the role of gasification and ... - aiee energy symposium · 2nd aiee energy symposium current and...

Projet PROSPEN 22017 - 2020

The role of gasification and methanisation in decarbonisation strategies

Gabin MANTULET, Adrien BIDAUD, Silvana MIMA

Associazione Italiana Economisti dell'Energiawww.aiee.it

2ND AIEE ENERGY SYMPOSIUMCurrent and Future Challenges to Energy Security

2-4 November 2017, Rome - LUMSA University

AIEE is the Italian affiliate of

1

PlanI – Energy contextII – Green gas process

a) Gasificationb) Methanisationc) Power to gas

III – MethodologyIV – Modelling resultsV – Scenarios comparisonVI – Conclusions and perspectives

2

I – Energy context: decarbonisation of the energy system

3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

Gto

e

Other Renew ablesBiomassNuclearCoal, ligniteNatural gasOil

World Primary consumption - REF

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

Gto

e

Other Renew ablesBiomassNuclearCoal, ligniteNatural gasOil

World Primary consumption - 400 ppm Sc.

POLES ‐ Scenario Baseline POLES ‐ Scenario <2°C

Importance of biomass‐ Renewable energy‐ Various energetic path or chemical options‐ Negative CO2 emissions

• The interactions of bioenergy deployment and emission reductions have been analyzed in a number of studiesProminent role of biomass with climate policies

Combustion: heat and electricityBiofuels

• The CARNOT study aims to complement them by performing a more detailed analysis on the availability of bioenergy technologies and their role for achieving emission limitations.

Role of new utilization of biomass linked with green gas vector: gasification andmethanisation.

PlanI – Energy contextII – Green gas process

a) Gasificationb) Methanisationc) Power to gas

III – MethodologyIV – Modelling resultsV – Scenarios comparisonVI – Conclusions and perspectives

4

5

II – Green gas processes

Gas Grid

Power to Gas

Power Grid (electricity)Power Grid (electricity)

Source: GRTgaz, projet Jupiter 1000, dec 2016

Biomass

MethanisationGasification

H2 ‐ CH4

SyngasBioCH4

BiogasBioCH4

6

II – Gasification

Source: Gasification process, Capucine DUPONT, « The main biomass to energy routes », CEA

Advantages DrawbacksAble to convert lignocellulosic biomass and solid recovered fuels: 2nd generation biomass

High costs for the resource

Recovery of local resources (local lignocellulosic resource such as wood residues)

Suitable only for medium to large scale applications

Various final products, including fuels that are mixable with conventional fossil fuels

Field not very organised yet. Still R&D issues

The bioenergy technology with the best energy index = energy in fuel / total fossil energy consumed

High competition with other use for 2nd generation of biomass such as direct heating and building timber.

7

II – Methanisation

Advantages DrawbacksRobust and simple technology due to low temperature and pressure needed

Very low reaction rate (up to several weeks)

Recovery of local resources (wastes, agricultural by-products for farmers)

Not suitable for exclusive 2nd generation biomassvalorization (lignocellulosic)

Suitable for wet biomass and liquids Bacteria poisoning with some biomassProduction of CH4 for use in the existing pipeline Severe gas cleaning mandatory for fuel applicationRecovery for by-products (the digestate can be used as soil fertilizer)Suitable for small scale units

Source: Methanisation process, Capucine DUPONT, « The main biomass to energy routes », CEA

8

II – Power to gas

Advantages DrawbacksValorization of electricity surplus produced by VRE Yields to be improvedLarge scale storage system Yet expensive technologyVarious valorization products, including electricity (gas to power), direct gas consumption, heat

Only at a early R&D step

CO2 valorization (Carbon Capture and Use)

Source: GRTgaz, projet Jupiter 1000, dec 2016

Electrolyser Methanation Injection into the gas grid

Electric power

CH4

CO2

CH4or

mix H2 + CH4

hydrogen

CO2 Capture

H2

PlanI – Energy contextII – Green gas processIII – MethodologyIV – Modelling resultsV – Scenarios comparisonVI – Conclusions and perspectives

9

10

2nd generation of biomass

• Several biomass generations with different energetic valorization• Each bio‐energy feedstock is represented by a maximum potential and a marginal cost curve• Information comes from specialist models: cost curves and potentials: GLOBIOM (default),

Green‐X, etc.

