Assessing bio-oil co-processing routes as CO2 mitigation strategies in oil refineries

Yáñez, É.; Meerman, H.; Ramírez, A.; Castillo, E.; Faaij, A. (2020). Assessing bio-oil co-processing routes as CO2 mitigation strategies in oil refineries. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 15(1), 305-333.https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.2163

@article{Yanez-2020-3941,
author = {Yáñez, É and Meerman, H and Ramírez, A and Castillo, E and Faaij, A},
title = {Assessing bio-oil co-processing routes as CO2 mitigation strategies in oil refineries},
journal = {Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining},
year = {2020},
month = {nov},
publisher = {Wiley},
volume = {15},
number = {1},
pages = {305--333},
doi = {10.1002/bbb.2163},
url = {https://scijournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bbb.2163},
keywords = {Agriculture: Food and Oil Crops, Forest Biomass, Bio-oil, Thermochemical, Catalysis, Fuel Properties and Characteristics, Techno-Economic Analysis (TEA), Fuel Production Pathways, Unspecified Vessel Segment},
}

TY - JOUR
TI - Assessing bio-oil co-processing routes as CO2 mitigation strategies in oil refineries
AU - Yáñez, É
AU - Meerman, H
AU - Ramírez, A
AU - Castillo, E
AU - Faaij, A
T2 - Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining
AB - The oil industry needs to reduce CO 2 emissions across the entire lifecycle of fossil fuels to meet environmental regulations and societal requirements and to sustain its business. With this goal in mind, this study aims to evaluate the CO 2 mitigation potential of several bio‐oil co‐processing pathways in an oil refinery. Techno‐economic analysis was conducted on different pathways and their greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation potentials were compared. Thirteen pathways with different bio‐oils, including vegetable oil (VO), fast pyrolysis oil (FPO), hydro‐deoxygenated oil (HDO), catalytic pyrolysis oil (CPO), hydrothermal liquefaction oil (HTLO), and Fischer–Tropsch fuels, were analyzed. However, no single pathway could be presented as the best option. This would depend on the criteria used and the target of the co‐processing route. The results obtained indicated that up to 15% of the fossil‐fuel output in the refinery could be replaced by biofuel without major changes in the core activities of the refinery. The consequent reduction in CO 2 emissions varied from 33% to 84% when compared with pure equivalent fossil fuels replaced (i.e., gasoline and diesel). Meanwhile, the production costs varied from 17 to 31€/GJ (i.e., 118–213$/bbl eq ). Co‐processing with VO resulted in the lowest overall performance among the options that were evaluated while co‐processing HTLO in the hydrotreatment unit and FPO in the fluid catalytic cracking unit showed the highest potential for CO 2 avoidance (69% of refinery CO 2 emissions) and reduction in CO 2 emissions (84% compared to fossil fuel), respectively. The cost of CO 2 emissions avoided for all of the assessed routes was in the range of €99–651 per tCO 2 . © 2020 The Authors. Biofuels, Bioproducts, and Biorefining published by Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DA - 2020/11//
PY - 2020
PB - Wiley
VL - 15
IS - 1
SP - 305
EP - 333
UR - https://scijournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bbb.2163
DO - 10.1002/bbb.2163
LA - English
KW - Agriculture: Food and Oil Crops
KW - Forest Biomass
KW - Bio-oil
KW - Thermochemical
KW - Catalysis
KW - Fuel Properties and Characteristics
KW - Techno-Economic Analysis (TEA)
KW - Fuel Production Pathways
KW - Unspecified Vessel Segment
ER -