Chinese packaging manufacturer Livan Biodegradable Product Co. Ltd. will build plants in Alsozsolca and Edeleny in eastern Hungary at a combined cost of EUR18 million by 2009, the Hungarian economics ministry says. The plants, which will employ 800 people, are planned to produce initially 50, 000 metric tons a year of environmentally-friendly packaging material, and double that amount by a later date. Livan will use corn to manufacture packaging boxes similar in characteristics to plastic boxes for the food industry.
Policy and regulatory framework crucial for CCS success
In a world that continues to rely on coal as an energy source, carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) has been embraced by many as a promising option for reducing rising CO2 emissions and combating global warming. Yet use of CCS on a large scale raises a mountain of legal and regulatory questions. New research published in the latest issue of Environmental Science & Technology suggests that these issues need as much attention as the technology itself and puts forth several areas where the scientific underpinnings of regulatory and legal decision making can be strengthened.
More importantly, in order to promote carbon-negative energy systems, proactive policy initiatives and even lobbying are needed. Else, CCS will only be looked at in the context of fossil fuels. During a recent EU public consultation on CCS, Biopact suggested EU decision makers look at 'Bioenergy with Carbon Storage' (BECS) as the safest way forward for large-scale initial tests with the technology (quicknote on the issue here).
Currently there is only one organisation working towards the development of concrete policies for the implementation of BECS, namely the 'Abrupt Climate Change Strategy' (ACCS) group, which grew out of the G8 climate change initiative of 2005. ACCS is designing a precautionary strategy based on bioenergy to be prepared for potential abrupt climate change becoming imminent. The associated Bioenergy Future Group is devoted to developing action-oriented steps to implement BECS.
In any case, according to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory researchers, the science, technology and policy communities must urgently enter into a dialogue on CCS.
Yet an abundance of legal and regulatory issues arise from the many phases of a CCS project, which include capturing, transporting, and injecting the CO2 and closing a site. Issues also include responsibility for possible, but not necessarily likely, CO2 leakage if the original injecting company has shut down, ownership of the land and minerals in the land above a reservoir, and ownership of the pores filled by injected CO2. Guidelines for monitoring leakage and accounting for the gas in a regulatory emissions cap-and-trade program need to be hashed out, the authors say. These types of issues are compounded by varying state rules governing underground rights and injection. Before CCS can be used on a broad scale, investors and the public need certainty and assurances that CSS will be done safely and efficiently.
Managing leakage risks
In the new ES&T paper, the authors focus on two areas of research: surface leakage of CO2 and groundwater quality. They present two case studies of analog sites in which an injection well or abandoned well failed in conjunction with a large volume of naturally occurring CO2. Leakage can occur, notes coauthor Elizabeth Wilson of the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota, when CO2 migrates to the surface through abandoned well bores or through faults or fractures in the rock. Yet current regulations don't cover human and ecological risks from this leakage:
energy :: sustainability :: climate change :: fossil fuels :: carbon capture and storage :: carbon-negative :: bioenergy with carbon storage :: biomass :: regulation :: policy ::
Ensuring that protocols are in place to deal with such an event is key to CCS's success. "CCS must be integrated into a larger regime, where public perception is very important," Wilson says.
John Venezia of the nonprofit think tank World Resources Institute (WRI) agrees, saying, "What we don't want to do is to start off with a project without having uniform standards. If there is some leakage down the line, it will generate a very bad perception about CCS, and people won't trust it." WRI is working with a diverse group ranging from academics to insurers to devise uniform protocols for the many stages of CCS. Although CCS is a very promising technology, it is just "one of many arrows in the quiver" that can be used against global warming, Venezia adds.
Biopact would stress that - again, if used on carbon dioxide from carbon-neutral biomass - CCS becomes one of the most powerful weapons in the fight against climate change. Not just "one of many arrows". It is for this reason that, a few years ago, some scientists have called for it within the context of the potential threat of 'abrupt' and 'dangerous' climate change, which would require a complete moratorium on the use fossil fuels and a radical switch to carbon-negative systems. On the basis of more recent research, some are meanwhile warning that we may actually already be facing such a dark scenario (earlier post). Thus, BECS systems are more needed than ever. A major effort is needed to get this message across to decision makers.
When it comes to CCS policies as they are looked at in the context of fossil fuels: several government agencies are already working on incorporating science into policy development. Sean Plasynski of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) National Energy Technology Laboratory notes that DOE's 10-year-old program, funded at $100 million for the current fiscal year, has several small CO2 injection pilot projects in place. The DOE has seven regional partnerships in its Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships program that involve 350 state agencies, universities, and private companies spanning 41 states and 4 Canadian provinces. The observations from these pilots will support policy and regulatory issues, Plasynski says.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has a smaller yet significant program dealing with the permits needed before a new injection site begins operations, the authors note. EPA staff are developing permits for DOE's CO2 injection pilots using the long-standing underground injection well program developed for hazardous and other wastes; this might be expanded nationally to include CO2 geological sequestration, Wilson says.
