TY - JOUR
TI - Biofuel Options for Marine Applications: Technoeconomic and Life-Cycle Analyses
AU - Tan, E
AU - Hawkins, T
AU - Lee, U
AU - Tao, L
AU - Meyer, P
AU - Wang, M
AU - Thompson, T
T2 - Environmental Science & Technology
AB - This study performed technoeconomic and life-cycle analyses to assess the economic feasibility and emission benefits and tradeoffs of various biofuel production pathways as an alternative to conventional marine fuels. We analyzed production pathways for (1) Fischer-Tropsch diesel from biomass and cofeeding biomass with natural gas or coal, (2) renewable diesel via hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids from yellow grease and cofeeding yellow grease with heavy oil, and (3) bio-oil via fast pyrolysis of low-ash woody feedstock. We also developed a new version of the Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation (GREET) marine fuel module for the estimation of life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) and criteria air pollutant (CAP) emissions of conventional and biobased marine fuels. The alternative fuels considered have a minimum fuel selling price between 2.36 and 4.58 $/heavy fuel oil gallon equivalent (HFOGE), and all exhibit improved life-cycle GHG emissions compared to heavy fuel oil (HFO), with reductions ranging from 40 to 93%. The alternative fuels also exhibit reductions in sulfur oxides and particulate matter emissions. Additionally, when compared with marine gas oil and liquified natural gas, they perform favorably across most emission categories except for cases where carbon and sulfur emissions are increased by the cofed fossil feedstocks. The pyrolysis bio-oil offers the most promising marginal CO2 abatement cost at less than $100/tonne CO2e for HFO prices >$1.09/HFOGE followed by Fischer-Tropsch diesel from biomass and natural gas pathways, which fall below $100/tonne CO2e for HFO prices >$2.25/HFOGE. Pathways that cofeed fossil feedstocks with biomass do not perform as well for marginal CO2 abatement cost, particularly at low HFO prices. This study indicates that biofuels could be a cost-effective means of reducing GHG, sulfur oxide, and particulate matter emissions from the maritime shipping industry and that cofeeding biomass with natural gas could be a practical approach to smooth a transition to biofuels by reducing alternative fuel costs while still lowering GHG emissions, although marginal CO2 abatement costs are less favorable for the fossil cofeed pathways.
DA - 2021/05//
PY - 2021
PB - American Chemical Society
VL - 55
IS - 11
SP - 7561
EP - 7570
UR - https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.0c06141
DO - 10.1021/acs.est.0c06141
LA - English
KW - Forest Biomass
KW - Fossil-derived Hydrocarbons
KW - Wastes and Byproducts
KW - Bio-oil
KW - Biodiesel (FAME)
KW - Renewable Diesel (HVO / FT)
KW - Catalysis
KW - Chemical Upgrading
KW - Co-processing
KW - Thermochemical
KW - Lifecycle Assessment (LCA) and Air Emissions
KW - Markets and Forecasting
KW - Techno-Economic Analysis (TEA)
KW - Ocean-going Vessels
ER -