III – Methodology: biomass modelling in the POLES model

GasificationMethanisation

11

2) Output declined as

• Perimeter (World and several countries: France, China, Brazil and USA)

• Type of biomass (1st and 2nd generation of biomass)

• Final use (electricity, heat, gas, biofuel)

• Technologies (gasification and methanisation)

3) Comparison with other models from• International Energy Agency• World Energy Council

1) Scenarios

• Baseline = business as usual, with no climate constraints

• <2°C scenario = climate policies respecting the long‐term 2°C target with the carbon

budget 900GtCO2 until 2100

III – Methodology: biomass in climate constraint scenarios


12

13

Potential• Forest potential remains constant• Linear growth of short rotation crops

potential• Linear decrease of 1st gen potential

IV – Modelling results : growth of biomass potential and consumption ‐ world

Consumption• Decrease in 1st generation (food constraints + potential saturation)• Linear increase in 2nd generation biomass consumption

‐ Same proportion in energy mix for baseline‐ Increase proportion from 11% to 18% in climate policies scenario

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

1st gen 2nd gen BL <2° Potential1st

BL <2° Potential2nd

BL <2° Potential1st

BL <2° Potential2nd

1st generation 2nd generation 1st generation 2nd generation

2015 2050 2100

Qua

ntities (M

toe)

Consumption 1st gen Consumption 2nd gen Potential 1st gen Potential forests Potential short rotation crops

‐1000

‐500

0

500

1000

1500

1st g

en

2nd gen BL <2°

Potential 1st BL <2°

Potential 2nd BL <2°


Potential 2nd


2015 2050 2100Qua

ntities (M

toe)

Consumption 1st Consumption 2nd Potential 1st Potential 2nd Net imports

14

IV – Modelling results: growth of biomass potential and production ‐ countries USAFrance

Massive increase in consumption for many countries that overtake their country potential• Energy security concern for 2nd generation biomass furniture• Brazil (and Russia+Canada+Rest of South America) = massive exporter worldwide for 2nd gen biomass needs

China Brazil

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1st g

en

2nd gen BL <2°




Potential 2nd


2015 2050 2100

Qua

ntities (M

toe)

0100200300400500600700800

1st g

en

2nd gen BL <2°




Potential 2nd


2015 2050 2100

Qua

ntities (M

toe)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1st g

en

2nd gen BL <2°




Potential 2nd


2015 2050 2100

Qua

ntities (M

toe)

IV – Modelling results: different biomass use pattern ‐ world

• 2015: heat is currently the main valorisation field in the world for biomass. • 2050 and 2100: growth in quantity and proportion for advanced valorization fields: electricity and 2nd gen

biofuel Electricity privileged in climate policies scenario, biofuels in baselineSame quantity of heat valorization.

• Overall consumption increases through the century and uses a bigger proportion of potential (for both scenarios from 23% in 2015 to 75% in 2100)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Fields Potential Baseline <2°scenario Baseline <2°scenario

Fields Potential Fields Potential

2015 2050 2100

Qua

ntities (M

toe)

Potential Fuel Heat Electricity

IV – Modelling results different biomass use pattern ‐ countries

Various trends among countries according to scenarios• The importance of “continent countries” in world energy trends• More biomass consumption in climate policies scenario, with more electricity and heat and less biofuel• More valorization in electricity and heat in proportion in Northern countries and biofuel in others

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

France USA China Brazil France USA China Brazil France USA China Brazil France USA China Brazil France USA China Brazil

Baseline <2°scenario Baseline <2°scenario

2015 2050 2100

Qua

ntities (M

toe)

Fuel Heat Electricity

IV – Modelling results: different technologies penetration rate

17

050

100150200250300350400

France USA China Brazil France USA China Brazil France USA China Brazil France USA China Brazil France USA China Brazil


2015 2050 2100

Installed Po

wer (G

W)

Installed power: gasification and methanisation technologies

Gasification Methanisation Gasification+CCS

• Only installed power for methanisation in 2015 and methanisation develops earlier than gasification

• Approximately same penetration rate in 2050 and 2100 for both technologies in the baseline

