Biofuel production in Iceland

Transcription

Biofuel production in Iceland
Survey of potential raw materials and yields to 2030
Report
Draft
15 October 2010
Grensásvegur 1
Authors:
Malin Sundberg
Jón Guðmundsson
Magnús Guðmundsson
108 Reykjavík
Iceland
Tel: +354 422 3000
Fax: +354 422 3001
Mail: mannvit@mannvit.is
Mannvit hf. Web: www.mannvit.com
Abstract
Table of contents
1
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1
2
Potential biofuels ................................................................................................................... 4
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
3
Fuels from anaerobic fermentation ........................................................................................ 4
2.1.1
Bioethanol ................................................................................................................... 4
2.1.2
Biohydrogen ................................................................................................................ 5
2.1.3
Biomethane ................................................................................................................. 6
Fuels from fatty acid glycerides ............................................................................................... 7
2.2.1
Fatty acid alkyl esters (FAME) ..................................................................................... 7
2.2.2
Hydrogenation derived renewable diesel (HDRD)....................................................... 8
Fuels from biosyngas ............................................................................................................... 9
2.3.1
FT-fuels ...................................................................................................................... 10
2.3.2
Bioethanol ................................................................................................................. 10
2.3.3
Biohydrogen .............................................................................................................. 10
2.3.4
Biomethanol .............................................................................................................. 11
2.3.5
BioDME...................................................................................................................... 11
2.3.6
Biomethane ............................................................................................................... 11
Properties of fuels ................................................................................................................. 11
Forecasted raw material availability and biofuel yield ........................................................... 13
3.1
Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 13
3.2
Biomass obtained by cultivation ........................................................................................... 15
3.3
3.4
3.2.1
Cultivated land in Iceland .......................................................................................... 16
3.2.2
Harvest ...................................................................................................................... 21
3.2.3
Algae ......................................................................................................................... 24
Organic waste from agriculture ............................................................................................. 24
3.3.1
Manure ...................................................................................................................... 24
3.3.2
Waste hay ................................................................................................................. 27
Organic waste from household, industry and services ......................................................... 27
3.4.1
Paper and paperboard .............................................................................................. 28
3.4.2
Timber and wood ...................................................................................................... 32
3.4.3
Fish waste.................................................................................................................. 36
3.4.4
Meat and slaughter waste ........................................................................................ 38
3.4.5
Garden waste ............................................................................................................ 40
Mannvit – Biofuel production in Iceland
i
3.4.6
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)................................................................................... 44
3.4.7
Waste bio oil ............................................................................................................. 46
3.5
Sewage................................................................................................................................... 49
3.6
Emissions of biogas from landfill sites ................................................................................... 50
4
Summary of potential biofuel production ............................................................................. 51
5
Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 56
6
References ........................................................................................................................... 60
Appendix ................................................................................................................................... 63
ii
List of Figures
Figure 1 Overview of different regions in Iceland .................................................................................. 2
Figure 2 Ratio of population in different regions in 2010....................................................................... 2
Figure 3 Ratio of area for different regions ............................................................................................ 3
Figure 4 Schematic overview of bioethanol production (Mannvit, 2010a) ............................................ 5
Figure 5 Schematic overview of biomethane production (Mannvit, 2010a) .......................................... 6
Figure 6 Production of FA glycerides (Mannvit, 2010a).......................................................................... 7
Figure 7 Production of FAME (Mannvit, 2010a) ..................................................................................... 8
Figure 8 Transesterification reaction ...................................................................................................... 8
Figure 9 Simplified production of HDRD (Mannvit, 2010a) .................................................................... 9
Figure 10 Reactions of hydrogenation (Mannvit, 2010a) ....................................................................... 9
Figure 11 Energy value and energy density of various fuels at standard condition (25°C and 1 atm)
(ICI, 2010) .............................................................................................................................................. 12
Figure 12 Population growth ................................................................................................................ 13
Figure 13 Population ratios in different regions in the year 2000 ........................................................ 14
Figure 14 Population ratios in different regions in the year 2010 ........................................................ 14
Figure 15 Estimated yearly amount of paper and paperboard considered suitable for recycling ■
imported paper and paperboard, ■ exported paper and paperboard (for recycling), ■ available waste
(difference import and export). ............................................................................................................ 29
Figure 16 High prediction for available amount of paper and paperboard waste suitable for
bioethanol production. ▬ potential amount of raw material ▬ amount of raw material returned for
recycling ................................................................................................................................................ 30
Figure 17 High prediction for available amount of paper and paperboard waste suitable for
bioethanol production. ▬ potential amount of raw material ▬ amount of raw material returned for
recycling ................................................................................................................................................ 30
Figure 18 Potential production of bioethanol from paper and paperboard waste .............................. 31
Figure 19 Potential production of biomethane and biohydrogen from paper and paperboard waste31
Figure 20 Potential production of biofuels from syngas produced from paper and paperboard waste
.............................................................................................................................................................. 32
Figure 21 Estimated amount of timber waste in different regions in 2010 ......................................... 33
Figure 22 Ratio of timber waste in different regions in 2010 ............................................................... 33
Figure 23 Predicted amount of timber waste in Iceland until the year 2030 ....................................... 34
Figure 24 Potential production of bioethanol from syngas produced from timber waste ................. 35
Figure 25 Potential production of biofuel from syngas produced from timber waste ........................ 35
Figure 26 Quantity of fish processed annually in different regions...................................................... 36
Figure 27 Estimated annual amount of fish waste ............................................................................... 36
Figure 28 Ratio of fish waste in different regions ................................................................................. 37
Figure 29 Estimated amount of slaughter waste in different regions in 2010 ..................................... 38
Figure 30 Ratio of slaughter waste in different regions ....................................................................... 38
Figure 31 Estimated amount of meat waste in different regions in 2010 ............................................ 39
Figure 32 Ratio of meat waste in different regions .............................................................................. 39
Figure 33 Predicted amount of slaughter and meat waste in Iceland until the year 2030 .................. 39
iii