References:
Elizabeth J. Wilson, S. Julio Friedmann, and Melisa F. Pollak, "Research for Deployment: Incorporating Risk, Regulation, and Liability for Carbon Capture and Sequestration" [*abstract], Environ. Sci. Technol., ASAP Article, Web Release Date: July 25, 2007, DOI:10.1021/es062272t S0013-936X(06)02272-3
Peter Read and Jonathan Lermit,"Bio-energy with carbon storage (BECS): A sequential decision approach to the threat of abrupt climate change", Energy, Volume 30, Issue 14, November 2005, Pages 2654-2671, DOI:10.1016/j.energy.2004.07.003
Environmental Science & Technology: Linking science with new policies for CCS - July 25, 2007.
Abrupt Climate Change Strategy group.
Article continues
Potential leakage routes and possible countermeasures for CO2 injected into saline aquifers (click to enlarge). Source: IPCC.
At the Biopact, we track technological and policy developments on CCS because the technique can be applied to bioenergy, in which case radically carbon-negative energy systems emerge that take historic carbon dioxide emissions out of the atmosphere. Such systems are obviously much safer than CCS used on fossil fuels (because if CO2 leakage were to occur on gas originating from carbon-neutral biomass, there would be no net contribution of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere; leaks of CO2 from fossil fuels would be highly problematic). It is interesting to see how the legal and regulatory question marks surrounding CCS - and especially those dealing with the management of leakage risks - would change if the technology were to be applied to biofuels.More importantly, in order to promote carbon-negative energy systems, proactive policy initiatives and even lobbying are needed. Else, CCS will only be looked at in the context of fossil fuels. During a recent EU public consultation on CCS, Biopact suggested EU decision makers look at 'Bioenergy with Carbon Storage' (BECS) as the safest way forward for large-scale initial tests with the technology (quicknote on the issue here).
Currently there is only one organisation working towards the development of concrete policies for the implementation of BECS, namely the 'Abrupt Climate Change Strategy' (ACCS) group, which grew out of the G8 climate change initiative of 2005. ACCS is designing a precautionary strategy based on bioenergy to be prepared for potential abrupt climate change becoming imminent. The associated Bioenergy Future Group is devoted to developing action-oriented steps to implement BECS.
In any case, according to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory researchers, the science, technology and policy communities must urgently enter into a dialogue on CCS.
If there is a real conversation between people on the policy side and people on the science side, then we can begin to develop some guidelines for these relatively new, large-scale CCS projects. Holding off addressing the policy issues until the science is set is going to hold up the process. - Julio Friedmann of Lawrence Livermore National LaboratoryThe concept behind CCS is simple, the authors write: capture CO2 emissions and inject them in a supercritical state into deep geologic formations, where the carbon is likely to stay put for hundreds of thousands of years. Reservoirs for such geologic sequestration are plentiful throughout the world; the best injection spots are deep saline aquifers, depleted oil and gas formations, and coal seams.
Yet an abundance of legal and regulatory issues arise from the many phases of a CCS project, which include capturing, transporting, and injecting the CO2 and closing a site. Issues also include responsibility for possible, but not necessarily likely, CO2 leakage if the original injecting company has shut down, ownership of the land and minerals in the land above a reservoir, and ownership of the pores filled by injected CO2. Guidelines for monitoring leakage and accounting for the gas in a regulatory emissions cap-and-trade program need to be hashed out, the authors say. These types of issues are compounded by varying state rules governing underground rights and injection. Before CCS can be used on a broad scale, investors and the public need certainty and assurances that CSS will be done safely and efficiently.
Managing leakage risks
In the new ES&T paper, the authors focus on two areas of research: surface leakage of CO2 and groundwater quality. They present two case studies of analog sites in which an injection well or abandoned well failed in conjunction with a large volume of naturally occurring CO2. Leakage can occur, notes coauthor Elizabeth Wilson of the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota, when CO2 migrates to the surface through abandoned well bores or through faults or fractures in the rock. Yet current regulations don't cover human and ecological risks from this leakage:
energy :: sustainability :: climate change :: fossil fuels :: carbon capture and storage :: carbon-negative :: bioenergy with carbon storage :: biomass :: regulation :: policy :: Ensuring that protocols are in place to deal with such an event is key to CCS's success. "CCS must be integrated into a larger regime, where public perception is very important," Wilson says.