• Importance of CCS in climate policies scenarios that explode the gasification installed power in 2°C scenario

• Functioning time = between 5000 and 8000h/y base/semi base functioning pattern for both technologies


18

19Source: Conseil Mondial de l’Énergie et Conseil Français de l’Énergie,” Les Scénarios Mondiaux de l’Énergie à l’horizon 2050 - Mise en musique des futurs de l’énergie », 2013Source: IEA, “World energy outlook 2016”, 2017

• Increase of total energy consumption, more limited in scenarios with climate policies

• Increase of biomass consumption, more pronounced in scenarios with climate policies with a growth of biomass proportion in the energy mix from 10% to 20%,

V – Results comparison: baseline and climate policies scenarios from IEA and WEC

02468

101214161820

POLES

IEA

WEC

POLES

IEA

WEC

Baseline Climate policies

2015 2040 forecasts

Energy con

suption (Gtoe)

Primary energy and biomass consumption

Primary energy consumption Biomass consumption

20

• Decrease of proportion of traditional direct use of biomass (combustion), from 55% of total bioenergy in 2015 to around 30% in 2040.

• Higher % of use of biomass in climate policies scenarios• Higher % of use of biomass in heat sector than others fields where competition is more present

• Increase in proportion in electricmix (from 2,1% of energy produced in 2015 to around 6,8% in 2040) and others advanced vectors heat and fuel thanks to methanisation and gasification.

• POLES model gives a little bit more importance to bioenergies than others even if the order of magnitude is coherent.

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

POLES IEA WEC POLES IEA WEC


2015 2040 forecasts

Energy con

suption (Gtoe)

Total world energy consumption

Electricity

Heat

Fuel

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

POLES IEA WEC POLES IEA WEC


2015 2040 forecasts

% field use of biomass

Electricity

Heat

Fuel

V – Results comparison: Baseline and climate policies scenarios from IEA and WEC


21

VI – Conclusions and perspectives

22

1) Improve modelling• Adding power to gas as a storage strategy to complete the full green gas chain • Adding gas mobility (Natural Gas Vehicle) in final use

2) The contribution in decarbonised energy system• Consider bioenergy and green gas technologies for flexibility and energy security in energy markets competition• Consider technology availability and trade market that is crucial for the achievability and the costs of emission

reduction targets and the future of the overall energy sector.

Perspectives

Conclusion• Bioenergies technologies will develop by 57 to 93% (according to the scenario) from 2015 to 2040 and the use of

bioenergy would be multipled by 5 from 2015 to 2100.

• 2ND generation biomass will be used widely in presence of climate policy, notably in electric system• Electricity and heat are prominent in northern countries, biofuels in developing countries

• Penetration speed and rate depends on potential, technology maturities and cost effectiveness Methanisation develops earlier than gasification … … but methanisation and gasification will be used at the same rate in the second part of the century

Projet PROSPEN 22017 - 2020

Associazione Italiana Economisti dell'Energiawww.aiee.it

2ND AIEE ENERGY SYMPOSIUMCurrent and Future Challenges to Energy Security

2-4 November 2017, Rome - LUMSA University

AIEE is the Italian affiliate of

Thank you for your attentionGabin MANTULET, PhD student, LPSC – CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique

Subatomique & Cosmologie (LPSC)53 Avenue des Martyrs, 38000 Grenoble

Phone: +33 (0) 6 18 13 03 72, Email: [email protected]

Adrien BIDAUD, CNRS researcher, LPSC – CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique Subatomique & Cosmologie (LPSC)

Phone: +33 (0)4 76 28 40 45, Email: [email protected]

Silvana MIMA, CNRS researcher, GAEL – CNRS, UPMF - BP 47 - 38040 Grenoble

Phone : +33 (0)4 56 52 85 89, Email : [email protected]

23

Bibliography

24

ADEME, Anne-Laure Dubilly, ARTELYS, Laurent Fournié, Alice Chiche, “Mix électrique 100% EnR en 2050 : quelles opportunités pour décarboner les systèmes gaz et chaleur ? “, 51p, sept 2017

Conseil Mondial de l’Énergie et Conseil Français de l’Énergie,” Les Scénarios Mondiaux de l’Énergie à l’horizon 2050 - Mise en musique des futurs de l’énergie », 2013