Figure 34 Potential production of biofuels from meat and slaughter waste ....................................... 40
Figure 35 Estimated amount of garden waste in different regions in 2010 ......................................... 41
Figure 36 Ratio of garden waste in different regions ........................................................................... 41
Figure 37 Predicted amount of garden waste until 2030 ..................................................................... 42
Figure 38 Potential production of bioethanol from garden waste ....................................................... 42
Figure 39 Potential production of biomethane and biohydrogen from garden waste ........................ 43
Figure 40 Potential production of biofuels from syngas produced from garden waste....................... 43
Figure 41 Estimated amount of MSW in different regions in 2010 ...................................................... 44
Figure 42 Ratio of MSW in different regions ........................................................................................ 44
Figure 43 Predicted amount of MSW until 2030 .................................................................................. 45
Figure 44 Potential production of biomethane and biohydrogen from MSW ..................................... 45
Figure 45 Potential production of biofuels from syngas produced from MSW .................................... 46
Figure 46 Estimated amount of WVO in different regions in 2010 ...................................................... 47
Figure 47 Ratio of WVO in different regions ......................................................................................... 47
Figure 48 Predicted amount of WVO in Iceland until the year 2030 .................................................... 48
Figure 49 Potential production of biodiesel from WVO ....................................................................... 48
Figure 50 Prediction of energy usage for vehicles ................................................................................ 56
Figure 51 Overview of potential biofuel production from biomass compared to energy usage for
transportation ....................................................................................................................................... 57
Figure 52 Overview of potential biofuel production from waste biomass compared to energy usage
for transportation ................................................................................................................................. 57
iv
List of Tables
Table 1 Population ratio in different regions in 2000 and 2010 ........................................................... 15
Table 2 Stock of fodder as estimated through fodder inventory ......................................................... 17
Table 3 Summary of cultivated land and possible increase of that land .............................................. 20
Table 4 Summary over biomass obtained by cultivation ...................................................................... 22
Table 5 Annual potential production of biofuel [ton] from biomass obtained by cultivation ............. 23
Table 6 Yield [kg/ton biomass dw] for biofuel production ................................................................... 23
Table 7 Amount of manure available in each region divided according to livestock categories. The
estimated amount is for wet manure as delivered. ............................................................................. 25
Table 8 Estimated amount of manure, used for calculation of potential methane production .......... 26
Table 9 Potential quantity of biomethane from manure ..................................................................... 26
Table 10 Potential quantity of biofuel from waste hay ........................................................................ 27
Table 11 Potential quantity of biofuel from paper and paperboard waste ......................................... 32
Table 12 Potential quantity of biofuel from timber waste .................................................................. 35
Table 13 Potential quantity of biofuel from fish waste ........................................................................ 37
Table 14 Potential quantity of biofuel from meat and slaughter waste .............................................. 40
Table 15 Potential quantity of biofuel from garden waste................................................................... 43
Table 16 Potential quantity of biofuels from MSW .............................................................................. 46
Table 17 Potential quantity of biofuels from WVO .............................................................................. 48
Table 18 Overview of bioethanol production ....................................................................................... 51
Table 19 Overview of biodiesel production .......................................................................................... 51
Table 20 Overview of biomethane production ..................................................................................... 52
Table 21 Overview of biohydrogen production .................................................................................... 53
Table 22 Overview of biofuel production from syngas......................................................................... 53
Table 23 Overview of biofuel production from syngas......................................................................... 54
Table 24 Approximate investment cost for biofuel production ........................................................... 58
v
1 Introduction
A main concern today is the global warming due to the greenhouse effect and it is obvious that there
has to be a reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG). One solution to this problem is to
replace fossil fuels with biofuels. Biofuel is fuel produced from biomass such as plants or organic
waste.
This report is part of a large project investigating the feasibility of biofuel production in Iceland. The
purpose of this investigation is to survey potential raw materials available in Iceland and estimate
yields of biofuel production for the coming decades. This study covers a prediction of the amount of
raw material available in different regions for the coming decades. Further the potential production
of different types of biofuels from these raw materials is estimated.
The biomass used for possible production of biofuels will in this report be divided into following
main categories; Biomass obtained by cultivation, Organic waste from agriculture and Organic waste
from household, industry and services. Sewage and Emissions of biogas from landfill sites are also
discussed. In this report following biofuels will be considered; Fuels from anaerobic fermentation
(Bioethanol, Biohydrogen and Biomethane), Fuels from fatty acid glycerides (Fatty acid methyl esters
(FAME) and Hydrogenation derived renewable diesel (HDRD)) and Fuels from biosyngas (FT-fuels,
Bioethanol, Biohydrogen, Biomethanol, BioDME and Biomethane).
The population of Iceland was 317.630 (1st of Jan 2010) and the total area is 103.000 km2
(Landfræðilegar upplýsingar). A map showing an overview of different municipalities in Iceland is
given in Appendix A. In this survey the following regions will be considered; Capital area (pink),
South peninsula (blue), South (yellow), West (purple), East (orange), Northeast (red), Eyjafjörður
(turquoise), Northwest (brown) and Westfjords (green), see Figure 1. The total area of the regions
considered in this survey is 102.698 km2 (Flatarmál sveitarfélaga).
1
Figure 1 Overview of different regions in Iceland
This division of Iceland is primarily based on the traditional division of the country into 8 regions. The
traditional division is mainly used for statistical purposes and also the district court jurisdictions
follow it (Regions of Iceland). For this investigation Eyjafjörður is considered as a separate region,
which means that the Northeast area is here divided into two areas, Northeast and Eyjafjörður.
Another deviation from the traditional division is that the westernmost municipality in the
Northwest area is here considered to belong to the Northwest area instead of to the Westfjords.
This could be considered as a rather natural division for this study since investigations have
previously been made for some of these areas, such as area plans as well as an investigation made
specifically for the Eyjafjörður area.
The ratio of population in 2010 and area for the different regions can be seen in Figure 2 and Figure
3 respectively (Mannfjöldi sveitarfélaga, 2010) (Flatarmál sveitarfélaga).
Figure 2 Ratio of population in different regions in 2010
2
Figure 3 Ratio of area for different regions
Further details about each region and its municipalities can be seen in Appendix B (Mannfjöldi
sveitarfélaga, 2010) (Flatarmál sveitarfélaga).
3
2 Potential biofuels
Biofuel is fuel produced from biomass such as plants or organic waste. Biofuels are generally
categorized into different types based on the production technology and the raw material origin; 1st
generation (1G), 2nd generation (2G) and 3rd generation (3G). The 1st generation technology is well
established while the 2nd generation technology is still under development. The 2nd generation
technology is focusing on the use of raw materials that are not used for food production as well as
increasing the yield of produced biofuel. Generally the production of 2nd generation biofuels is more
expensive than 1st generation biofuels, mainly due to the need of various pretreatment steps of the
raw materials used. The third generation production technology uses microalgae as raw material for
1st generation or 2nd generation production process. In this investigation 1st generation and 2nd
generation biofuels will be considered. Biofuels can further be classified as gas or liquid fuels. Among
gas fuels can be mentioned methane (1G) and hydrogen, syngas and DME (2G). Common types of
liquid fuels are; ethanol (1G, 2G), butanol, methanol (2G), FA glycerides, conventional biodiesel
(FAME/FAEE) (1G) and HDRD, BTL diesel and BTL petrol (2G).
In this report following biofuels will be considered; Fuels from anaerobic fermentation (Bioethanol,
Biohydrogen and Biomethane), Fuels from fatty acid glycerides (Fatty acid methyl esters
(FAME/FAEE) and Hydrogenation derived renewable diesel (HDRD)) and Fuels from biosyngas (FTfuels, Bioethanol, Biohydrogen, Biomethanol, BioDME and Biomethane).
