Techno‐economic and policy analysis of hydrogen and gasoline production from forest biomass, agricultural residues and municipal solid waste in California

Author:

Gilani Haris R.1ORCID,Ibrik Karim2,Sanchez Daniel L.1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management University of California Berkeley CA USA

2. Stanford University Stanford CA USA

Abstract

AbstractTechno‐economic and policy analyses were performed of hydrogen and gasoline production from forest biomass (FB). They were compared with fuels produced using agricultural residues and municipal solid waste in California. Twelve process designs were analyzed, with and without carbon capture and storage, and life‐cycle analysis was performed, using California's Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation (GREET) 3.0 model, to calculate the average life‐cycle carbon intensity of different process designs for hydrogen and gasoline. Discounted cash flow models were developed to assess profitability in terms of the net present value and internal rate of return (IRR). The results showed that forest‐to‐fuel pathways (positive IRR between 2%−16%) were the least competitive biomass‐based pathway option. Sensitivity analysis was performed on economic parameters including feedstock price and renewable identification number (RIN) credit price. In the case of RIN credits, profitability declined significantly as the proportion of FB from federal lands increased given existing statutory limitations. Given the importance of increasing forest management to reduce wildfire risks, the necessary additional policy incentives were quantified to equalize the cost of forest‐to‐fuels pathways with the other biofuels pathways. To ensure FB‐to‐fuels pathways are cost competitive with agricultural residues, policymakers could increase the low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) credit price for forest fuels (additional credit price support of $41–75 t/CO2e), give additional credit to lifecycle emissions reductions from forest fuels (additional carbon intensity decrease of 19–76 gCO2e MJ−1), provide concessionary debt or equity with a target weighted average cost of capital (WACC) = 3–4%, subsidize capital costs (12–22% of costs), or subsidize FB delivery ($35–66 per dry ton delivered).

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment,Bioengineering

Reference40 articles.

1. California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Modeling financial least-cost pathways to compliance in Northwest California

2. California Air Resources Board GHG Emission Inventory (GHG EI) 2000–2014(2016). Available:http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm.

3. BrownAL SperlingD AustinB DeShazoJR FultonL LipmanTet al. Driving California's transportation emissions to zero. UC Davis(2021).https://doi.org/10.7922/G2MC8X9X.

4. FarrellAE SperlingD AronsSM BrandtAR DelucchiMA EggertAet al. A low‐carbon fuel standard for California part 1: technical analysis(2007).

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3