR Long recycle
CW Cooling water MPS Medium pressure steam
DME Dimethyl ether NPC Net production cost
FCI Fixed capital investment OPEX Operational expenditures
FR Forrest residue PBtL Power Biomass to Liquid
FT Fischer-Tropsch PEM Proton exchange membrane
PL Plant lifetime
PV Photovoltaic
* Felix Habermeyer RF Refrigeration
felix.habermeyer@dlr.de
RWGS Reverse water gas shift
1
DLR e.V., Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt, SAF Sustainable aviation fuel
Stuttgart, Germany SBCR Slurry bubble column reactor
2
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd., Teknologian SNG Synthetic natural gas
Tutkimuskeskus VTT Oy, Espoo, Finland SOEC Solid oxide electrolysis cell
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
16200 Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery (2024) 14:16199–16217
SR Short recycle biomass, the Power Biomass to Liquid (PBtL) process offers
SRR Short recycle with reformer a promising solution for the large scale low-emission pro-
SXB Staged fixed bed duction of SAF. The addition of electrolytic hydrogen while
WHSV Weight hourly space velocity recycling CO2 generated in the process enables a nearly full
conversion of the limited biogenic carbon to hydrocarbon
Symbols
chains [6].
R Reaction rate
Several techno-economic studies on the PBtL process
k Kinetic constant
have been published: Hillestad et al. [8] find production
K Equilibrium constant
cost of 1.7 $/l for a PBtL process with 435 M Wth biomass
α Chain growth probability
input assuming an electricity price of 50 $/MWh. Thereby,
DENOM Denominator
a carbon efficiency of 91% is reached by nearly full carbon
LHV Lower heating value
recycling. Albrecht et al. estimate production costs of 2.15
HHV Higher heating value
€/lGasolineEquivalent at an electricity price of 105 €/MWh [6].
P Price
Here, the PBtL plant with an output of 240 kt/year has a
AC GHG abatement cost
carbon efficiency of 97.7%. Isaacs et al. assess local PBtL
production costs for the eastern part of the USA based on
local biomass prices and PV and wind availability [9]. For
1 Introduction every location, an off-grid electrolysis and energy storage
system is optimized to produce a constant hydrogen stream
Towards its goal of reaching 55% GHG-emission reduction at minimal cost. For the year 2030, the most economic prod-
by 2030, the EU has passed the legislative package Fit-for-55 uct quartile is estimated to have a minimum selling price of
[1]. The package contains the ReFuelEU proposal introduc- 2.40 $2030/l for systems operated with PV and wind as their
ing measures for GHG reduction in the aviation industry [2]. power sources.
Along with other measures, ReFuelEU mandates a gradual Other PBtL studies aim to find process designs for opti-
ramp-up of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) blending from mal technical efficiency. Nielsen et al. simulate a novel PBtL
2% vol. in 2025 to 63% vol. by 2050. Similarly, the US govern- process concept in which an SOEC is partially fed by FT
ment targets a SAF production increase to 3 billion gallons off-gas [10]. Based on their detailed simulation of the SOEC
per year until 2030 [3]. SAF is currently the most promis- unit, the PBtL process’ energy efficiency is hypothesized
ing option for replacing fossil jet fuel due to its high energy to reach 90% at a carbon efficiency of 91%. Dossow et al.
density compared to other forms of energy provision such as discuss different process designs for a PBtL concept oper-
battery or hydrogen storage. Yet, an optimal SAF production ated with a PEM electrolyzer [11]. With a hydrogen addition
route remains a topic of discussion as many aspects, includ- of 0.24 tH2/tfuel, the process is estimated to reach a carbon
ing production cost, GHG-footprint or the possible produc- efficiency of 97%.
tion volume in the EU, have to be considered. The principle of adding electrolytic hydrogen to biomass
A variety of feedstock and process types have been pro- derived syngas can also be used for other products than Fis-
posed for the production of SAF. E-fuel routes convert CO2 cher–Tropsch fuel. Here, products like SNG [12, 13], metha-
from industrial point sources or direct air capture to SAF. nol [14, 15] or methanol to gasoline [13], ethanol [14], and
The advantage of biomass-based routes over e-fuels is the DME [16] can be found in literature.
lower energy demand for the feedstock reduction. Besides A number of studies include an LCA in their discussion
biomass routes that rely on oils (HEFA), sugar or algae, lig- of the PBtL process. Bernical et al. perform a compara-
nocellulose biomass offers a comparatively large feedstock tive study on PBtL and BtL considering GHG impact and
base, for which a number of conversion routes have been production costs of both processes [17]. The PBtL concept
established [4]. The Fischer–Tropsch (FT) route is a mature producing hydrogen with a SOEC system is found to be the
process with many commercial plants running on coal today more efficient concept, with higher fuel yield and similar
and several biomass based project plants [5]. In addition, the economics and emissions, when electricity with a GHG
FT route is estimated to have lower production cost for large- footprint lower than 150 gCO2,eq/kWh is available. Koponen
scale plants than alternative lignocellulose biomass routes, and Hannula [18] conduct a comparative LCA study for the
such as alcohol to jet (AtJ) or the synthesized iso-paraffine processes presented in Hannula [13]. Here, the outsized role
(SiP) route [4]. Yet, the FT route, also referred to as Bio- of green electricity for the production of low GHG fuels is
mass to Liquid (BtL), is limited in its carbon conversion [6]. emphasized as well.
Accordingly, it has been argued that BtL can only contribute In the EU project FLEXCHX, a small-scale hybrid BtL-
a fraction of the EU’s SAF demand [7]. Here, relying on PBtL plant (50 M Wth) has been investigated [19]. The
the conversion of renewable electricity and non-crop-based project concept relies on the idea of the plant switching
13
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery (2024) 14:16199–16217 16201
operation mode between BtL and PBtL depending on the design options, which will be discussed in the following
situation on the energy market. When inexpensive and low sections.
GHG electricity is available, an electrolysis unit is switched This flowsheet is conceptualized for a small-scale applica-
on to boost the fuel output of the system. Otherwise, the tion with 50 MWth biomass input. Compared to larger plants
plant can be run in BtL mode, where the electrolyzer is that rely on the economy-of-scale effect for low production
turned off, and the oxygen for gasification is provided by an costs, this concept has mainly two advantages: small-scale
ASU. To facilitate the small-scale and hybrid operation, a biofuel production only requires a limited biomass transport
staged fixed bed (SXB) gasifier [20] in combination with a radius. This leads to lower greenhouse gas emissions and
novel syngas cleaning system [21] have been developed and lower cost for the biomass transport. Secondly, second gen-
experimentally analyzed in a 1 MW pilot plant throughout eration biofuel plants are not in industrial use to date. This
the project. Similarly, the Winddiesel project successfully can be attributed to the high investment cost for a first-of-
showcased the operation of an 8 M Wth PBtL plant with a a-kind plant. To that end, small-scale plants can lower the
dynamic H2 hydrogen input [22]. Further, Shell has pre- financial risk for the initial investment [20]. However, lower
sented plans to build a PBtL plant at the Rhineland refin- total investment costs, lower material use for the plant con-
ery. An already installed 10 MWel PEM electrolyzer will be struction, and a more seamless integration into the refinery
scaled up to 100 MWel to provide the necessary hydrogen infrastructure might persuade investors to switch to larger
for this plant [23]. plant sizes later.
The aim of this study is to evaluate the possible role of The initial wet biomass is introduced into an air dryer.
PBtL for the EU aviation sector. To that end, production Only low-grade heat is needed for air drying [24], which is
cost, GHG emissions and production capacity in the EU are readily available from the exothermal PBtL process. There-
estimated. The same analysis is conducted for the BtL pro- fore, air drying is preferred over steam drying in this study.
cess, which serves as a reference case. Both process models Additional pre-treatment steps, such as torrefaction or pellet-
are derived from the 50 MWth steady-state FLEXCHX pro- ing [25], are not considered in this study, as they are not nec-
cess concept. The unit models are based on experimental essarily required for an SXB gasifier. These steps increase
project data. In order to avoid an overestimation of the pro- the biomass LHV and subsequently the process yield. This
duction cost, different PBtL process designs are discussed delta in yield would have to be weight against additional
under varying economic boundary conditions. A similar investment and operation costs for these pre-treatment steps.
comprehensive techno-economic and ecologic approach to
this novel process scheme and the discussion of its process
CO + H2 O ⇌ H2 + CO2 ΔHR◦ = −41.2 kJ∕mol (1)
design options has not been published yet. With that, it can The dried biomass is converted to syngas in a staged fixed
be shown how the key advantage of the PBtL process, its bed gasifier (SXB). With the addition of steam, recycled
higher product yield, can be utilized for SAF provision in the CO2 and oxygen, the complex biomass molecules can be
EU depending on national economic boundary conditions. cracked into a product gas phase containing mainly CO, H2,
CO2, and steam as well as contaminant components such
as tars, C
H4, H2S, and N
H3. For gasifier and reformer, all
2 Methodology syngas components can be assumed to be in chemical equi-
librium according to the water gas shift reaction in Eq. (1)
2.1 Power Biomass to Liquid [26]. The SXB gasifier technology is applied in this concept
due to its lower capacity range compared to entrained flow
The super-structure flowsheet, as depicted in Fig. 1, includes and fluidized bed gasification, which are typically used for
all process units needed for the conversion of biomass to plants with > 100 MWth biomass input [20].
FT product. Additionally, the flowsheet contains all process
Fig. 1 PBtL super-structure pro-