CRIQUI P, MENENTEAU P, MIMA S, “Emissions Constraints and Induced Technical Change in the Energy Sector: simulations with the POLES model”, February 2009, available online/http://www.feem.it/userfiles/attach/200911914381252009.02.18_patrick_criqui_presentation.pdf

BELLEVRAT E, MENANTEAU P, “Energy technologies and depletable resource database - Biomass supply curves”, MENGTECH, CNRS GAEL, 2012

CHEN Q and LIU T, “biogas system in rural China: upgrading from decentralized to centralized?”, Department of Economic and technological Change, Center for development research (ZEF), University of Bonn, Germany, availableonline 11 May 2017 and consulted 8 September 2017

Commissariat général au développement durable, « Les énergies renouvelables en France en 2016 - Suivi de la directive 2009/28/CE relative à la promotion de l'utilisation des énergies renouvelables », sept 2017, 4 p. (Datalab essentieln° 118), available online: http://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/publications/p/2668/1023/energies-renouvelables-france-2016-suivi-directive-200928ce.html

GRTgaz – GRDF – TIGF – SPEGNN, « Perspectives gaz naturel et renouvelable », 2016, available online: http://www.grdf.fr/documents/10184/1291504/Perspectives-gaz-naturel-et-renouvelable.pdf/9ef0b81d-5873-469d-b2ac-2ba8d42370db

Enerdata, Global Energy Statistical Yearbook 2017, available online : https://yearbook.enerdata.net/total-energy/world-consumption-statistics.html

IEA, “How to guide for bioenergy, roadmap development and implementation”, 2017, available online: https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/technology-roadmap-how2guide-for-bioenergy.html

IEA, “Energy Technology Perspectives 2017: Catalysing Energy Technology Transformations”, chapter 7: Delivering sustainable bioenergy, June 2017, 315-360 p., available online: https://www.iea.org/bookshop/758-Energy_Technology_Perspectives_2017

IEA, “World energy outlook 2016”, 2017

LAMBERT M, “Biogas: a significant contribution to decarbonizing gas markets?”, The Oxford institute for energy studies, June 2017, available online July 2017 and consulted 26 August 2017

LONG H an al.,”Biomass resources and their bioenergy potential estimation: A review”, College of Resources Science and Technology, Beijing Normal University, available online 25 June 2013 and consulted 15 June 2017.

OZTURKA M and al., “Biomass and bioenergy: An overview of the development potential in Turkey and Malaysia”, Center for environmental studies, EGE University, Izmir, Turkey, available online 27 May 2017 and consulted 8 June2017.

SANSANIWAL S.K. and al, “recent advances in the development of biomass gasification technology: a comprehensive review”, Sardar Swaran Singh National institute of Renewable Energy, Kapurthala 144601, Punjab, India, availableonline 17 January 2017 and consulted 6 July 2017

25

I – Energy context: decarbonisation of energetic system

26

Scénario POLES BaU Scénario POLES <2°C

0

20 000

40 000

60 000

80 000

100 000

120 000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

TWh

Other renew ables

Nuclear

Biomass

Coal, lignite

Natural gas

Oil

World Electricity production - Adaptation Sc.

0

20 000

40 000

60 000

80 000

100 000

120 000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

TWh

Other renew ables

Nuclear

Biomass

Coal, lignite

Natural gas

Oil

World Electricity production - Mitigation Sc. (400 ppm)

I – Energy context: decarbonisation of the electricity system

Scénario POLES BaU Scénario POLES <2°C

0

10 000

20 000

30 000

40 000

50 000

60 000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

TWh

BiomasseSolarWindHydro

World Electricity Production from Renewables - Mitigation Sc. (400 ppm)

0

10 000

20 000

30 000

40 000

50 000

60 000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

TWh

BiomasseSolarWindHydro

World Electricity Production from Renewables - Adaptation Sc.