2.1 Fuels from anaerobic fermentation
2.1.1 Bioethanol
Ethanol is widely used as an additive in gasoline, defined as E5 or E10 (5% or 10% per volume), E85
(85% ethanol) or E100 (anhydrous ethanol containing less than 1% water). Ethanol can be used as
oxygen source in gasoline instead of Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) leading to better combustion
and less pollution. Most petrol cars can use E5 and E10 directly whereas the use of ethanol in higher
ratios requires flexi-fuel vehicles. The proportion of ethanol additive in Iceland is limited by the
maximum allowable amount of oxygen in the fuel mixture and the maximum vapour pressure, and
both criteria are defined in current fuel regulations. The limit for ethanol additive in Iceland is 5% but
is expected to increase to due to the aim of increasing the share of biofuels. Fermentation of sugar
and starch is a well known process and bioethanol produced in this way is considered as 1st
generation bioethanol. Traditional raw materials for bioethanol production are food crops such as
sugar cane, corn, wheat and sugar beet. The bioethanol considered in this report is 2nd generation
bioethanol obtained from lignocellulosic biomass such as timber, grass and various wastes. A
schematic overview of 2nd generation bioethanol production can be seen in Figure 4.
4
Figure 4 Schematic overview of bioethanol production (Mannvit, 2010a)
Lignocellulosic biomass is composed mainly of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin. The production of
2nd generation bioethanol requires pretreatment and cellulose hydrolysis in order to make the sugar
molecules available for fermentation. Theoretical maximum production of ethanol from hexoses and
pentoses:
C6H12O6 2 C2H5OH + 2CO2
C5H10O5  5/3 C2H5OH + 5/3 CO2
The energy value (Low Heating Value, LHV) of ethanol is about 26,9 MJ/kg and the energy density is
21,4 MJ/L.
2.1.2 Biohydrogen
Biohydrogen is considered as a 2nd generation biofuel. Biohydrogen does not contribute to
greenhouse gas emissions since the only emissions from biohydrogen vehicles are water vapor.
Biohydrogen is not an energy source but an energy carrier. To be able to use hydrogen as fuel an
energy converter (fuel cell or combustion engine) is needed. Hydrogen has a LHV of 121,5 MJ/kg and
energy density of 2,9 MJ/L (700 bar). Drawbacks of hydrogen use are handling and transporting of
hydrogen.
Biohydrogen can be produced by anaerobic fermentation by a similar process as used for methane
production. The amount of hydrogen produced from glucose is affected by fermentation pathways
and liquid end-products. Theoretical maximum yield of hydrogen fermentation is 4 moles of
hydrogen per mole of glucose and 3,3 moles of hydrogen per mole of xylose, if all of the substrate
would be converted to acetic acid. If all the substrate would be converted to butyric acid, 2 moles of
hydrogen per mole of glucose is produced. In practice, a lower hydrogen yield is achieved (Ni, Leung,
Leung, & Sumathy, 2006) (Urbaniec & Grabarczyk, 2009). The highest hydrogen yield obtained from
5
glucose is around 2,0-2,4 mole/mole glucose, and the lower yield is probably due to utilization of the
substrate as an energy source for bacterial growth. Currently the hydrogen yield is low and the
production rate slow and technological advances are needed in order to achieve sufficient results.
Organic acids produced during dark fermentation may be converted to hydrogen and CO2 by photo
heterotrophic bacteria. Sequential or combined bio-processes of dark and photo-fermentations
seem to be the most attractive approach (Kapdan & Kargi, 2006). Biohydrogen could also be
obtained as a by-product from ethanol production.
2.1.3 Biomethane
Methane can be produced by anaerobic biodegradation of biomass or by gas processing of landfill
gas. The production of biomethane is considered a 1st generation process. A schematic overview of
biomethane production can be seen in Figure 5.
Figure 5 Schematic overview of biomethane production (Mannvit, 2010a)
Main components of biogas are methane and carbon dioxide, but other compounds such as
nitrogen, hydrosulphide, oxygen and water vapour are also present in smaller amounts. Landfill gas
generally has lower methane content and higher nitrogen content than biogas produced from
biomass. To be able to use the biogas as transport fuel the biogas has to be upgraded to have a
methane content of at least 95%. Main procedures used for upgrading of biogas are; Pressure Swing
Absorption (PSA), Membrane technology and Scrubber. The gas has to be compressed to
approximately 200 bar before use. Biomethane has a LHV of 50,0 MJ/kg and energy density of 10,5
MJ/L (300 bar).
Biomethane from biomass
Biomethane can be produced by varies types of biomass such as manure, green waste, energy crops
and MSW. The anaerobic digestion of biomass can be divided into four processes; hydrolysis, acid
formation, acetic acid formation and gas formation. The methane yield is strongly depending on the
type of biomass used. Also the rate of decomposition varies for different types of biomass, with a
slower decomposition rate for materials containing high amount of cellulose and hemicelluloses. By
mixing various substrates a higher yield can be obtained.
6
Biomethane from landfill gas
Landfill gas is spontaneously produced at landfills containing organic waste. The decomposition of
waste takes long time and gas production continues for many years. Iceland is aiming for
abandoning landfill in the year 2020, but the production of biomethane from existing landfills is
believed to continue for decades. The composition of landfill gas is expected to change over time
due to environmental changes in the landfill during decomposition. The landfill gas is captured and
upgraded to methane (>95%). Landfill gas formation depends on amount and type of waste, how the
waste is landfilled, moisture content and climate. Gas formation begins within a few months and can
last for several decades. A maximum production is usually reached within a few years (R.P.M.
Kamsma, 2003).
2.2 Fuels from fatty acid glycerides
Two types of biodiesel are discussed in this report; fatty acid alkyl esters (1st generation) and
hydrogen derived renewable diesel (2nd generation). Both fuels are produced from fatty acid (FA)
glycerides. The FA glycerides can be obtained from vegetable oils, animal fats or other types of
biomass rich in oil or fat. The production of FA glycerides involves extraction and refining of the
feedstock. Different grades of pretreatment are needed depending on type of raw material used. A
simplified production process can be seen in Figure 6.
Figure 6 Production of FA glycerides (Mannvit, 2010a)
The yield of FA glycerides varies with the raw material used. In this report rapeseed oil, WVO and
WAF are considered as potential raw materials. The oil content of rapeseed is approximately 40%
and it can be estimated that approximately 17% of slaughter and meat waste is fat.