cess flowsheet. Design options
are signified by diamond shapes
(◇)
13
Tars formed in the gasifier have to be removed due to accumulation in the process, a fraction of the gas stream has
their detrimental effect to the subsequent process steps, to leave the process as off-gas. The off-gas is subsequently
especially the FT catalyst. Here, catalytic tar reforming is burned and considered in the heat integration.
chosen for its higher H2 and CO yield compared to thermal
tar cracking. Thermal cracking requires higher temperatures
2.2 Design options
(1100–1300 °C) than catalytic reforming (700–900 °C) [27].
For autothermal operation, higher temperatures can only be
2.2.1 Biomass feedstock
attained by oxidizing a larger part of the syngas and thereby
losing fuel efficiency.
Biomass feedstock for the PBtL process can be broadly cat-
Not all contaminants that would act as catalyst poison in
egorized into forestry and agricultural residue. First genera-
the FT reactor can be removed in the tar reformer. Therefore,
tion biofuels produced from food or animal feed crops are
additional gas cleaning steps are comprised in the gas clean-
not included in this study. The advantage of focusing only
ing section in Fig. 1. A novel adsorption-based gas cleaning
on second generation biofuels is that their production is not
system is studied here. This system is experimentally proven
in competition with food production [30].
in conjunction with an SXB gasifier and an FT reactor [21].
The high availability of agricultural residue is a strong
Additionally, this technology is advantageous for small scale
argument for its utilization for fuel production. In the EU, an
plants compared to conventional wet scrubbing technologies,
annual availability of 139 M tdry is estimated [31]. Whereas,
such as Selexol or Rectisol, due to its simpler operation and
forest residue has an annual potential of 40 M tdry [31]. Yet,
reduced need for adsorbent replacement [21].
forest residue can be converted to fuel with less technical
CO2 removed from the syngas stream by a water scrubber
effort in the syngas cleaning section. The on average higher
is partly recycled to the SXB gasifier. This will improve the
level of contaminants in agricultural biomass can only be
overall carbon conversion. Alternative measures to increase
reduced with a more energy-intense syngas cleaning in this
the process carbon conversion, e.g., the addition of hydrogen
process concept [20]. For both biomass types, continuous
to gasifier or reformer stage [6, 8], are not studied here. The
supply throughout the year is assumed.
CO2 recycling option appears to be most suitable for this
The availability values used here can be seen as a rough
concept because CO2 can substitute steam as gasification
benchmark. Studies on the biomass availability diverge in
medium [20].
their estimated ranges. Searle and Marlins state a forest
Syngas from the gas cleaning section has a H2/CO ratio
residue potential of 67 Mtdry/a. When considering biomass
below the stoichiometric ratio of 2.1, especially when CO2
retention for soil quality, only 21.53 M tdry/a remain [32]. Of
is recycled. Hydrogen from the electrolyzer unit is added to
the total agricultural residue of 315.9 M tdry/a remain 119.8
the syngas prior to the FT reactor to attain the stoichiomet-
Mtdry/a after subtracting the retention value [32]. Panout-
ric reactant ratio. Additionally, the electrolytically produced
sou and Maniatis find a forest residue availability of 41–68
oxygen can be used in gasifier and reformer.
Mtdry/a in 2030 [33].
In the FT reaction, hydrogen and carbon monoxide are
converted to long-chained hydrocarbons. The main reactions
are the conversion to paraffine (Eq. 2) and olefin (Eq. 3) [28]. 2.2.2 Fischer–Tropsch off‑gas recycle
(2n + 1)H2 + n CO → Cn H2n+2 + n H2 O (2) An FT off-gas recycle is employed to increase the process
product yield. Only a limited fraction of the hydrogen and
2nH2 + n CO → Cn H2n + n H2 O (3) carbon monoxide in the FT input stream can be converted
to liquid product in a once-through operation [34]. A higher
For this concept, a low temperature Fischer–Tropsch
carbon conversion for the process can be attained by recy-
reaction over a cobalt catalyst is applied. Its high selectiv-
cling the unconverted syngas. Here, different recycling
ity for the product fraction C 5+ sets it apart from the high
options can be employed. In this work, three recycling
temperature FT reaction [28]. The slurry bubble column
options, as depicted in Fig. 1, are discussed.
reactor is selected as the reactor type rather than fixed bed
The long recycle (LR) reintroduces the FT off-gas into
or microreactor [5]. Advantages of the slurry bubble column
the reformer. This allows the reforming of the short-chained
are its high thermal stability and low investment cost [29].
hydrocarbon gas fraction C 1-4. However, the long recycle
The FT product is separated from short hydrocarbon
needs to be heated up to the reformer temperature, typically
molecules C1-4, unconverted reactants and the produced
700–900 °C [27]. As an autothermal reformer is considered
water. The hydrocarbon byproducts C1-4 together with the
in this concept, energy for the temperature increase can only
unconverted reactants are recycled to the process in order
be provided by oxidizing part of the syngas stream. This,
to increase the product yield. In order to avoid inert gas
in turn, shifts the overall process yield from the product
13
towards CO2 and steam. This option has been discussed in Similarly, its low start-up time and high load flexibility
literature by several sources [35, 36]. makes PEM the preferred technology over AEL and SOEC
The short recycle (SR) leads the off-gas stream to the FT when operating the electrolyzer under flexible load [37].
inlet. Here, the recycle stream only needs to be heated up
to the FT temperature, which in this concept is distinctly 2.2.4 CO2 recycle rate
lower than the reformer temperature. In addition, the already
clean FT off-gas stream does not have to be led through the CO2 is removed from the syngas stream in the gas cleaning
syngas cleaning section. The short recycle has been studied section via a pressurized water scrubber [21]. The removed
in combination with a long recycle by Hillestad et al. [8]. CO2 can be reintroduced into the SXB gasifier. Here, CO2
For the short recycle reformer (SRR) option, an addi- can replace steam as a dilution medium for oxygen [40]. A
tional reforming stage is added in the short recycle loop. higher CO2 recycle rate leads to a higher carbon conversion
Thereby, the short-chained hydrocarbon gas fraction C1-4 and, consequently, a higher total product yield. However, it
can be reformed while an unnecessary pass through the syn- also promts a higher hydrogen demand to fix the H 2/CO ratio
gas cleaning section can be avoided. This saves capital and to the stoichiometric value of 2.1. As a consequence, the
operational expenses in the gas cleaning section. Yet, these higher product yield has to be weighed against the additional
savings have to be weight against the cost for the additional electricity demand for the electrolyzer.
reformer.
2.3 Biomass to Liquid
2.2.3 Electrolysis technology
To have a reference case, the PBtL process is simulated
The electrolytic splitting of water into hydrogen and oxygen alongside the BtL process [6]. In contrast to the PBtL pro-
can be accomplished via different technology options. Here, cess, no electrolyzer is utilized for the conversion of biomass
the alkaline electrolysis (AEL) is compared with the solid to FT fuel in the BtL process. This lowers the product yield.
oxide electrolysis cell (SOEC) technology. Yet, investment for the electrolyzer and the connected elec-
The alkaline electrolysis has the highest technology readi- tricity cost can be omitted.
ness level of all currently available electrolysis technolo- The BtL process flowsheet can be taken from Fig. 2. The
gies [37]. The largest AEL system currently installed has a unit sequence from dryer to product separation relies on
reported capacity of 10 M Wel [38]. Accordingly, investment the same technology as the PBtL process, with two notable
costs for this technology are low compared to other elec- exceptions: Firstly, the BtL process has no C O2 recycle. The
trolysis technology options [37, 39]. stoichiometric H2/CO ratio for the FT reaction is adjusted
Although SOEC technology has the lowest technological by steam addition in the gasifier and reformer. Steam addi-
development level, its high electric efficiency promises low tion shifts the chemical equilibrium in the water gas shift
operation costs. SOEC systems are commonly operated at a reaction towards H2 while depleting CO (cf. Equation 1).
high temperature range of 700–900 °C, opposed to 60–90 °C Secondly, the oxygen for reformer and gasifier has to be pro-
for AEL. At this temperature range, a large part of the reac- duced in an air separation unit (ASU) since no electrolyzer
tion enthalpy can be covered by thermal instead of electrical is used in the BtL process.
energy [37]. An ASU was chosen here, as it is the most mature tech-
Both technologies have drawbacks in the context of nology for the separation of oxygen. Adsorption and chem-
high-pressure and highly dynamic applications. A proton isorption based solutions should be monitored as alterna-
exchange membrane (PEM) electrolyzer is more suitable tive solutions as their technical maturity increases [41].
for these operation conditions. Pressures up to 50 bar can Especially for applications with a low oxygen demand,
be handled by a PEM electrolyzer, while the typical pres- these solutions can be favorable. Air separation units have
sure range for AEL systems only operate up to 30 bar [37]. an economic application range higher than 20 sTPD (short
Fig. 2 BtL flowsheet
13
tons per day sTPD) [41]. Yet, for this BtL process concept Table 1 Biomass feedstock compositions and thermodynamic proper-
an oxygen production of 155 TPD (171 short tons per day ties as modeled in Aspen Plus [20]
sTPD) is required. Feedstock Forest residue Agricultural
residue
2.4 Process model Proximate analysis, wt. % dry basis