John Venezia of the nonprofit think tank World Resources Institute (WRI) agrees, saying, "What we don't want to do is to start off with a project without having uniform standards. If there is some leakage down the line, it will generate a very bad perception about CCS, and people won't trust it." WRI is working with a diverse group ranging from academics to insurers to devise uniform protocols for the many stages of CCS. Although CCS is a very promising technology, it is just "one of many arrows in the quiver" that can be used against global warming, Venezia adds.
Biopact would stress that - again, if used on carbon dioxide from carbon-neutral biomass - CCS becomes one of the most powerful weapons in the fight against climate change. Not just "one of many arrows". It is for this reason that, a few years ago, some scientists have called for it within the context of the potential threat of 'abrupt' and 'dangerous' climate change, which would require a complete moratorium on the use fossil fuels and a radical switch to carbon-negative systems. On the basis of more recent research, some are meanwhile warning that we may actually already be facing such a dark scenario (earlier post). Thus, BECS systems are more needed than ever. A major effort is needed to get this message across to decision makers.
When it comes to CCS policies as they are looked at in the context of fossil fuels: several government agencies are already working on incorporating science into policy development. Sean Plasynski of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) National Energy Technology Laboratory notes that DOE's 10-year-old program, funded at $100 million for the current fiscal year, has several small CO2 injection pilot projects in place. The DOE has seven regional partnerships in its Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships program that involve 350 state agencies, universities, and private companies spanning 41 states and 4 Canadian provinces. The observations from these pilots will support policy and regulatory issues, Plasynski says.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has a smaller yet significant program dealing with the permits needed before a new injection site begins operations, the authors note. EPA staff are developing permits for DOE's CO2 injection pilots using the long-standing underground injection well program developed for hazardous and other wastes; this might be expanded nationally to include CO2 geological sequestration, Wilson says.
References:
Elizabeth J. Wilson, S. Julio Friedmann, and Melisa F. Pollak, "Research for Deployment: Incorporating Risk, Regulation, and Liability for Carbon Capture and Sequestration" [*abstract], Environ. Sci. Technol., ASAP Article, Web Release Date: July 25, 2007, DOI:10.1021/es062272t S0013-936X(06)02272-3
Peter Read and Jonathan Lermit,"Bio-energy with carbon storage (BECS): A sequential decision approach to the threat of abrupt climate change", Energy, Volume 30, Issue 14, November 2005, Pages 2654-2671, DOI:10.1016/j.energy.2004.07.003
Environmental Science & Technology: Linking science with new policies for CCS - July 25, 2007.
Abrupt Climate Change Strategy group.
Article continues
Sunday, July 29, 2007
New biogas reactor for energy crops cuts energy costs, increases productivity
Farm-based biogas digesters of today are generally designed for the fermentation of liquid manure. Their use for energy crops is questionable, since these fibre-rich materials tend to build up a persistent float layer. In order to prevent flotation, agitation and stirring has to be intensified to a level where it demands up to 10% of the electric energy produced. Too intensive mixing can also affect the substrate decomposition process negatively. Moreover, when fermentation residues are discharged, the bacteria which stick to the biomass get lost as well, further reducing efficiency.
The new up-flow leach-bed process developed by the Leibniz agricultural engineers follows a completely different strategy by stimulating flotation in order to increase not only energy efficiency but biogas production rates as well.
The key component of this two stage process is a novel anaerobic leach-bed reactor (schematic, click to enlarge). Plant raw material is continuously fed to the reactor bottom and, after fermentation, removed from the top as solid residue. Gas bubbles generated by bacteria adhere to plant particles and thus, naturally induce floatation like in common digesters. Due to missing agitation inside the leach-bed reactor a liquid phase is formed and used as leachate. This leachate circulates upwards through the leach-bed reactor and downwards through a high rate anaerobic digester with immobilised bacteria. Volatile fatty acids are leached from the solids and efficiently converted to biogas in the high rate reactor. Excess bacteria are transferred to the leach-bed reactor enhancing solid degradation as well.
Experiments at laboratory scale (see below) reveal that compared with common farm-based digesters the reactor loading can be increased by at least factor two to three while yielding the same amount of gas. At significantly reduced energy demands the up-flow leach-bed process promises considerably increased productivity and stability as well as an uncomplicated and precise process control. The risk of overloading is practically eliminated:
As a next step testing of the patent pending system at pilot-scale (10 m³) is projected.
Background
Typical biogas digesters in use today can only deal with energy crops under certain conditions and often in an inefficient way. But precisely the use of dedicated energy crops such as specially designed maize or grass hybrids has become important for the production of renewable biomethane. When fermented in classic digesters, energy crops need continuous stirring, which takes up a considerable amount of energy. A 2005 study by the German Agency for Renewable Energy indicates that this may run up to as much as 10% of the energy produced by the plant.