Renewables

Total energy mix

End use competition for biomass resource

27

II – Bioenergies

Biogas production from biomass: multiples synergies and competitions with the other sources of energy

28

Europe’s Energy Transition, Insights for Policy Making

II – Bioenergies

29

POLES, a long term energy prospective Bottom‐Up modelling tool …

Source: Enerdata, POLES model, a world energy model

III – Methodology

30

IV – Modelling results : growth of biomass potential and consumption

USA

France

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

China

‐1000

‐500

0

500

1000

1500

Brazil

IV – Modelling results : different trends among fields

31

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Fields Potential Fields Potential Fields Potential Fields Potential Fields Potential

Reference Baseline <2°scenario Baseline <2°scenario

2015 2050 2100

Qua

ntities (M

toe)

Fields France

0100200300400500600700800900



2015 2050 2100

Qua

ntities (M

toe)

Fields USA

Potential Fuel Heat Electricity Net imports

IV – Modelling results : different trends among fields

32

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800



Qua

ntities (M

toe)

Fields China

‐1000

‐500

0

500

1000

1500



2015 2050 2100

Qua

ntities (M

toe)

Fields Brazil

potential Fuel Heat Electricity Net imports

33

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

ACIP [FRA,Gasification]

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

MW

ACIP [FRA,Methanisation]

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

ACIP [FRA,Gas+CCS]

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

HOURS [FRA,Gasification]

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

HOURS [FRA,Gas+CCS]

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

Hours

HOURS [FRA,Methanisation]

Production infrastructures using gasification gas is increasing with time in both scenarios from 0GW in 2000 to 6GW in 2100 in baseline and 9GW in climate policies scenariosMethanisation infrastructures are developing quickly: they reach a peak of 9GW installed power in 2040 and stabilize to a plateau.

Load factor is high: from 57% to 85% for gasification technologies, a little bit below for methanisation and direct heat valorisation.Hence, these technologies are used in base/semi base, and represent a major actor for energy system regulation.

We highlight the forecast trend that green gas will become a main actor for electricity production for the future with increasing installed capacity and high load factor, but not at maximumthat make this technology flexible.Big development starts with methanisation until 2040 and then gasification until 2100. These technologies are massively developed one after another but will contribute at the end at the samelevel of biomass valorisation

IV – Modelling results : installed power

IV – Modelling results: different technologies penetration rate among countries

34

0

2

4

6

8

10


2015 2050 2100

Installed Po

wer (G

W)

France

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Baseline<2°scenario Baseline<2°scenario

2015 2050 2100

Installed Po

wer (G

W)

USA

Gasification+CCS

Methanisation

Gasification

050

100150200250300350400

Baseline<2°scenario Baseline<2°scenario

2015 2050 2100

Installed Po

wer (G

W)

China

0

20

40

60

80

100


2015 2050 2100

Installed Po

wer (G

W) Brazil

IV – Modelling results: different penetration rate among technologies

• Huge methanisation penetration in both countries is attempted for the first half of the century.

• Potential of technology saturated and decreasing capacity at the end of century

35

• Germany above France for methanisation development

• However, thanks to the country resource, France will catch up Germany around 2050 for installed power where energy production is comparable

France/Germany

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

MW

Installed power [Methanisation]

Scénario 2°C France

Baseline France

Scénario 2°C Germany

Baseline Germany

36Source: Conseil Mondial de l’Énergie et Conseil Français de l’Énergie,” Les Scénarios Mondiaux de l’Énergie à l’horizon 2050 - Mise en musique des futurs de l’énergie », 2013Source: IEA, “World energy outlook 2016”, 2017

• Increasing of total energy consumption, more limited in scenarios with climate policies

• Increasing of biomass consumption, more pronounced in scenarios with climate policies with a growth of biomass proportion in the energy mix,

V – Results comparison: Baseline and climate policies scenarios from IEA and WEC

13,2

[VALEUR] (+40%)[VALEUR] (+48%)

[VALEUR] (+49%)

[VALEUR] (+11%) [VALEUR] (+12%) [VALEUR] (+18%)

1,4[VALEUR] (+57%) [VALEUR] (+29%) [VALEUR] (+21%)

[VALEUR] (+93%) [VALEUR] (+63%) [VALEUR] (+34%)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Reference POLES IEA WEC POLES IEA WEC


2015 2040 forecasts

Energy con

suption (Gtoe)

Primary and biomass energy consumption

Total primary energyconsumption

Biomass primaryenergy consumption

the role of gasification and ... - aiee energy symposium · 2nd aiee energy symposium current and...

Documents