2.2.1 Fatty acid alkyl esters (FAME)
Fatty acid alkyl esters are widely used as an additive in diesel oil, generally as B5 or B10 (5% or 10%
per volume). Generally diesel cars can use B5, B10 and up to B50 without any problems, even though
many car manufactures does not warrant the use of higher than B10. Some car manufacturers do
warrant the use of B100. Fatty acid alkyl esters have a more favourable combustion emission profile
compared to fossil diesel. Further, fatty acid alkyl esters have better lubricating properties and
7
higher cetan number. Fatty acid alkyl esters are obtained by reacting FA glycerides with an alcohol
through a process called transesterification. FAME (fatty acid methyl ester) is the most common
fatty acid alkyl ester, and is obtained when methanol is used. FAEE (fatty acid ethyl ester) is obtained
when ethanol is used. A generalized production process of FAME can be seen in Figure 7.
Figure 7 Production of FAME (Mannvit, 2010a)
The transesterification process can be seen in Figure 8. Usually a 60 to 100 % excess of alcohol is
added to ensure that the transesterification reaction goes to completion. A catalyst (usually an
alkaline catalyst) is added to initiate and accelerate the reaction.
Figure 8 Transesterification reaction
FAME has a LHV of 38,0 MJ/kg and energy density of 33,6 MJ/L. Theoretically approximately 1 kg of
FAME and 100 g of glycerol can be obtained from 1 kg of FA glycerides (Mannvit, 2010a). However, a
more realistic process yield is estimated to 90% (Mannvit. Project (2.100.020)).
2.2.2 Hydrogenation derived renewable diesel (HDRD)
Hydrogen derived renewable diesel have similar properties as fossil diesel and can be used directly
as fuel or as additive. Hydrogenation, also called catalytic cracking, is a process commonly used in
petroleum refining for transforming hydrocarbons with higher molecular weight into lighter
hydrocarbon products. Hydrogenation for biodiesel production involves cracking of triglycerides into
corresponding alkyl chains. Another valuable product from the hydrogenation is propane (Mannvit,
2010a). A schematic overview of HDRD production can be seen in Figure 9.
8
Figure 9 Simplified production of HDRD (Mannvit, 2010a)
The hydrogen cracking can be made in four different ways, depending on used catalyst, temperature
and pressure; dehydration, decarboxylation, dehydration with decarboxylation, decarboxylation side
reaction, see Figure 10. Depending on the reaction pathway, a number of side products are
generated such as water, carbon monoxide, methane and carbon dioxide. A biodiesel production
process generally involves all these reactions in certain proportions. The most beneficial pathways
are dehydration or dehydration with decarboxylation (Mannvit, 2010a).
Figure 10 Reactions of hydrogenation (Mannvit, 2010a)
It can be expected that 1 kg of FA glycerides yields 880 g of HDRD and approximately 43 g of
propane. The yield suggests that the production process employs a dehydration reaction (Mannvit,
2010a).
2.3 Fuels from biosyngas
Syngas obtained from gasification mainly contains H2, CO, CO2 and small amounts of CH4. For
production of most fuels the mole ratio of CO and H2 should be close to 1:2. Usually the ratio of CO
9
and H2 is in the range 1,4:1 to 1:1 as the ratio of carbon and hydrogen in the biomass or organic
waste is:
C6H12O6  6 CO + 6 H2
MSW and biomass in Iceland have carbon content close to 50% in ash and moisture free raw
material and the ratio of carbon and hydrogen is close to one. The syngas produced from MSW or
biomass can be estimated to contain approximately 770-905 kg CO and 46-56 kg H2 per ton dry raw
material. The energy value of syngas is roughly 15-16 MJ/kg (ICI, 2010).
2.3.1 FT-fuels
FT-diesel and FT-products can be produced from purified syngas. The Fischer-Tropsch reactions
produce many products from lighter hydrocarbons to heavier like (C1 and C2), LPG (C3-C4), naphtha
(C5-C11), diesel (C12-C20) and wax (>C20). The ratio of H2/CO is very important and needs to be 1,7 to
2,15 for optimal use of the syngas for FT production. If the ratio is low the CO can only be used
partially. However, it is possible to improve the production by using hydrogen from electrolysis or
produce hydrogen by water gas shift reaction from CO and steam. The use of water gas shift reaction
can increase the production by 50% if the starting ratio is one for the ratio H2/CO and the use of
hydrogen from electrolysis could double the production. About 60% of the FT-products are diesel,
15% is naphtha and 25% is kerosene that is produced by hydro-cracking of waxes. The FT products
are very low in sulfur, nitrogen and tar. FT-diesel has a cetane number of 75 but the market needs
diesel with 45-50. Because of this high cetane number it is possible to blend FT-diesel with low
cetane diesel to improve it (ICI, 2010).
From 100 thousand ton of biomass or MSW with 50% carbon content in ash and moisture free dry
material following products can be produced; 11.125 to 16.310 m3 diesel, 3.020 to 4.427 m3 naphtha
and 5.030 to 7.375 m3 kerosene. FT-diesel has density of 0,85 kg/L, while naphtha and gasoline have
0,72 kg/L (ICI, 2010).
2.3.2 Bioethanol
Anaerobic bacteria can ferment the syngas e.g. Clostridium ljungdahlii and produce ethanol and
acetate. The main advantage of using syngas fermentation is that it is not dependent on special ratio
between H2, CO and CO2 as is necessary in the FT-process. The process is:
6 CO + 3 H2O  C2H5OH + 4 CO2
6 H2 + 2 CO2  C2H5OH + 3 H2O
According to Ineos Bio the efficiency is between 322 to 400 liters from every ton of biomass. The
energy efficiency in ethanol production from biomass has been estimated to be 35-45%. It is also
possible to produce ethanol with help of catalysts similar to FT-process but that technique is new
(ICI, 2010).
2.3.3 Biohydrogen
Gasification of biomass and MSW can produce between 6 and 6,5% of the weight of the biomass as
hydrogen. It is possible to use the water gas shift reaction to react CO with steam to produce more
hydrogen according to the equation:
10
CO + H2O  CO2 + H2
From 100 thousand ton of MSW it is possible to produce between 10 and 11 thousand ton by using
water gas shift reaction. This amount of hydrogen is equal to 70-80 MW hydropower station needed
to produce hydrogen by electrolysis (ICI, 2010).
2.3.4 Biomethanol
Methanol can be produced from syngas according to the equation:
CO + 2H2  CH3OH
(-90,7 KJ/mol)
From 100 thousand ton of biomass or MSW it is possible to produce 60 thousand ton of methanol.
By using additional hydrogen it is possible to increase the methanol production from MSW or
biomass up to 75% or an increase by 45 thousand ton (ICI, 2010).
2.3.5 BioDME
Dimethylether (DME, CH3OCH3) can be produced from syngas by following equations:
2 CO + 4 H2 ↔ H3C-O-CH3 + H2O
3 CO + 3 H2 ↔ H3C-O-CH3 + CO2
It is possible to increase the production of DME by adding hydrogen to the syngas if the hydrogen
concentration is low. DME is mainly used as replacement for LPG today but it can be used instead of
diesel (ICI, 2010).