Fixed carbon 17.1 22.2
The process analysis is based on a flowsheet simulation Volatile matter 82.5 75
implemented in Aspen P lus® (V10). A super-structure Ash 0.4 2.8
model containing the two paths, PBtL and BtL, along with Ultimate analysis, wt. % dry basis
the described process design options is modeled. DLR’s Ash 0.4 2.8
software tool TEPET enables the selection of path and pro- C 49.8 52.1
cess design with a subsequent automated techno-economic- H 6.3 5.8
ecological process analysis [42]. More specifically, a set of N 0.13 0.7
simulation parameters are specified in TEPET. The program S 0.01 0.14
then runs simulations with the specified parameters and O (difference) 43.36 38.46
automatically retrieves the simulation results from Aspen Other properties
Plus®. With the results, an automated utility integration is HHV, MJ/kgdb.a 19.77 19.67
conducted before the techno-economic and GHG emission Initial moisture content, wt. % 50 50
analysis can be performed. This allows for the rapid analysis a
HHV calculation according to HHV = LHVdry · 0.02441 · wH2 db · (18.015/2.016)
of various process designs.
For the Aspen Plus flowsheet, the Soave–Redlich–Kwong
equation of state is used [13], which is the recommended
times the mass of oxygen input. These operation conditions
property method for hydrocarbon processes [43]. In the fol-
represent set point 20/11B in the SXB test campaign [20].
lowing sections, crucial modeling parameters are discussed
The CO2 and steam ratio in the dilution medium is vari-
in detail. Further assumptions can be found in the Supple-
able in the simulation. The more C O2 is recycled to the
mentary Material.
gasifier, the more steam can be replaced by C O2 as dilution
All technical and economic modeling assumptions under-
medium. For the base case, as defined in Sect. 2.5, CO2
lie different levels of uncertainty. Economic assumptions are
makes up 65% of the total dilution stream in accordance with
almost all subject to price fluctuations, whereas technical
set point 20/11B [20].
parameters, such as the availability of biomass residues or
The SXB gasifier’s hydrocarbon and tar formation, mod-
the electrolyzer efficiency, are affected by macro-economic
eled as naphthalene and benzene, are fitted to the experimen-
or technical developments. To ensure the validity of the
tal results of operation point 20/11B [20]. In Aspen Plus, this
statements derived from the simulation results, a sensitivity
is modeled with an RYield reactor. The molecule specific
study is conducted for the most important parameters. To
yield can be found in the Supplementary Material.
assess the uncertainty regarding the results further, methods
Syngas components H2, CO2, H2O, and CO react accord-
such as the global sensitivity and uncertainty analysis could
ing to the water gas shift equilibrium (Eq. 1). Here, the
be applied in future work [44].
reaction’s equilibrium coefficient describes the ratio of H 2
and CO2 to H 2O and CO. A higher gasification tempera-
2.4.1 Feedstock model ture leads to a lower equilibrium coefficient. During the
gasification experiments in the FLEXCHX project, the
To make a broader statement about the entire forest and agri- measured equilibrium coefficients were found to be lower
cultural residue, two representative feedstocks are chosen. than the theoretical values at the respective gasification
Their respective properties can be found in Table 1. The temperature. To account for this effect in Aspen Plus, a
total set of forest residue is represented by wood pellets as second reactor stage is modeled using an RGibbs equi-
analyzed by Kurkela et al. [20]. Agricultural residues are librium reactor. The reactor temperature is set to 950 °C
simulated with the composition of sunflower husk [20]. and subsequently cooled down to the actual gasification
temperature of 850 °C.
2.4.2 Gasification and reforming section Fly ash, formed in the gasification, is removed by a filter
unit following the gasifier. At high temperatures, tar com-
The gasifier is operated at 5 bar and 850 °C. Steam and ponents form soot, which can lead to filter blinding [13, 20].
CO2 function as the dilution medium for the gasifier’s oxy- This is prevented by cooling the gasification syngas prior
gen input. The mass flow of dilution medium is fixed to 1.3 to the filter unit to 550 °C when agricultural residue serves
13
as feedstock. Forest residue, with its lower tar formation k7 K20.5 p0.5 𝛼
H 1
rate, can enter the filter with the unchanged temperature of
prim
RCH = 2
(7)
4 DENOM 2
850 °C. Only for cases with a long FT off-gas recycle, a filter
temperature of 700 °C is assumed, which accounts for the ∗
cooling effect of the recycle. kM pCO pH2
Rsec
CH =
(8)
The autothermal reformer is operated at 750 °C for forest 4 DENOM ∗2
residues and 850 °C for agricultural residues. The higher
temperature for agricultural residues is needed for a full kOH pCn H2n K2∗ pH2
conversion of the higher tar content in the syngas. At this
∗,hyd
RC H = n≥2 (9)
n 2n DENOM ∗2
temperature a conversion of 80% for CH4, NH3, and HCN
is assumed [45]. The main components H 2, CO2, H2O, and The differential system of equations contains partial
CO are brought into chemical equilibrium with an RGibbs pressure expressions of H2, CO, H2O (in the denominator
reactor in Aspen Plus. The temperature is adjusted by iter- terms), and of all 1-olefines in the secondary hydrogena-
ating the oxygen input to the reformer. The oxygen has to tion term (Eq. 9). Therefore, an iterative solution is needed.
be mixed with an equal mass flow of steam to provide the Since no predefined reaction kinetic model in Aspen Plus
necessary oxygen dilution. For the BtL simulation, the steam fits this problem, a FORTRAN kinetic subroutine is used.
addition is iterated to adjust the molar H 2/CO ratio in the The corresponding FORTRAN code can be found in the
reformer product to 2.1. By adding steam to the water gas Supplementary Material. Additionally, a validation of the
shift equilibrium (Eq. 1), CO is converted to C O2 while the Aspen model with experimental results from [46] can be
H2 content is increased. found in the Supplementary Material.
In Aspen Plus, the FT reactor is represented by an RCSTR
2.4.3 Fischer–Tropsch slurry bubble column reactor block and operated at 230 °C and 25 bar. High pressure
increases selectivity and reaction rate for the FT Co catalyst
The reaction kinetic by Todic et al. from 2017 is used to [28, 46]. Similarly, the highest catalyst activity can be found
describe a continuous stirred tank reactor (CSTR) with Co/ at high temperatures. Therefore, the highest temperature and
Re/γ-Al2O3 catalyst loading [46]. The model is based on the pressure are chosen for which the model is still valid. At
carbide mechanism and fitted to experimental data for a tem- this operation point, the reactor is assumed to have a CO
perature range of 478–503 K, a pressure range of 15–25 bar, conversion of 55% [8]. The catalyst mass is iterated to find
an H2/CO ratio in the range of 1.4–2.1 and a weight hourly the defined CO conversion.
space velocity (WHSV) in the range of 1–22.5 lN/(gcat h).
N-alkanes and primary alkenes with a carbon chain length 2.4.4 Electrolyzer
up to 30 are considered as product. Equations 4 to 9 give the
reaction rate expressions for the kinetic model [46]. Contrary The two electrolyzer technologies, AEL and SOEC, are
to earlier work by the research group [47, 48], Todic et al. modeled with a splitter block operated at 25 bar. The AEL is
include Eqs. 8 and 9 to account for the secondary 1-olefin operated at 60 °C with a system efficiency of 70.8%HHV [37].
hydrogenation kinetic and the secondary pathway for meth- For the SOEC technology, a system efficiency of 95%HHV
ane formation [46]. Especially for a short recycle process is assumed in thermo-neutral operation [37]. The H 2 and
design, the secondary 1-olefin hydrogenation is an important O2 product streams leave the electrolyzer at 230 °C after
aspect to consider. Unreformed olefins can be re-adsorbed recuperation. Pressurized operation of an SOEC system is
at the FT catalyst and their chain growth may continue. This not technically feasible at the current state due to material
effect leads to a higher product yield. restriction. However, it can be assumed that future tech-
∏n nological development could make an operation at 25 bar
k7 K20.5 p0.5 𝛼𝛼 i=3 𝛼i possible [8]. As pressure level and system efficiency are
prim
RC H = H2 1 1
n≥2 (4)
n 2n+2 DENOM 2 optimistic assumptions, the result should be viewed as a
best-case analysis for the SOEC technology.
∏n
k8,0 ecn 𝛼1 𝛼1 𝛼i
prim
RC H = i=3
n≥3 (5) 2.5 Simulation case definition
n 2n DENOM
Table 2 shows the process design configurations for the

k8E,0 ec2 𝛼1 𝛼1
prim
RC H = (6) analyzed cases. A PBtL plant with an AEL, long recycle,
2 4 DENOM and forest residue feedstock is chosen as the base case.
This configuration is the most likely design for a first-of-
a-kind PBtL plant: The long recycle (LR) is commonly
13
Table 2 Case definition for the Case PBtL (base case) PBtL-SR PBtL-SRR PBtL-SOEC PBtLAR BtL
modeled process design options
Electrolyzer technology AEL AEL AEL SOEC AEL -
FT recycle LR SR SRR LR LR LR
Biomass type FR FR FR FR AR FR
used in literature not only for PBtL [8, 35, 49] but also ṁ Prod LHVProd + Q̇ Process
for BtL [50] simulations. Secondly, alkaline electrolysis 𝜂Process = (12)
ṁ Biom. LHVBiom. + PEl
has the highest technology readiness level [37]. Thirdly,
average forest residue requires less effort in the syngas For this study, a pinch temperature of 5 °C is assumed for
cleaning section [20] and is therefore the preferred option the heat integration. Excess heat streams at a temperature
over agricultural residue. level higher than 183 °C can be used for the production of
The two other FT off-gas recycling methods, short recy- high (35.5 bar), medium (20 bar), or low (10 bar) pressure
cle (SR) and short recycle with reformer (SRR), are dis- steam. Here, a brown field site is assumed, where all steam
cussed with the simulation cases PBtL-SR and PBtL-SRR. types can be sold. The cooling demand for the process is
Further, when cases with a SOEC system are discussed provided by cooling water with an initial temperature of
instead of an AEL, these cases are denoted as PBtL-SOEC. 15 °C and an outlet temperature of 20 °C. Cooling below
To signify the use of agricultural residues (AR) the index 15 °C is accomplished with a refrigeration cycle with a
notation PBtLAR is used. Finally, the reference case Bio- refrigerant temperature of -10 °C. As an example, Fig. 3
mass to Liquid will be referred to with the abbreviation shows the composite curve after utility integration for the
BtL. For all BtL simulations, a long recycle is modeled. base case. Here, no low-pressure steam is produced. Instead,
the production of 8 M Wth of high-pressure steam and 17
MWth of medium-pressure steam is prioritized, as these
2.6 Techno‑economic analysis pressure levels generate higher revenue. In addition, a duty
of 8 MWth for cooling and 0.5 MWth for refrigeration is
2.6.1 Technical analysis required for the process.
In order to assess the process performance from a techni-

