Techno-economic assessment of gasoline production from Fe-assisted lignocellulosic biomass hydrothermal liquefaction process with minimized waste stream
Seyedmohammad Mousavi, Martina Damizia, Roya Hamidi, Paolo De Filippis, Benedetta de Caprariis
Abstract
• Techno-economic analysis of iron-assisted HTL for converting biomass into gasoline. • Aqueous phase recycling coupled with red mud allows for achieving 62% bio-crude yield. • Schemes 1 and 2 aim to effectively use the plant’s waste streams. • Scheme 2 achieves a lower fuel price ($0.94/LGE) using external H₂ sources. • Scheme 1 offers better environmental sustainability with 1.11 kg CO₂-Eq per LGE. Techno-economic analyses were conducted on an iron-assisted hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) process for converting lignocellulosic biomass into gasoline, comparing two approaches for minimizing by-product streams. The primary difference between the two approaches lies in their hydrogen (H₂) source for upgrading bio-crude to bio-gasoline. Scheme 1 utilizes residual water-soluble and gaseous compounds from the process to generate the H₂ needed for upgrading. Scheme 2, on the other hand, converts these waste streams into heat to supply part of the required energy, while external H₂ from steam methane reforming (with or without CO₂ capture) or water electrolysis (green hydrogen) is used for upgrading. Both schemes use pinewood and red mud as feedstocks. Red mud, after the reduction of Fe₂O 3 to metallic iron, is employed in the HTL reactor as a hydrogen producer, enhancing both the yield and quality of the bio-crude while minimizing the H 2 consumption in the upgrading unit. The HTL reactor was modeled based on optimal operating conditions experimentally determined while sensitivity analyses were performed on the other scheme’s units to determine their optimal conditions. A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) was also conducted to measure the environmental impact of the two scenarios. Both schemes produce 459 tonnes of gasoline equivalent per day, consuming 33 tonnes of H 2 . Scheme 2 achieves a minimum fuel selling price (MFSP) of $0.94 per liter of gasoline equivalent (LGE), with methane reforming and CO₂ capture providing the lowest emissions (1.13 kg CO₂-Eq per kg of LGE). Scheme 1 has a slightly higher MFSP of $0.96 per LGE but is more environmentally sustainable, with a LCA showing 1.11 kg CO₂-Eq per kg of LGE.