2.3.6 Biomethane
It is possible to produce methane from syngas by reacting carbon monoxide with hydrogen which is
a reverse reaction for transforming methane to CO and hydrogen (steam reforming):
CO + 3 H2 ↔ CH4+ H2O
CO2 + 4 H2 ↔ CH4 + 2 H2O
Usually these reactions are not preferred as a lot of heat will be produced that can only be used for
electricity production or heating (ICI, 2010).
2.4 Properties of fuels
Energy value (MJ/kg) and energy density (MJ/L) of fuels are of great importance while considering
the potential use of different fuels. An overview of energy value and energy density for different
fuels can be seen in Figure 11. Gasoline and diesel have a relatively good energy density. Methane
has a rather high energy value but low energy density and that is why it needs to be pressurized
before use. Hydrogen has a very high energy value but very low energy density which leads to some
problems regarding storing and transport of hydrogen. Methanol has lower energy density than both
gasoline and ethanol (ICI, 2010).
11
Figure 11 Energy value and energy density of various fuels at standard condition (25°C and 1 atm) (ICI, 2010)
12
3 Forecasted raw material availability and
biofuel yield
The biomass used for possible production of biofuels will in this study be divided into following main
categories;
Biomass obtained by cultivation
Organic waste from agriculture
Organic waste from household, industry and services
Sewage
Emissions of biogas from landfill sites
Following types of biofuels produced from raw materials in Iceland will be discussed;
Fuels from anaerobic fermentation (Bioethanol, Biohydrogen and Biomethane)
Fuels from fatty acid glycerides (Fatty acid alkyl esters (FAME, HDRD) and Hydrogenation
derived renewable diesel (HDRD)
Fuels from biosyngas (FT-fuels, Bioethanol, Biohydrogen, Biomethanol, BioDME and
Biomethane)
3.1 Methodology
The Icelandic population was 317.360 in 2010 and is predicted to reach 368.468 thousand in the year
2030, see Figure 12. The population is expected to increase with approximately 16% from 2010 to
2030. The population is further predicted to be rather stable from 2010 to 2013, when the
population is expected to increase with approximately 0,8% per year in average until 2030
(Mannfjöldaspá, 2008).
Figure 12 Population growth
13
The predictions for waste raw materials from household, industry and services are primarily based
on population growth and the assumption that the amount of waste per capita will increase with
0,6% per year. This number is based on analysis of consumption and imports over past years
(Svæðisáætlun höfuðborgarsvæðið, c) and is in this investigation applied for garden waste, timber
waste and MSW. The amount of MSW per capita could possibly be lower due to the continuous
development of packaging materials, which would result in use of lighter packaging materials and
lower the amount of waste. At this stage of project, predictions concerning the availability of raw
materials for coming decades are primarily made for the total amount of raw material available in
the country.
The ratio of inhabitants in the different regions in the year 2000 and 2010 can be seen in Figure 13
and Figure 14 respectively. In Table 1 it can be seen that the population in Capital area and South
peninsula has been increasing, while the population in the other regions has been decreasing. It is
difficult to predict the ratio for the coming decades, but this trend will most likely continue.
Figure 13 Population ratios in different regions in the year 2000
Figure 14 Population ratios in different regions in the year 2010
14
Table 1 Population ratio in different regions in 2000 and 2010
2000
2010
[%]
[%]
Capital area
61,6
63,3
South peninsula
5,8
6,7
South
7,5
7,5
West
5,0
4,8
East
4,3
3,9
North East
2,0
1,6
Eyjafjörður
8,0
7,5
North West
2,9
2,4
Westfjords
2,9
2,3
The yields for biofuel production used in this investigation are obtained from various sources. Where
not otherwise mentioned, the references for yields are as follows. For biodiesel, values are taken as
900 kg FAME/ton FA glycerides and 880 kg HDRD/ton FA glycerides (Mannvit, 2010a). Theoretical
yield for bioethanol is 511 kg/ton sugars. Practical yield for bioethanol, 196 kg/ton sugars, is based
on average numbers for current research available from University of Akureyri. Yields for
biomethane vary widely between raw materials and are found in (Carlsson & Uldal, 2009). For
hydrogen it is assumed that the recovery is 50% of theoretical yield, 22 kg/ton sugars. Yields for
biofuels produced from syngas are obtained from (ICI, 2010) and are given as kg/ton dw biomass.
Production of FT-diesel and FT-petrol is estimated to 117 kg/ton biomass and 27 kg/ton biomass
respectively. Yields for bioethanol, biohydrogen and biomethanol from syngas are estimated to 285
kg/ton biomass, 105 kg/ton biomass and 600 kg/ton biomass respectively. For estimating the
potential production an uncertainty of +5% and -20% is calculated for.
3.2 Biomass obtained by cultivation
In this chapter the quantities of biomass that can be obtained through cultivation are estimated. The
available biomass depends much on the physical conditions as available land, climate and the soil
properties. It is also important to bear in mind other use of the land and of the biomass. The
feasibility of the cultivation depends on many factors e.g. the amount harvested, the composition
(digestibility) of the harvest, the energy spent obtaining that crop and the GHG emission related to
the cultivation.
As the objective of growing energy crops is to provide alternative energy to fossil fuel to decrease
emission of GHG, the GHG emission and energy spent in that cultivation is crucial. Cultivation of
energy crops on drained organic soils causes large emission of GHG and is thus unlikely to reduce
GHG emission compared to fossil fuel. The use of synthetic fertilizers in the cultivation involves lot of
energy and potentially reduces or even annulets the net energy output of biofuel obtained. The
15
cultivation must, for a minimum, be both energetically and GHG positive. The feasibility of the
cultivation is analysed in a separate chapter. It is also important to keep in mind that the biomass
produced by cultivation competes with other land use and other use of the biomass e.g. as food or
fodder.
The amount of biomass that can be obtained by cultivation is the product of the area of available
land and the harvest of each unit land. The harvest of each unit again depends on the type of crops,
cultivation practices and the properties of the soil. Before discussing the possible quantities of
variable crops that could be obtained for energy productions present cultivation and possible
expansion of cultivated land are discussed.
3.2.1 Cultivated land in Iceland
Statistics on cultivated land in Iceland are historically very fragmentary. Amount of fodder has on the
contrary been well documented for long time. For the most of the Icelandic history large part of the
livestock fodder was obtained from uncultivated land such as meadows and mires. The methods
used caused far less GHG emissions than the present mechanization and drainage of these areas.
Cultivation in Iceland is today practised for two main reasons. Firstly cultivation is to produce fodder
for the livestock or direct production of food for the population. This is referred to as conventional
cultivation. Secondly cultivation is practised to restore lost resources as grazing land or forest or to
stop soil erosion end reclaim lost ecosystems. This is referred to as revegetation.