2.6.2 Economic analysis
cal perspective, carbon efficiency ηC, fuel efficiency ηFuel,
and process efficiency ηProcess are considered in this study.
The economic analysis is based on the approach published
Whereby, in all equations the product is defined as the
by Peters, Timmerhaus, and West [51]. The calculation algo-
liquid Fischer–Tropsch fraction C 5+. The carbon efficiency
rithm implemented in DLR’s techno-economic software tool
η C, as defined in Eq. (10), shows the share of biomass’
TEPET is described in [6, 42]. The aim of the economic
carbon atoms that can be converted to product carbon [6].
analysis is to estimate the net production costs NPC. These
ṅ C,Prod are calculated, according to Eq. 13, as the ratio of all pro-
𝜂C = (10) duction cost divided by the product mass flow [42]. Annual
ṅ C,Biom
capital cost ACC, indirect and direct operational expendi-
The energetic fuel efficiency is stated in Eq. (11). It tures OPEX and the hourly labor cost cL multiplied with the
shows the fraction of the input energy that can be con- number of workers per shift NW contribute to the production
verted to FT product. Here, the lower heating value LHV cost. For all cases analyzed in this study, 7 workers per shift
of the wet biomass and the process power requirement PEl with hourly labor cost of 43.14 €/h [52] are assumed.
are considered as energy inputs [6]. ∑ ∑
ACC + OPEXind + OPEXdir + NW cL
ṁ Prod LHVProd
NPC = (13)
ṁ Product
𝜂Fuel = (11)
ṁ Biom LHVBiom + PEl
Direct OPEX are calculated as the sum of all utility and
For the process efficiency in Eq. 12, the process off-heat feedstock costs and revenues for the byproducts. The corre-
Q̇ Process is included as an additional product. The calcula- sponding utility prices can be found in Tables 3 and 6. Fur-
tion method for process off-heat and corresponding utility ther, it is assumed that the plant can be operated for 8100 h
integration is automated in the software tool TEPET. The per year in steady state mode, which is necessary for the eco-
underlying methodology is described in [42]. nomic operation especially of the electrolyzer [36]. Indirect
13
Fig. 3 Composite curves includ- 800

ing heat integration for the base
case. Hot streams are depicted
in red, cold streams in blue. 700
Medium pressure (MPS), high
pressure steam (HPS), cooling 600
water (CW), and refrigeration
(RF) utilities are marked in the
Temperature [°C]
plot 500
400
300
200 HPS (8 MW)

MPS (17 MW)
100
0 CW (8 MW)
RF (0.5 MW)
-100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Transferred heat [MW]
Table 3 Utility and feedstock prices used for the production cost esti- with their auxiliary cost, such as installation cost or cost
mation. For electricity prices, please refer to Table 6 for their instrumentation and controls. Auxiliary costs are
Utility Prices Source estimated with Lang factors F1-12 that may vary with the
analyzed equipment type, cf. Table 4. A list of all Lang fac-
Forest residuea 42.23 €/t [53] tor types can be found in the Supplementary Material.
Agricultural residuea 40.01 €/t [53]
Demineralized water for elec- 2 €/m3 [35] (1 + IR)PL
( )
1
trolysis ACC = FCI ∙ IR + (14)
(1 + IR)PL − 1 9
Fresh water 0.426 €/m3 [54]
FT catalystb 33 €/kg [55] ( )( )
m 10 12
Gas cleaning utilities 1.437 €/t [56] ∑ ∑ ∑
Waste water 0.907 €/m3 [51]
FCI = Ei 1 + Feco,i,j 1+ Feco,i,j (15)
i=1 j=1 j=11
HPS 21.216 €/t [57]
MPS 19.241 €/t [57] ( )k ( )
LPS 13.142 €/t [57] Si CEPCI2020
Ei = Eref ,i (16)
Cooling water 0.005 €/m3 [6] Sref CEPCIref
a
Price form ENSPRESO data base for FI 2020 for the MED scenario The equipment costs Ei, follow from Eq. (16). Here,
b
Catalyst lifetime of 5 years [58] with continuous replacement the cost for an equipment type is scaled up using a scaling
exponent k from a reference unit, for which investment cost
Eref and characteristic size Sref are known. The CEPCI term
OPEX account for additional production expenses such as accounts for inflation from the reference year until 2020. A
maintenance, plant overhead or administration. The estima- comprehensive list of all equipment cost functions can be
tion algorithm for indirect OPEX can be taken from [6]. found in Table 4.
A plant’s annual capital cost ACCis calculated according
to Eq. (14). Here, the capital cost is determined by the fixed
capital investment FCI, the interest rate IR, 7% for all cases, 2.7 GHG emission analysis
and the plant lifetime PL, for which 20 years are assumed.
Fixed capital investment FCI, Eq. (15) [6], represents the To assess the process’ greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,
equipment cost for all plant equipment Ei in combination an approach focusing on the two most impactful variables,
13
Table 4 Equipment cost functions

Unit Eref Currency Sref Unit k Year Source Lang factors
Miscellaneous 3.5 M€ 5.3 kgbiom,out/s 0.7 2019 [56] E