Too intensive mixing can also affect the substrate decomposition process negatively. When fermentation residues are discharged, the bacteria which stick to the biomass get lost as well, further reducing the efficiency. As a consequence, a classic reactor digesting energy crops can only handle around 3 to 4 kilograms of organic dry matter per cubic meter of working volume and per day. Higher reactor loads lead to an inhibition of the decomposition process because of the build-up of volatile fatty acids.
The goal of the research at the Leibniz Institute for Agricultural Engineering therefor was to design a system that reduces the loss of bacterial biomass and increases the stabilty and efficiency of biogas production from dedicated energy crops. The researchers modified existing high-power fixed bed or mud bed reactors commonly used for the treatment of organically highly loaded industrial waste water.
In order to make such reactors suitable for the fermentation of renewable crops the organic materials must be liquefied first. Thus a two-stage and at the same time two-phase procedure was developed. An appropriate system, consisting of a fixed bed reactor in combination with 4 intermittently operating solid reactors was already developed and has found practical agricultural applications.
While such an intermittent fermentation process with a separate solid and liquid treatment phase is state of the art, the Leibniz Institute wanted to develop a continuous system for energy crops, which did not yet exist. The novel approach allows for a continuous mode of operation and offers substantial advantages. When the conditions inside the reactors are kept constant, a better adjustment of the micro-organisms becomes possible which results in an increased biological conversion efficiency by the bacteria. The new process also allows for much higher loading rates. Finally, a more balanced and continuous methanation simplifies the use of the biogas.
Laboratory tests
The process temperature was kept in the entire system to a thermophile 55°C. As substrates two different types of silage maize were used successively: Maize 1 ( dry matter = 33.1 %, organic dry matter = 96.7 % of DM) for 27 days, followed by Maize 2 (dry matter = 34.9 %, organic dry matter = 95.9 % of DM). In addition, to increase the fibrous nature of the substrate, barley straw was added (2 to 5 % of the total substrate mass).
On the basis of batch fermenting tests the methane-production potential of the organic matter of Maize 1 was put at 415 liter/kg-1, that for Maize 2 was 364 liter/kg-1 and that of the straw 334 liter/kg-1. During the tests the reactor load of the solids reactor was increased gradually, with the organic dry matter being increased from 6,3 to 16 gram/liter/day.
Besides other process variables, the most important parameter that was focused on was the generation of methane.
Results
After the addition of the substrate on day 60, a brisk decrease in methane production was observed. The allocation of the methane yield to the two reactors changed fundamentally when reactor loads were increased. The share of methane coming from the fixed bed reactor rose from an initial 10 % to 75 %. From this it is to be concluded that the solids reactor can handle a load factor of 6.3gram/liter/day organic dry matter without the need for a high-power reactor. For higher loads the use of a high-power reactor is essential.
On basis of these results, it is assumed that the high-power reactor can be reduced to a size 30 % smaller than that of the solids reactor. The fermentation speed of the solids with a hydrolysis constant of 0.14 day-1 was about 5 times higher than that observed during the fermentation of silage maize in traditional fully mixed, mesophilic plants.
The Leibniz Institute for Agricultural Engineering Potsdam-Bornim (ATB) is one of the leading European research institutes in the field of agricultural engineering. Production and use of biomass - not only for CO2-reduced energy production but also for material exploitation - including economic and ecologic assessment, are long term research issues at the ATB. Complete value creation chains are taken into consideration: from raw material to product i.e. from field to tank.
Graphs and schematics: translated and adapted by Biopact. Courtesy: Leibniz Institute for Agricultural Engineering Potsdam-Bornim.
References:
Leibniz Institute for Agricultural Engineering Potsdam-Bornim (ATB): Neues Hochleistungsverfahren zur Vergärung von Nachwachsenden Rohstoffen - Versuchsdurchführung, (text on the laboratory tests).
Leibniz Institute for Agricultural Engineering Potsdam-Bornim (ATB): Neues Hochleistungsverfahren zur Vergärung von Nachwachsenden Rohstoffen, (intro).
Leibniz Institute for Agricultural Engineering Potsdam-Bornim (ATB): Neues Hochleistungsverfahren zur Vergärung von Nachwachsenden Rohstoffen - Ausgangslage, (background).
Linke, B., M. Heiermann und J. Mumme (2005), "Ergebnisse aus den wissenschaftlichen Begleitungen der Pilotanlagen Pirow und Clausnitz." In: Trockenfermentation - Stand der Entwicklungen und weiterer F&E-Bedarf, Band 24, Hrsg. Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V. Gülzow, S. 95-102
Linke, B. und P. Mähnert (2005), "Biogasgewinnung aus Rindergülle und nachwachsenden Rohstoffen" [*.pdf],Agrartechnische Forschung 11 (5), S. 125-132
Article continues
posted by Biopact team at 2:24 PM 0 comments links to this post