3.2.1.1 Conventional cultivation
There are several different estimates on the area of cultivated land in Iceland. These different
estimates have different objectives and the methodology is also different.
The Agricultural University of Iceland (AUI) has, as part of the Icelandic Geographical Land
Use Database (IGLUD), prepared a map of all cropland in Iceland. The objective of the
mapping is to provide geographical reference to that land use to be better able to detect land
use changes as part of GHG emission reporting. The maps were prepared from satellite
images through on screen digitations with the support of available aerial photographs
(Umhverfisstofnun 2010; Gudmundsson et al. in prep 2009). The resulting area, including all
cultivated land both in use and abandoned, is 1.692,3 km2. Of that area 549,0 km2 are
estimated as drained organic soils. The mapping has only been controlled by preliminary
checks. Systematic ground truthing of the map is pending.
The Farmers Association of Iceland (FAI) publishes annually agricultural statistics including
estimated area of cultivated land. According to this information the area of cultivated land is
1.290 km2, including both hayfields and annual crops. This number has remained the same
for more than a decade. The number is according to personal communication of FAI based on
archives on subsides for conversion of land to cropland. The area of abandoned hayfields is
then estimated and subtracted. According to FAI archives the total area of land that has been
cultivated until 1990 is 1.630 km2. FAI has estimated the area of new cultivations from 19902008 to be approximately 50 km2 (Snæbjörnsson et al. 2010). This numbers agree well with
the AUI estimate of 1.692,3 km2.
In a recent publication (Sveinsson and Hermannsson 2010) land in cultivation was estimated
in connection with evaluation of possibilities in cultivation of energy crops. The total area of
16
land presently cultivated was according to the authors 1157,7 km2, including both hayfields
and annual crops. Similar number has been used by others e.g. (Helgadóttir and
Hermannsson 2003).
As stated before, statistics on available fodder are systematically collected in Iceland. The method
applied is a stock inventory on available fodder. These numbers can be used as control for the area
cultivated assuming certain harvest per hectare. The total stocked fodder in the year 2008 according
to this statistics is summarized in Table 2. Hay density as estimated by FAI (Bændasamtök-Íslands
2010) and total dry weight is calculated from these numbers.
Table 2 Stock of fodder as estimated through fodder inventory
Hay dry [m3*103]
Hay silage [m3*103]
2008
Density [t dw m-3]
Dry weight [t dw]
Lower value
Dry weight [t dw]
Higher value
134
0,1-0,2
13.400
26.800
1.957
0,15-0,2
293.550
394.400
306.950
421.200
7.706
13.409*
Total hay
Barley [ton]
15.413
*) different numbers for barley are due to variable dw
Assuming 111.000 ha harvested for hay (Sveinsson and Hermannsson 2010) the average harvest
range from 2,7-3,7 t dw ha-1, which is within what is to be expected considering that part of the
growth has been removed through grazing.
These estimates agree reasonable well on the area of cultivated land being 1.700 km2 including all
land cultivated. There is more uncertainty on area presently being cultivated but best available
estimate is probably 1.150 km2 (Sveinsson and Hermannsson 2010). Abandoned cropland is
therefore assumed 550 km2.
There are few other sources of information available for estimating the area of cultivated land.
Farmers accounting statistics: The farmers association annually collect of voluntary basis
financial information concerning farming by a sample of farms. According to this information
the average farm had in 2008 43,6 ha of cultivated land. Multiplying this with the total
number of farms inhabited or 4.290 gives 1.870 km2 of cultivated land.
The area of cultivated land is one of the components used for tax assessment and is
accordingly included in the Icelandic Property Database maintained by the Icelandic Property
Registry. The total area of cultivated land registered is 2.253 km2. This database was updated
regularly as long as cultivation of new areas was subsidised, but since that subsides stopped
this part of the database has not been maintained properly. Register Iceland consider this
number very inaccurate due to this lack of maintenance (Tryggvi Már Ingvarsson, Head of
Geo-Information Department of Register Iceland, personal communication).
17
3.2.1.2 Revegetation
Revegetation has been practised for more than 100 years in Iceland. The revegetation methods
applied and area of land processed annually has varied much. Area of revegetated land is estimated
annually due to reporting obligations to the UN-Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) and to the Kyoto Protocol. This estimate is reported in Iceland’s National inventory Report
(NIR) to the Convention. From 1990 to 2008 it is estimated that total of 100.645 ha or 1006,45 km2
were revegetated (Umhverfisstofnun 2010).
Before 1990 the area estimate are less reliable due to different registration of activities. The total
area is never the less estimated in NIR as being 98.000 ha or 980 km2. On average 53 km2 have been
revegetated annually since 1990. According to these records the total area of revegetated land is
1.986,45 km2, or comparable area as under conventional cultivation.
Mapping of revegetation areas is still not completed and Soil Conservation Service of Iceland (SCSI)
evaluation of the area is the only one available. In a survey designed to estimate the carbon gain
achieved by revegetation conducted since 1990, a large part of the plots sampled had no vegetation
cover. This indicates an overestimate of the area. For the years 2007-2009, 28-52% of plots had no
vegetation cover (SCSI unpublished data). Applying this ratio on the area estimate the total area
revegetated since 1990 could be 30-50% less than reported or 500-720 km2. For the years prior to
1990 the mapping is far less accurate and similar overestimate can be assumed resulting in total area
ranging from 1.000-1.480 km2.
Considering these two main components of cultivation in Iceland i.e. conventional cultivation and
revegetation both use similar area but the output is otherwise very different. Most of the land under
conventional cultivation is harvested annually and the harvest used as fodder. According to the
above estimates around 500 km2 might be considered as abandoned cropland or hayfields and some
portion of it might be available for cultivation of energy crops.
Harvesting of revegetation areas has not been practiced and many of the areas already revegetated
might not be suitable for harvesting e.g. due to stoniness or distance from possible biofuel
production. No evaluation has been done regarding possible harvest of these areas. The biomass per
area land as it is under present management regime has been estimated by the SCSI in connection to
reporting of carbon sequestration to the UN Framework Convection on Climate Change. The above
ground biomass of these areas is highly variable ranging from 0,0 – 2,0 kg dw/m2 (0-20 t/ha) with the
average of 0,25 kg/m2 for sites measured 2008. Part of this biomass represents accumulation over
several years and can not be interpreted as possible harvest except for the first harvest from
relevant land. This biomass also only represents what to be expected under the management regime
applied for these areas. The methods presently practiced in revegetation generally do not include
fertilization except on the first one or two years.
Cultivation of energy crops can be practised in such way that all nutrients are recycled to the land
cultivated, thereby minimizing the need for additional fertilizers. This practice could potentially
increase the harvest from this land. Cultivation of energy crops combined with revegetation can thus
have positive synergy on both activities regarding both ecological and economical benefits. To
evaluate the possible output of these areas to biomass for energy production, both the amount and
frequency of possible harvesting under this management needs to be determined.