Gas cleaning island 10.8 M€ 8.25 kgsyng,in/s 0.7 2019 [56] E
HRSG 6 M€ 43.6 Transferred heat, [MW] 0.8 2010 [13] C
ASU 13.8 M€ 1.38 kgO2/s 0.7 2019 [56] E
Syngas compressor 5 M€ 10 Compression work, MWe 0.67 2010 [13] C
CO2 compressor 5 M€ 10 Compression work, MWe 0.67 2010 [13] C
Oxygen compressor 5.7 M€ 10 Compression work, MWe 0.67 2010 [13] D
Gasification island d 31.6 M€ 5.3 kgbiom,out/s 0.7 2019 [56] E
Dryer & feedstock handling 7.5 M€ 5.3 kgbiom,out/s 0.7 2019 [56] E
Gas/liquid separator a 0.09 M€ 10 Unit length, m 0.79 2014 [51] A
Fischer–Tropsch SBCR c 2.025 M$ 341.3 Reactor volume, m3 0.67 1998 [59] A
AEL b,c 1 M€ 1 Electrical power input, M
We 0.8 2019 [37] E,B
SOEC b 2 M€ 1 Electrical power input, M
We 1 2019 [39] E
Reformer (short recycle) 21.8 M€ 2.037 Syngas, kmol/s 0.67 2010 [13] C
Water scrubber (short recycle) 5.2 M€ 1.446 Syngas input, kmol/s 0.67 2010 [60] 3
a
Cost data for storage vessels were used. The cost function has three input parameters (vessel length, vessel diameter, pressure). The stated cost
function is an example based on a horizontal storage vessel with a diameter of 2 m at pressure levels up to 10 bar [6]
b
Maintenance cost 2% and 5% of stack investment for AEL and SOEC respectively [37]
c
For exact costing method refer to [36]
d
Includes gasifier, filter, and reformer
Table 5 Impact factors on the process GHG footprint calculation [65]. At the same time, the GHG emission reduction limit
Value Source
for sustainable fuel for 2021 is used here. Although a dif-
ferent limit of 60% would apply for the studied year 2020,
Average biomass transport radius r transport 100 km [18] the 65% limit is used, as plants constructed in 2020 with a
Biomass transport emissions G HGtransport 69 gCO2,eq/(t km) [61] lifetime of 20 years would have to be designed according
RED II fossil fuel comparator 94 gCO2,eq/MJ [62] to the 65% limit.
GHG emission reduction for sustainable 65% [62] The process is analyzed with different national grid
fuel
electricity mixes, whereby the Finnish grid serves as the
AR harvesting G HGharvest 0.27 MJ/kgAR [63]
base case. Average carbon intensity and electricity prices
FR harvesting G HGharvest 0.21 MJ/kgFR [63]
are listed in Table 6. For the EU grid mix, average values
Average crude oil price, Brent 2020 41.3 $2020/bbl [64]
for all 27 member states are taken into account.
When process GHG emissions and NPC are established,
the GHG abatement cost AC can be calculated with Eq. 18.
biomass provision and electricity production [18], is taken. The abatement costs indicate how costly the GHG sav-
Assumptions for the biomass provision GHG calculation can ings are when using an alternative fuel instead of fossil
be found in Table 5. fuel. To that end, the additional cost for producing alterna-
tive fuel ( NPCPBtL – Pcrude oil) is divided by the amount of
GHGprocess = rtransport GHGtransport + GHGharvest + Pel GHGel
GHG savings expressed in CO2 equivalents (GHGcrude oil
(17) – GHGPBtL). As the price for crude oil Pcrude oil the aver-
As shown in Eq. (17), total process emissions are calcu- age price for a barrel of Brent in 2020 is used. The fossil
lated with transport GHGtransport, harvesting GHGharvest and GHG emissions are calculated with the fossil fuel com-
power production emissions GHGel. Whereby, harvesting parator defined in the RED II directive [68]. It should be
and transport are powered by fossil fuel. The biomass itself noted that the RED II definition for fossil fuel includes
is regarded as carbon–neutral. the emissions during the burning process. These are not
In this study, PBtL fuel falls under the definition of included for the alternative fuel, where only the production
transport biofuel in the RED II directive [62]. The same process has an impact on the GHG emissions. However,
classification for PBtL fuel is chosen in a recent study by this assumption can be justified when considering their
the Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies marginal combustion emissions [69].
13
Table 6 Carbon intensity and Average grid electricity price GHG footprint electrical power
electricity price for different [€2020/MWh] [66]* GHGel [kgCO2,eq/MWh] [67]
European grid mixes
EU-27 59.3 230.7
Germany 64.3 311
Finland (base case) 45.9 68.6
Sweden 35.6 8.8
Norway 30.8 19
France 53.5 51.1
*Prices for industrial consumers > 19 MW excluding VAT and other recoverable taxes and levies
NPCPBtL − Pcrudeoil potential production volume (Sect. 3.5). With that, conclu-
ACPBtL = (18) sions about the possible fuel provision via the PBtL process
GHGcrudeoil − GHGPBtL
for the EU aviation sector can be derived.
3.1 Techno‑economic analysis
3 Results and discussion
The results of the technical analysis can be taken from
After presenting the results for the different cases defined Table 7. The efficiency terms, as defined in Sect. 2.6.1, are
in the Sect. 3.1, a discussion of the design options under displayed here along with key mass and energy flows. Simi-
varying economic boundary conditions can be found in larly, economic results are shown in Table 8. For a discus-
Sect. 3.2. The effect of selected process parameters on the sion of the case studies, described in 2.5, refer to the fol-
base case results is shown in Sect. 3.3 with a sensitivity lowing sections.
analysis. Finally, BtL and PBtL base case are compared A breakdown of the NPC for the PBtL base case along
in terms of their GHG abatement cost (Sect. 3.4) and their with the BtL case is presented in Fig. 4. Whereby, the
Table 7 Technical analysis: Case PBtL PBtL-SR PBtL-SRR PBtL-SOEC PBtLAR BtL
selected mass and energy flows
for all cases Input
Wet biomass kg/s 6.27 6.27 6.27 6.27 6.27 6.27
LHV wet biomass MJ/kg 7.98 7.98 7.98 7.98 7.98 7.98
Total electrical power MWel 48.8 35.4 62.1 38.2 61.8 7.18
Power electrolyzer MWel 42.0 31.3 58.3 31.4 54.6
H2 production kg/s 0.21 0.16 0.29 0.21 0.27
Product
Product output kg/s 1.098 0.621 1.259 1.098 1.105 0.689
Product LHV MJ/kg 44.0 44.2 44.0 44.0 44.0 44.0
Alkanes
C5–10 kg/s 0.204 0.155 0.239 0.204 0.207 0.129
C11–20 kg/s 0.398 0.172 0.456 0.398 0.401 0.250
C21 + kg/s 0.359 0.095 0.401 0.359 0.358 0.223
Alkenes
C5 + kg/s 0.136 0.199 0.163 0.136 0.139 0.087
By-products
High pressure steam MWth 7.65 6.34 8.91 4.66 15.2 7.84
Medium pressure steam MWth 17.1 15.4 21.6 10.3 15.5 0
Low pressure steam MWth 0 15.7 0 0 0 0
Process efficiency % 73.9 75.9 76.6 71.7 71.0 66.7
Fuel efficiency % 48.9 32.1 49.4 54.8 43.4 53.0
Carbon efficiency % 59.8 33.8 68.5 59.8 57.4 37.5
13
Table 8 Economic results for Case PBtL PBtL-SR PBtL-SRR PBtL-SOEC PBtLAR BtL
all simulation cases including
largest OPEX and FCI cost OPEX M€2020/a
items
Electricity 18.1 13.2 23.1 14.2 23 2.7
Biomass 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.3 7.8
Other 0.5 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.3
Total 26.4 21.9 31.5 22.6 30.9 10.8
Revenue by-product M€2020/a 7.7 9.7 9.5 4.7 9.9 2.7
FCI M€2020
Electrolyzer 53.9 41.1 72.9 60.4 68.7 0
Gasification island 46.2 46.2 46.2 46.2 46.2 46.2
Fischer–Tropsch reactor 11.7 38.2 13.7 11.7 11.9 8.3
Gas cleaning island 13.6 9.5 9.5 13.6 15.1 12.3
Recycle reformer 0 0 14 0 0 0
Other 10.6 6.9 11 10.6 11.7 26.2
Total 135.9 141.9 167.3 142.5 153.5 92.9
Indirect OPEX M€2020/a 10.6 10.9 12.2 10.9 11.5 8.4
NPC €2020/l 1.09 1.68 1.13 1.10 1.21 1.04
Fig. 4 Comparison of PBtL

and BtL base case including the
breakdown of NPC in €2020/l by
cost type
liquid FT product fraction has a density of 0.729 kg/l. effects of an increased C O 2 recycling rate on NPC and
Given the analyzed economic boundary conditions, pro- carbon efficiency are further discussed in Sect. 3.2.
duction costs for PBtL are 0.05 €2020/l higher. Hereby, the
largest NPC drivers for PBtL are the feedstock cost, elec-
tricity and biomass, and the electrolyzer investment cost. 3.2 Discussion of design options under varying
Additionally, Fig. 4 shows carbon and fuel efficiency for boundary conditions
both process types. Although the fuel efficiency is rather
similar for BtL and PBtL, a large difference in carbon effi- The technical and economic results for the process design
ciency can be found. The higher carbon efficiency follows options under Finnish boundary conditions are presented
from the higher product output based on the same biomass in Sect. 3.1. To highlight the advantages of certain process
input, which can be attributed to the CO2 recycle. Yet, the design options, those are discussed under varying eco-
recycle necessitates the electrolyzer to adjust the H2/CO nomic boundary conditions.
ratio in the syngas to the stoichiometric value of 2.1. The
13
3.2.1 Electrolyzer choice and CO2 recycling under variable changing the CO2 recycle rate is depicted. Here, the oxygen
electricity price dilution is varied from 10 to 100% resulting in a CO2 recycle
rate of 7 to 70%.
The electricity cost is the largest operation cost contributor As can be taken from the left plot in Fig. 6, the carbon
to the PBtL process under Finnish conditions, as seen in efficiency and thereby the product yield of the process
Table 8. In Fig. 5, the electricity price is varied for BtL as increases with the C O2 recycling rate. This is to be expected,
well as PBtL with the two electrolyzer options, AEL and as more biogenic carbon leaves the gasification island as
SOEC. Changing electricity prices have the largest effect CO. Yet, the increased CO output leads to a reduction in the
on the PBtL-AEL NPC. This is due to the large power syngas’ H2/CO ratio. In the analyzed CO2 recycle range, the
demand for the AEL compared to the other cases, as shown H2/CO ratio drops from 2.05 to 1.34. Subsequently, more
in Table 7. electrical power is needed to adjust the H2/CO ratio to the
Overall, the base case PBtL-AEL has the economic edge stoichiometric value of 2.1. At the maximum CO2 recycling
over BtL and PBtL-SOEC at electricity prices lower than rate, 80 M Wel total energy input are required while only 8
39.4 €/MWh. At higher prices, the BtL process is the prefer- MWel are needed for the minimal rate.
able option. The advantage of the SOEC, its higher electro- The right plot in Fig. 6 shows which effect a higher CO2
lytic efficiency, gains importance at higher electricity prices. recycling rate has on the NPC when assuming different elec-
Yet, the lower investment cost for the AEL system makes it tricity prices. For the Finnish electricity price in 2020 (45.9
the more cost effective technology choice at low electricity €/MWh), increased recycling leads to higher NPC. Here,
prices. the additional electricity costs outweigh the cost benefits
For the cases analyzed thus far, the C O2 recycling is iter- of a higher product output. Only for electricity prices lower
ated to attain an oxygen dilution rate of 65% in the gasi- than 20 €/MWh, a decrease in NPC can be expected. This
fier feed (cf. Section 2.4.2). This amounts to a C O2 recy- parameter variation shows an example, how the optimal
cling ratio of 44% for the base case. In Fig. 6, the effect of plant configuration is influenced by the local cost boundary
Fig. 5 NPC over electricity

price for the base case PBtL-
AEL (dark blue), PBtL-SOEC
(light blue), and BtL (green)
Fig. 6 Effect of an increase

in CO2 recycle rate on carbon
efficiency (left) and NPC (right)
for the PBtL base case
13
conditions. An optimal CO2 recycling rate can only be deter- lower NPC for the LR case with FR at the base case elec-
mined with a techno-economic assessment. tricity prices of 45.9 €2020/MWh. When using agricultural
residue as feedstock, the filter temperature is decreased
3.2.2 Recycle options and feedstock and reformer temperature increased compared to the forest
residue case. This results in a higher electrolytic hydrogen
Figure 7 compares NPC for the analyzed recycle options demand. Therefore, a cost advantage can be found for the
when using forest residue (FR) or agricultural residue (AR) SRR option because the reformer recycle can be avoided.
as feedstock. It is apparent that for both biomass types SR Overall, both options, SRR and LR, can be favorable options
results in the highest NPC: 1.68 €2020/l for FR and 2.16 depending on the economic boundary conditions and should
€2020/l for AR. This suggests that reforming the recycled FT both be considered when designing a PBtL process.
gas fraction C1-4 is economically reasonable under the given The forest residue cases in Fig. 7 show consistently lower
economic constraints. As the SR option has the lowest power NPC and higher carbon efficiencies. This is due to the less
demand of all PBtL recycle options (cf. Table 7), an argu- intensive syngas treatment for forest residue. The lower tar
ment can be made for using the SR at high electricity prices. formation rate allows for a syngas treatment with higher fil-
A slight NPC advantage can be found for the LR over ter and lower reformer temperature compared to agricultural
the SRR option for forest residue. Here, the base case residues.
PBtLFR-LR (1.09 €2020/l) has lower NPC than P BtLFR-SRR
(1.13 €2020/l). Yet, the advantage is reversed when using 3.3 Base case sensitivity analysis
agricultural residue, with 1.21 €2020/l for P
BtLAR-LR against
1.20 €2020/l for PBtLAR-SRR. As shown in Table 7, a higher The effects of selected process parameters on NPC, carbon
product yield is found for the SRR case which comes at and fuel efficiency for the PBtL base case are displayed in
the cost of a higher electrolysis power input. This results in Fig. 8. Here, the four parameters electrolyzer efficiency,
recycle ratio, FT conversion, and temperature were chosen
for their impact and uncertainty underlying their base case
assumption.
The alkaline electrolyzer efficiency is simulated in the
base case with a system efficiency of 70.8%HHV. In an expert
elicitation study, Schmidt et al. [39] display system effi-
ciency predictions that go as high as 80%HHV. Those predic-
tions are connected to further development of the zero-gap
AEL technology [70]. As a worst-case assumption, a system
efficiency of 60%HHV is used.
The FT off-gas recycle rate is set to 95% in the base case.
Although a higher recycling rate leads to increased overall
syngas conversion, it is unclear how much off-gas can be
recycled to the reformer. Inert gas components, such as N 2
formed in the gasifier, will accumulate in the recycle loop.
Fig. 7 NPC shown with bars for short (SR), long (LR), and short Correspondingly, full recirculation is not possible. As a best-
recycle with reformer (SRR) using forest residue or agricultural resi-
due. The carbon efficiency for all design options is indicated with dia- case assumption 97% is chosen. The worst-case is simulated
mond shapes referring to the right axis with an 80% recycle.
Fig. 8 Sensitivity of NPC and

process efficiency to process
parameters varied in the PBtL
base case. Result for best (dark
blue) and worst (light blue) case
given as the absolute difference
to the base case results
13
To avoid the deactivation of the FT catalyst, the CO con- costs can be calculated, which are depicted with diamond
version should be limited [34]. Rytter and Holmen report a shapes referring to the right y-axis.
conversion limit of 65% for a slurry-bubble column reac- Using the PBtL base case configuration, only countries
tor using cobalt catalyst [34]. Along with the base case with low GHG footprint in their national grid can produce
assumption of 55% CO conversion [8], a worst-case of 40% fuel that can be counted as sustainable according to the RED
is analyzed. II directive in 2020 [62]. Here, a 65% reduction compared to
For low-temperature catalyst, the Fischer–Tropsch reac- fossil fuel has to be met for the sustainability limit, i.e., 32.9
tor operation temperature is typically given in the range of gCO2,eq/MJ. Using the German and EU-27 average electric-
190–240 °C [5]. The used reaction kinetic is based on exper- ity grid mix, this limit is exceeded. To stay under the limit,
imental data in the range of 205–230 °C [46]. Therefore, the electricity GHG footprint should not be higher than 116
worst and base case FT temperatures are chosen according kgCO2,eq/MWh. All BtL cases, on the other hand, meet the
to [46] as 205 °C and 230 °C. sustainability limit due to their lower electricity demand.
Overall, a correlation of fuel efficiency and NPC can be Abatement costs scale with the electricity price and the
observed in Fig. 8. Except for the FT temperature, higher electricity’s GHG footprint. For this reason, PBtL abatement
fuel efficiency leads to lower NPC. This underlines the sig- costs for EU-27 and Germany are higher than 1000 €/tCO2,eq,
nificance of low OPEX for the PBtL process. Higher NPC while Finland, Sweden, France, and Norway lie below 420
at low FT temperatures result from an increased capital €/tCO2,eq. As considerably less electricity is needed for the
expenditure for the FT reactor. Due to the lowered catalyst BtL process, GHG abatement cost range from 300 to 430
activity at 205 °C, more catalyst is needed to attain the same €/tCO2,eq for the selected examples. Only for countries with
CO conversion. The higher product yield, a result of the relatively low electricity price and GHG footprint, such
higher product selectivity at low FT temperatures, cannot as Sweden or Norway, the PBtL GHG abatement costs lie
compensate for the higher FT reactor investment. below BtL. This underlines the importance of green and
inexpensive electricity for the PBtL process.
3.4 GHG abatement cost
3.5 EU fuel potential analysis
The resulting fuel emissions, calculated according to the
methodology described in Sect. 2.7, can be taken from the Figure 10 shows the potential product output, if all currently
bar chart in Fig. 9. Here, it is assumed that the PBtL base available EU forest and agricultural residue is converted
case (blue) and the BtL reference case (green) are operated to fuel via the PBtL or the BtL route. The calculation is
with different European national grid mixes. From fuel pro- based on a total availability of 40 Mtdry/a forestry and 139
duction emissions and NPC, the nation-specific abatement Mtdry/a agricultural residue in the EU [31]. The presented
Fig. 9 Specific fuel production

emissions indicated by bars and
GHG abatement costs (AC)
indicated by diamond shapes
for the PBtL base case (blue)
and BtL (green) using different
national electricity grid mixes
13
Fig. 10 Fuel production