18
3.2.1.3 Land for increased cultivation
There is presently no general consensus regarding total area of land that could be cultivated in the
country. The area of arable land is so to say not known. The definition of arable land has not been
elaborated for Iceland and usage of terms like agricultural land is confusing as used in municipal or
governmental land use planning.
As for the land presently cultivated, there have also been made several attempts to estimate total
area of land available for cultivation.
Helgadóttir and Hermannsson (Helgadóttir and Hermannsson 2003) estimated on basis of
information provided by Jóhannsson (1960) (Jóhannesson 1988) that total arable land in
Iceland was 15.000 km2. Similar number has also been published elsewhere e.g.
(Bændasamtök-Íslands 1998; The_Farmers_Association_of_Iceland 2009) but information on
what is behind that number is difficult to obtain. The definitions of potentially cultivatable
land used in these estimates are unclear and not reported in the relevant publications.
A recent report on land use (Snæbjörnsson et al. 2010) refers an evaluation of Áslaug
Helgadóttir and Jónatan Hermansson conducted for the committee on potential arable land.
The criteria use were; the land should be below 200 m a.s.l. not to stony to plough, if wet
then easily drainable, sands and fluvial pains were included if not subjected to regular floods,
and the land needed to be at least 3 ha in continuous area. The resulting estimate for area of
easily arable land was 6.000 km2.
Traustason and Gísladóttir (2009) (Traustason and Gísladóttir 2009) evaluated potential land
for cultivation to control overlap between afforsetation and other cultivation. The criteria
used for identifying potential land were; to be classified as grassland, rich heat land, sparsely
vegetated heath land or semi-wet area in NYTJALAND geographical database (ref), to be
outside settlement area, roads or their designated area but within 2 km from roads, to be
below 200 m a.s.l. and with slope less than 10° and to be outside protected areas. The result
of this analysis was that potential land for cultivation was 6.150 km2.
Sveinsson and Hermannson 2010 (Sveinsson and Hermannsson 2010) estimated potential land for
cultivation of energy crops. Local agriculture consultants were asked to estimate available land fore
large scale cultivation the land should not be already in use and easily cultivated and with minimum
continuous area of 30 ha. The resulting estimate was that total area meeting these conditions was
only 420 km2.
Extensive drainage of wetland took place in Iceland mostly in the period 1940-1985. This drainage
was aided by governmental subsidies. Only a minor portion of these drained areas was turned to
hayfields or cultivated, the larger part of the lowland wetlands in Iceland were converted to
Grassland through this drainage effort. The area of this drained land is presently estimated to be
2
3.355,2 km (Umhverfisstofnun 2010). The larger part of these areas is most likely included in the
above estimates of potential land for conventional cultivation. Accordingly no new land is added by
including this area. Cultivating this land conventionally, i.e. as drained, involves large emission of
GHG (Umhverfisstofnun 2010) and thereby possible annulling the GHG benefit of the energy crops
harvested. By rewetting these areas and harvesting the land wet these negative effects can possible
be avoided.
19
Recently the potential area available for combining cultivation of energy crops and revegetation was
estimated from available geographical data (Brink and Gudmundsson 2010). According to this
estimate the total potential area was estimated 3.994 km2 with 0,5 ha as minimal continuous area.
Increasing the minimum continuous area to 3, 5 and 50 ha the potential area decreases to 3.374,
3.214 and 2.542 km2 respectively. The criteria used in this estimate was that; the land should be
identified as only partly vegetated (20-50% vertical vegetation cover) or sparsely vegetated (<20%
vegetation cover), be located below 400 m a.s.l., with less and 10% slope, to be not closer to rivers
or shoreline than 50 m, not to be within the boundaries of protected areas or roads or other
developed land and land being afforested was excluded. Stoniness and accessibility were not
included in this estimate.
Rough estimate by Soil Conservation Service of Iceland of the total area of land still to be
revegetated is that 0,8-1,0 million ha 8.000-10.000 km2 below 500 m could be revegetated
(Guðmundur Halldórsson personal communication, 2010). The area of land presently defined as
revegetation area is around 5.500 km2 and most land already revegetated is inside these areas,
leaving only 3.000 km2 not already revegetated within these areas.
These two estimates are not quite comparable since the altitude limits are not the same but
considering that between 400-600 m the total area of partly and sparsely vegetated land is
approximately 11.000 km2 a difference of 5.000 km2 in these estimates is not unexpected.
3.2.1.4 Summary of available land
In Table 3 the above discussion on available land is summarized and the range of these estimates
evaluated. Evaluation of minimum and maximal area is based on various estimates for conventional
cultivation and also on ratio of no-vegetated plots for revegetated area. In view of the nature of the
information this summary is based on it is not possible for all the estimates to subdivide the area to
different regions as suggested above (Figure 1). Available land for cultivation of energy crops is more
likely to decrease than increase until 2030 due to increased population and higher demand for land
for conventional agriculture.
Table 3 Summary of cultivated land and possible increase of that land
Category
Present area
2
Possible increase
Estimated [km ]
Max
Min
Estimated [km2]
Min
Max
Conventional cultivation
1300
2253
1150
4800
420
6000
Cultivated abandoned
500
950
150
Revegetation
1200
2000
800
20
Below 500 m
8000
Below 400 m
4000
10000
3.2.2 Harvest
In a recent paper (Sveinsson and Hermannsson 2010) the possible harvest of several potential
energy crops is estimated. The below summary is mostly based on that review paper.
Several species and variants of crops are considered in that paper
Oil seed plants: Two species have been tested here i.e. oilseed rape (Brassica napus var
oleifera) and field mustard (Brassica rapa var oleifera). These species can only be grown in
few regions in Iceland but the harvest in these regions is quite reasonable. The harvest of
oilseed rape was according to the abovementioned paper 3,7-4,1 t dw seeds/ha with the oil
content 33%. Processing of the harvest is estimated to give 1.200-1.500 l biodiesel/ha, 120 l
glycerol/ha and 2000 kg grounded seeds as protein meal. Beside the seeds 3,0 t/ha of leaves
and stems which can be used as source of methane or ethanol through fermentation. The
field mustard is said to be more reliable in cultivation but gives less harvest. Both species are
biannual and are only harvested in the second year.
Cereals: Barley (Hordeum vulgare) is the only cereal presently grown in Iceland in some
extent. It can be cultivated in many areas in most regions. A harvest of 7 t dw/ha can be
assumed where cultivation conditions are suitable. Half of the harvest is straws.
Root vegetable: Three species of root vegetable were considered in the abovementioned
paper i.e. potatoes (Solanum turberosum), turnips (Brassica napus var. rapifera), turnip
mustard (Brassica rapa var. rapifera). The harvest of potatoes is said to be 4 t dw/ha (steams
and leaves excluded) but no harvest for the turnips is presented. In different paper
(Hermannsson and Guðmundsson 2002) the harvest of several variants of turnips was
reported as 15,6 t dw/ha on average with turnips constituting 74% or 11,5 t dw/ha.