potential in the EU using forest
residue (blue) and agricultural
residue (orange) for BtL and
PBtL (base case)
absolute product output values should be taken as an opti- conditions. Based on the findings in this study, the following
mistic approximation. For one, only a part of the product assertions can be made:
fraction C5+ could actually be converted to SAF. Secondly,
for a more exact estimation, local production conditions • For the PBtL base case, net production costs (NPC) of
would have to be considered with locally varying biomass 1.09 €2020/l have been estimated. Thereby, the cost for
compositions and availability, as other sectors, such as heat electrical power, biomass, and the AEL investment con-
and power production, compete for biomass residue as their stitute the largest contributions to OPEX and CAPEX.
feedstock. Still, the calculation allows for a comparison of • The optimal process design and even the choice to use
BtL and PBtL because these optimistic assumptions affect electrolytic hydrogen, largely depend on the local bound-
both processes equally. ary conditions. A techno-economic analysis provides
With the given assumptions, PBtL could produce around a good indication, which option to favor, but needs to
double the output (63 Mt/a) compared to BtL (34 Mt/a), be confirmed during the detailed design phase of any
whereby the agricultural residue makes up the bulk (~ 75%) pursued project: The short recycle reformer (SRR) is
of feedstock. The EU’s jet fuel demand in 2030 of 62.8 Mt/a advantageous at low electricity prices and when using
[7] could be met with PBtL when full biomass utilization feedstock requiring a high gas-cleaning effort. Short
is assumed. Yet, for this product output an installed AEL recycling (SR) should be avoided, if long recycle (LR)
capacity of 101 GWel or 14.8 Mt/a of hydrogen would be or SRR are feasible.
required. Given that the European Commission only aims • Favoring an SOEC over an AEL electrolyzer is eco-
for a total H2 production rate of 10 Mt/a by 2030 [71], a nomically reasonable at high electricity prices. Here, the
substantial contribution the SAF production by the PBtL higher system efficiency can make up for the SOEC’s
process can only be expected in later decades. Neverthe- higher investment costs.
less, the results highlight the PBtL advantage over the BtL • CO2 recycling increases the carbon efficiency and,
process of having a higher conversion rate of the limited thereby, the product output. However, more hydrogen
biomass residue feedstock. This advantage could even be is required for the conversion. Therefore, NPC only fall
extended further with an increased CO2 recycling rate. Yet, with higher CO2 recycling rates, if the electricity price
the greater yield would have to be weight against the addi- is below a certain threshold. For the base case, the price
tional hydrogen demand as described in Sect. 3.2.1. threshold is around 20 €2020/MWh.
• Generalizing from the two exemplary feedstocks ana-
lyzed in this study, it can be concluded that forest residue
4 Conclusions (FR) has a higher fuel efficiency and lower NPC than
agricultural residue (AR). This is due to the on average
The Power and Biomass to Liquid (PBtL) process presents a lower tar formation rate for FR. Yet, in the EU more
promising pathway for the production of low GHG fuel. In AR is available. The potential EU fuel output could be
this study, a techno-economic and GHG emission analysis increased three-fold when utilizing AR in addition to FR.
has been conducted for a small-scale PBtL plant with a bio- • At low electricity prices (< 39.4 €/MWh), PBtL is the
mass input of 50 M Wth and a 42 M
Wel alkaline electrolyzer more cost-effective process option in comparison to BtL.
producing 32 kt/a Fischer–Tropsch product. The analysis In addition, a higher product output at similar fuel and
has been conducted on the basis of an Aspen Plus process process efficiencies can be expected. When converting
model relying on experimental data from the EU project the entire EU AR and FR potential, around double the
FLEXCHX as well as unit models from literature. Different fuel output would be generated with PBtL.
process design options and a comparative Biomass to Liquid • Low GHG electricity is needed to produce sustainable
(BtL) case were assessed under varying economic boundary fuel in accordance with the RED II directive: With the
13
German average 2020 grid mix of 311 g CO2,eq/MJ the were made. The images or other third party material in this article are
RED II threshold of 32.9 gCO2,eq/MJ could not be met. included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
For the base case, the electricity GHG footprint should the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
not be higher than 116 kgCO2,eq/MWh. This is the case permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
for countries like France, Finland, Sweden or Norway. need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a
• For low GHG abatement costs green and inexpensive copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
electricity is required: With the Norwegian or Swedish
grid mix PBtL abatement costs below those of BtL can
be reached.
References
The availability of green and inexpensive electricity is
1. European Commission (2019) The European green deal. https://
necessary for the production of fuel via the PBtL process. eur-l ex.e uropa.e u/r esour ce.h tml?u ri=c ellar:b 828d1 65-1 c22-1 1ea-
These conditions are not met in many countries in Europe. 8c1f-0 1aa75 ed71a 1.0 002.0 2/D OC_1 &f ormat=P DF. Accessed 17
However, governments and industry are working on the Jan 2023
reduction of GHG emissions from their national power pro- 2. European Commission (2021) Proposal for a regulation of the
European parliament and of the council on ensuring a level
duction. In the opinion of the authors, fuel production in playing field for sustainable air transport. https://ec.europa.eu/
these countries should be ramped-up via the BtL process info/s ites/d efaul t/fi les/refuel eu_aviati on_-_s ustai nable_aviat
while this transition is under way. At a later stage, the pro- ion_fuels.pdf. Accessed 17 Jan 2023
cess can be converted to PBtL by the addition of an elec- 3. The White House (2021) Biden administration advances the
future of sustainable fuels in American aviation. https://www.
trolysis unit. This will increase the conversion of limited whitehouse.gov/briefi ng-room/statements-releases/2021/09/09/
biomass residue. fact-sheet-biden-administration-advances-t he-future-of-susta
inable-f uels-i n-a meric an-aviati on/#:~ :t ext=C urren t%2 0lev
Supplementary information The online version contains supplemen- els%2 0of%2 0dome stic%2 0SAF, drivin g%2 0dome stic%2 0inn
tary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-022-03671-y. ovation%20and%20deployment. Accessed 17 Jan 2023
4. Shahriar MF, Khanal A (2022) The current techno-economic,
Acknowledgements The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge environmental, policy status and perspectives of sustainable
the funding provided by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research aviation fuel (SAF). Fuel 325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.
and innovation program under Grant Agreement No 763919. Further, 2022.124905
the authors would like to thank Julia Weyand, Moritz Raab, and for 5. Ail SS, Dasappa S (2016) Biomass to liquid transportation fuel
their valuable inputs. via Fischer Tropsch synthesis–technology review and current
scenario. Renew Sust Energy Rev 58:267–286
Author contribution The study is based on Esa Kurkela process design 6. Albrecht FG, König DH, Baucks N, Dietrich R-U (2017) A
as studied in the EU project FLEXCHX. Modeling, simulation, and standardized methodology for the techno-economic evaluation
analysis were done by Felix Habermeyer under the guidance of Ralph- of alternative fuels–a case study. Fuel 194:511–526. https://doi.
Uwe Dietrich and Esa Kurkela. The GHG emission analysis was con- org/10.1016/j.fuel.2016.12.003
ducted by Julia Weyand. The software tool TEPET was provided by 7. O’malley J, Pavlenko N, Searle S (2021) Estimating sustainable
Simon Maier. The author Felix Habermeyer prepared the manuscript. aviation fuel feedstock availability to meet growing European
Ralph-Uwe Dietrich, Esa Kurkela, Julia Weyand, and Simon Maier Union demand. International Council on Clean Transportation.
discussed and commented the manuscript. https://theicct.org/publication/estimating-sustainable-aviation-
fuel-feedstock-availability-to-meet-g rowing-european-union-
Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt demand/. Accessed 17 Jan 2023
DEAL. This study is part of the FLEXCHX project, which has received 8. Hillestad M, Ostadi M, Serrano GA, Rytter E, Austbø B,
funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innova- Pharoah J, Burheim OS (2018) Improving carbon efficiency
tion Programme under Grant Agreement No 763919. and profitability of the biomass to liquid process with hydrogen
from renewable power. Fuel 234:1431–1451
Data availability All data and materials as well as software application 9. Isaacs SA, Staples MD, Allroggen F, Mallapragada DS, Falter
or custom code comply with field standards. Additional data is avail- CP, Barrett SR (2021) Environmental and economic perfor-
able in the Supporting Material. mance of hybrid power-to-liquid and biomass-to-liquid fuel pro-
duction in the United States. Environ Sci Technol 55:8247–8257
Declarations 10. Nielsen AS, Ostadi M, Austbø B, Hillestad M, del Alamo G,
Burheim O (2022) Enhancing the efficiency of power-and bio-
Ethical approval Not applicable. mass-to-liquid fuel processes using fuel-assisted solid oxide
electrolysis cells. Fuel 321:123987
11. Dossow M, Dieterich V, Hanel A, Spliethoff H, Fendt S (2021)
Conflict of interest The authors declare no competing interests. Improving carbon efficiency for an advanced biomass-to-liquid
process using hydrogen and oxygen from electrolysis. Renew
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri- Sustain Energy Rev 152:111670
bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta- 12. Clausen LR (2017) Energy efficient thermochemical conversion
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long of very wet biomass to biofuels by integration of steam drying,
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, steam electrolysis and gasification. Energy 125:327–336
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes
13
13. Hannula I (2016) Hydrogen enhancement potential of synthetic 29. LeViness S (2013) Velocys Fischer-Tropsch synthesis technol-
biofuels manufacture in the European context: a techno-eco- ogy–comparison to conventional FT technologies. In: AIChE
nomic assessment. Energy 104:199–212. https://d oi.o rg/1 0. 2013 Spring Meeting, San Antonio, Texas
1016/j.energy.2016.03.119 30. Jeswani HK, Chilvers A, Azapagic A (2020) Environmental
14. Menin L, Benedetti V, Patuzzi F, Baratieri M (2020) Techno- sustainability of biofuels: a review. Proc Math Phys Eng Sci
economic modeling of an integrated biomethane-biomethanol 476:20200351. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2020.0351
production process via biomass gasification, electrolysis, 31. MMalins C, Searle S, Baral A, Turley D, Hopwood L (2014)
biomethanation, and catalytic methanol synthesis. Biomass Wasted: Europe's untapped resource: an assessment of advanced
Conversion and Biorefinery 13:1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/ biofuels from wastes and residues. International Council on Clean
s13399-020-01178-y Transportation. https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/
15. Poluzzi A, Guandalini G, Guffanti S, Elsido C, Moioli S, Hut- WASTED-final.pdf. Accessed 17 Jan 2023
tenhuis P, Rexwinkel G, Martelli E, Groppi G, Romano MC 32. Searle SY, Malins CJ (2016) Waste and residue availability for
(2022) Flexible power & biomass-to-methanol plants: design advanced biofuel production in EU Member States. Biomass Bio-
optimization and economic viability of the electrolysis integra- energ 89:2–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.01.008
tion. Fuel 310:122113 33. Panoutsou C, Maniatis K (2021) Sustainable biomass availability
16. Zhang H, Wang L, Maréchal F, Desideri U (2020) Techno-eco- in the EU, to 2050. Concawe. https://www.fuelseurope.eu/uploa
nomic evaluation of biomass-to-fuels with solid-oxide electro- ds/fi
les/m odule s/p ublic ation s/1 66141 7357_S ustai nable-B
iomas s-
lyzer. Appl Energy 270:115113 Availability-in-the-EU-Part-I-and-II-final-version.pdf. Accessed
17. Bernical Q, Joulia X, Noirot-Le Borgne I, Floquet P, Baurens P, 17 Jan 2023
Boissonnet G (2013) Sustainability assessment of an integrated 34. Rytter E, Holmen A (2017) Perspectives on the effect of water in
high temperature steam electrolysis-enhanced biomass to liquid cobalt Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. ACS Catal 7:5321–5328
fuel process. Ind Eng Chem Res 52:7189–7195 35. Albrecht FG, Dietrich R-U (2018) Technical and economic opti-
18. Koponen K, Hannula I (2017) GHG emission balances and mization of Biomass-to-Liquid processes using exergoeconomic
prospects of hydrogen enhanced synthetic biofuels from solid analysis. In: 26th European Biomass Converence & Exhibition
biomass in the European context. Appl Energy 200:106–118 (EUBCE), Copenhagen
19. Kurkela E, Kurkela M, Frilund C, Hiltunen I, Rollins B, Steele 36. Habermeyer F, Kurkela E, Maier S, Dietrich R-U (2021) Techno-
A (2021) Flexible hybrid process for combined production of economic analysis of a flexible process concept for the production
heat, power and renewable feedstock for refineries. Johnson of transport fuels and heat from biomass and renewable electricity.
Matthey Technology Review 65:333–345. https://doi.org/10. Frontiers in Energy Research 9:684. https://d oi.o rg/1 0.3 389/f enrg.
1595/205651321X16013744201583 2021.723774
20. Kurkela E, Kurkela M, Hiltunen I (2021) Pilot-scale development 37. Buttler A, Spliethoff H (2018) Current status of water electrolysis
of pressurized fixed-bed gasification for synthesis gas produc- for energy storage, grid balancing and sector coupling via power-
tion from biomass residues. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery to-gas and power-to-liquids: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-021-01554-2 82:2440–2454
21. Frilund C, Tuomi S, Kurkela E, Simell P (2021) Small- to 38. AsahiKasei (2020) https://w ww.a sahi-k asei.c om/n ews/2 020/z e200
medium-scale deep syngas purification: Biomass-to-liquids 403.html. Accessed 10 Aug 2021
multi-contaminant removal demonstration. Biomass Bioenergy 39. Schmidt O, Gambhir A, Staffell I, Hawkes A, Nelson J, Few S
148:106031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2021.106031 (2017) Future cost and performance of water electrolysis: an
22. Müller S, Groß P, Rauch R, Zweiler R, Aichernig C, Fuchs M, expert elicitation study. Int J Hydrogen Energy 42:30470–30492.
Hofbauer H (2018) Production of diesel from biomass and wind https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.10.045
power–energy storage by the use of the Fischer-Tropsch process. 40. Gao X, Zhang Y, Li B, Zhao Y, Jiang B (2016) Determination
Biomass Convers Biorefinery 8:275–282 of the intrinsic reactivities for carbon dioxide gasification of rice
23. Shell Global (2021) Shell starts up Europe’s largest PEM green husk chars through using random pore model. Bioresour Technol
hydrogen electrolyser. https://www.shell.com/media/news-and- 218:1073–1081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.07.057
media-releases/2021/shell-starts-up-europes-largest-pem-green- 41. Smith A, Klosek J (2001) A review of air separation technolo-
hydrogen-electrolyser.html. Accessed 18 Aug 2021 gies and their integration with energy conversion processes. Fuel
24. Violidakis I, Drosatos P, Nikolopoulos N (2017) Critical review Process Technol 70:115–134
of current industrial scale lignite drying technologies. Low-Rank 42. Maier S, Tuomi S, Kihlman J, Kurkela E, Dietrich R-U (2021)
Coals for Power Generation, Fuel Chemical Production 41–71. Techno-economically-driven identification of ideal plant configu-
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100895-9.00003-6 rations for a new biomass-to-liquid process – A case study for
25. Peduzzi E, Boissonnet G, Haarlemmer G, Maréchal F (2018) Central-Europe. Energ Conver Manage 247:114651. https://doi.
Thermo-economic analysis and multi-objective optimisation of org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.114651
lignocellulosic biomass conversion to Fischer-Tropsch fuels. Sus- 43. Aspen Technology Inc. (2013) Aspen physical property system
tain Energy Fuels 2:1069–1084 - physical property methods. https://docplayer.net/51476064-
26. Bajirao UR (2012) Kinetics and reaction engineering aspects of Aspen-physical-property-system-physical-property-models.html.
syngas production by the heterogeneously catalysed reverse water Accessed 17 Jan 2023
gas shift reaction. Dissertation, Universität Bayreuth 44. Adelung S (2022) Global sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of a
27. Sikarwar VS, Zhao M, Fennell PS, Shah N, Anthony EJ (2017) Fischer-Tropsch based power-to-liquid process. J CO2 Utilization
Progress in biofuel production from gasification. Prog Energy 65:102171
Combust Sci 61:189–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2017. 45. VTT (2020) Design and performance report for the reformer and
04.001 final gas cleaning. Confidential FLEXCHX deliverable report
28. Van Der Laan GP, Beenackers AACM (1999) Kinetics and selec- D4.3
tivity of the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis: a literature review. Catal 46. Todic B, Ma W, Jacobs G, Nikacevic N, Davis BH, Bukur D
Rev 41:255–318 (2017) Kinetic modeling of secondary methane formation and
13
1-olefin hydrogenation in Fischer-Tropsch synthesis over a cobalt 60. Hannula I (2015) Co-production of synthetic fuels and district
catalyst. Int J Chem Kinet 49:859–874 heat from biomass residues, carbon dioxide and electricity: per-
47. Todic B, Ma W, Jacobs G, Davis BH, Bukur DB (2014) CO- formance and cost analysis. Biomass Bioenerg 74:26–46
insertion mechanism based kinetic model of the Fischer-Tropsch 61. NTM (2021) Road cargo transport baselines Europe. https://w ww.
synthesis reaction over Re-promoted Co catalyst. Catal Today transportmeasures.org/en/wiki/evaluation-transport-suppliers/
228:32–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cattod.2013.08.008 road-transport-baselines-2020/. Accessed 10 June 2022
48. Todic B, Bhatelia T, Froment GF, Ma W, Jacobs G, Davis BH, 62. European Parliament Council of the European Union (2018)
Bukur DB (2013) Kinetic model of Fischer-Tropsch synthesis in Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the
a slurry reactor on Co–Re/Al2O3 catalyst. Ind Eng Chem Res Council of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of
52:669–679 energy from renewable sources. http://d ata.e uropa.e u/e li/d ir/2 018/
49. Ostadi M, Rytter E, Hillestad M (2019) Boosting carbon efficiency 2001/oj. Accessed 17 Jan 2023
of the biomass to liquid process with hydrogen from power: the 63. Karlsson H, Börjesson P, Hansson P-A, Ahlgren S (2014) Ethanol
effect of H2/CO ratio to the Fischer-Tropsch reactors on the pro- production in biorefineries using lignocellulosic feedstock–GHG
duction and power consumption. Biomass Bioenerg 127:105282. performance, energy balance and implications of life cycle calcu-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2019.105282 lation methodology. J Clean Prod 83:420–427
50. Haarlemmer G, Boissonnet G, Imbach J, Setier P-A, Peduzzi E 64. Index Mundi (2022) Crude oil (petroleum) monthly price - US
(2012) Second generation BtL type biofuels – a production cost dollars per barrel. https://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?
analysis. Energ Environ Sci 5:8445. https://doi.org/10.1039/ commodity=crude-oil&months=60. Accessed 10 Jun 2022
C2EE21750C 65. Gerard F, Gorner M, Lemoine P, Moerenhout J, De Haas V, Caz-
51. Peters MS, Timmerhaus KD, West RE, Timmerhaus K, West zola P (2022) Assessment of the potential of sustainable fuels in
R (1968) Plant design and economics for chemical engineers. transport in the context of the Ukraine/Russia crisis. https://www.
McGraw-Hill, New York europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2022/699650/IPOL_
52. Krebs S (2015) Arbeitskosten pro StundeimVerarbeitenden Gew- IDA(2022)699650_EN.pdf. Accessed 17 Jan 2023
erbe (2015). Volkswirtschaft und Statistik, VDMA. https://www. 66. Eurostat (2021) Electricity prices for non-household consumers
vdma.o rg/d ocume nts/1 05628/7 78064/I ntern ation aler%2 0Arbe itsk - bi-annual data. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submi
ostenvergleich%20Verarbeitendes%20Gewerbe/05a1a0bf-ea29- tViewTableAction.do. Accessed 31 Jan 2022
4a7a-b905-37fffec17957. Accessed 16 Nov 2020 67. Agency EE (2022) Greenhouse gas emission intensity of elec-
53. Ruiz P, Nijs W, Tarvydas D, Sgobbi A, Zucker A, Pilli R, Jonsson tricity generation by country https://w ww.e ea.e uropa.e u/d ata-a nd-
R, Camia A, Thiel C, Hoyer-Klick C (2019) ENSPRESO-an open, maps/daviz/co2-emission-intensity-9/#tab-googlechar tid_googl
EU-28 wide, transparent and coherent database of wind, solar and echartid_googlechartid_chart_1111. Accessed 31 Jan 2022
biomass energy potentials. Energ Strat Rev 26:100379 68. Commission E (2018) Renewable Energy – Recast to 2030 (RED
54. Kempegowda RS, del Alamo G, Berstad D, Bugge M, Matas Güell II). https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/welcome-jec-websi
B, Tran K-Q (2015) CHP-integrated fischer-tropsch biocrude pro- te/r efere nce-r egula tory-f ramew
ork/r enewa ble-e nergy-r ecast-2 030-
duction under norwegian conditions: techno-economic analysis. red-ii_en. Accessed 24 Mar 2022
Energy Fuels 29:808–822 69. De Jong S, Antonissen K, Hoefnagels R, Lonza L, Wang M, Faaij
55. Swanson RM, Platon A, Satrio JA, Brown RC (2010) Techno- A, Junginger M (2017) Life-cycle analysis of greenhouse gas
economic analysis of biomass-to-liquids production based on emissions from renewable jet fuel production. Biotechnol Biofu-
gasification. Fuel 89:S11–S19 els 10:64. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-017-0739-7
56. VTT (2020) Gasification process design and performance report. 70. Phillips R, Dunnill Charles W (2016) Zero gap alkaline electroly-
Confidential FLEXCHX deliverable report D3.3. sis cell design for renewable energy storage as hydrogen gas. RSC
57. Eurostat (2016) Gas prices for industrial consumers. https:// Adv 6:100643–100651. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6ra22242k
ec.europa.eu/eurost at/web/products-datasets/-/NRG_PC_203. 71. European Commission (2022) Hydrogen: commission supports
Accessed 17 Jan 2023 industry commitment to boost by tenfold electrolyser manufactur-
58. De Klerk A (2012) Fischer-tropsch refining. John Wiley & Sons ing capacities in the EU https://ec.europa.eu/commission/press
59. Bechtel (1998) Aspen process flowsheet simulation model of a corner/detail/en/ip_22_2829. Accessed 8 Dec 2022
battelle biomass‐based gasification, Fischer–Tropsch liquefac-
tion and combined‐cycle power plant. US Department of Energy Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
(DOE) Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/ jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
purl/1395. Accessed 17 Jan 2023
13

07.power Biomass To Liquid - An Option For SAF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

07.power Biomass To Liquid - An Option For SAF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

07.power Biomass To Liquid - An Option For SAF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery (2024) 14:16199–16217

Power Biomass to Liquid — an option for Europe’s sustainable

Fig. 1 PBtL super-structure pro-

Fig. 2 BtL flowsheet

2.4 Process model Proximate analysis, wt. % dry basis

Table 2 shows the process design configurations for the

In order to assess the process performance from a techni-

Fig. 3 Composite curves includ- 800

200 HPS (8 MW)

Transferred heat [MW]

Table 4 Equipment cost functions

Miscellaneous 3.5 M€ 5.3 kgbiom,out/s 0.7 2019 [56] E

Fig. 4 Comparison of PBtL

Fig. 5 NPC over electricity

Fig. 6 Effect of an increase

Fig. 8 Sensitivity of NPC and

Fig. 9 Specific fuel production

Fig. 10 Fuel production

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

2.4 Process model Proximate analysis, wt. % dry basis