Hemp: Hemp (Cannabis sativa) is a species considered in Scandinavia good for biomass
production (Sveinsson and Hermannsson 2010). The cultivation of hemp has been tested
here and the average harvest was 7,75 t dw/ha (Sveinsson 2009). Hemp like oil seed plants
can only be grown in few regions.
Perennial grasses: There are many species and variants available but timothy-grass (Phleum
pratense) is one species considered preferable in the abovementioned review paper. The
harvest expectancies are 6,5 t dw/ha if harvested in late August to early September.
Other species than considered by Sveinsson and Hermannsson (2010) could be feasible as energy
crops. The criteria for suitable plants for energy crops is different from the criteria for plants to be
grown as livestock fodder or directly for human consumption or as fibres. In conventional cultivation
monocultures are the general rule but for cultivation of energy crops there is no need for that and
more diverse composition of species might be more practical. As energy is the desired product the
whole process of cultivation needs to consume as little energy as possible including energy used to
produce fertilizers. Many of the species considered above need considerable amounts of fertilizers
to give the harvest reported. The methods used for extracting the energy from the biomass produce
vary regarding the possibilities to recycle the nutrients included in the biomass. This recycling of
nutrients can be crucial regarding the net energy output from the cultivation.
21
Up scaling of the numbers for available land and the possible harvest needs to be interpreted with
precaution due to the high uncertainty in available land and in the net energy output from the
cultivation. The effects of the biofuel production from each type of biomass cultivated on GHG
emission needs also to be analysed further.
In principle available land and harvest expectancies could simply be multiplied to give the possible
available biomass, but that estimate has large uncertainty. By this method the amount of biomass
that could be obtained range from maximum (16.000+950) ha *15,6 t dw/ha = 264.420 t dw biomass
year-1 obtained by cultivating turnips on the maximum of available land, to (150+420) ha*6,5 t
dw/ha = 3.705 t dw biomass year-1 obtained by assuming timothy-grass on the minimum of
abandoned hayfields plus minimum of possible increase in new land for cultivation.
Before of using these numbers as basement for further decision regarding biofuel production the
feasibility of cultivation of individual species needs to be analysed regarding net energy produced
and the land to be used for the cultivation identified geographically. Then lifecycle analysis of the
most potential options should be performed. The possible amount of biomass obtained through
cultivation until 2030 are not likely to change much from the present estimate. As the population
grows more land is needed for other agricultural production and less therefore available for biofuel
production.
A summary of potential biomass obtained by cultivation can be seen Table 4. In this case
competition of land is not considered.
Table 4 Summary over biomass obtained by cultivation
Possible area
[ha]
Harvest
[ton dw*ha-1*year-1]
Total potential biomass
[ton dw]
Oil
seed
plants
(seeds)
Oil
seed
plants
(stems and leaves)
Cereals (straws)
7.000
2,0
13.650
7.000
1,5
10.500
7.000
3,5
24.500
Hemp (stems and
leaves)
Perennial grasses
(increase)
Perennial grasses
(abandoned)
Perennial
grasses
(revegetation)
7.000
7,75
54.250
600.000
6,5
3.900.000
50.000
6,5
325.000
1.000.000
6,5
6.500.000
A summary of potential production of biofuel from biomass obtained from cultivation can be seen in
Table 5. In this case one has to be careful when using these numbers. The numbers given here are
total potential production from each type of biomass, meaning that when considering one type of
biomass other types of biomass are excluded.
22
Oil seeds (rapeseed) are estimated to have an oil content of 40%. Rapeseed straw is estimated to
consist of 61% sugar (dry basis) (36,6% cellulose (as glucose) and 24,2% hemicellulosic sugars, out of
which 76% xylose (Castro, Díaz, Cara, Ruiz, Romero, & Moya, 2010). Barley straw is estimated to
have a composition of 71% sugar (44% cellulose and 27% hemicellulose, out of which 28% hexoses
and 59% pentoses) (Mannvit, 2010b). Hemp is composed of approximately 63% cellulose and 17%
hemicellulose (Amaducci, Amaducci, Benati, & Venturi, 2000). Hemp oil may generally be used for
biodiesel production, but in Iceland there are no seeds obtained. The composition of perennial
grasses is estimated to 29% cellulose, 27% hemicellulose, 3,5% lignin (Mannvit, 2010b), or
approximately 56% sugars.
Table 5 Annual potential production of biofuel [ton] from biomass obtained by cultivation
Oil seed
plants
(seeds)
Oil seed
plants (stems
and leaves)
Cereals
(straw)
Hemp
Perennial
grasses
3.110
1.200
1.740
8.440
3.260
2.930
19.230
7.420
11.840
2.915.610
1.125.450
1.796.810
130
360
830
125.530
FT-diesel
1.160
2.710
6.010
1.188.040
FT-petrol
270
620
1.380
273.190
Bioethanol from syngas
2.840
6.630
14.680
2.902.050
Biohydrogen from syngas
1.050
2.440
5.410
1.069.820
Biomethanol from syngas
5.990
13.970
30.920
6.113.250
Biodiesel (FAME)
4.670
Biodiesel (HDRD)
4.110
Bioethanol
Bioethanol (in practice)
Biomethane
Biohydrogen
Table 6 Yield [kg/ton biomass dw] for biofuel production
Oil seed plants
(seeds)
Biodiesel (FAME)
360
Biodiesel (HDRD)
317
Oil seed plants
(stems and
leaves)
Cereals
(straw)
Hemp
312
120
363
140
373
144
Bioethanol
Perennial
grasses
286
110
23
Biomethane
174
126
230
176
Biohydrogen
13
16
16
12
FT-diesel
117
117
117
117
FT-petrol
27
27
27
27
285
285
285
285
Biohydrogen from
syngas
Biomethanol from
syngas
105
105
105
105
600
600
600
600
3.2.3 Algae
Algae are a raw material of great interest for biofuel production, and are considered as low-input,
high-yield raw material. As mentioned above, biofuels produced from algae are considered 3rd
generation biofuel. The use of algae as raw material for biofuel production lies outside the
framework of this project, but this subject is definitely worth further investigations in the future.
3.3 Organic waste from agriculture
3.3.1 Manure
The amount of manure available has been estimated on basis of annual livestock census 2008
(Icelandic Food and Veterinary Authority unpublished data) for division of livestock to various
groups, the estimated time of year each type of animals is kept indoors (Umhverfisstofnun 2010)
and the amount of manure estimated from each animal (Bændasamtök-Íslands 2008). The estimated
amount of manure is presented in Table 7.
24
Table 7 Amount of manure available in each region divided according to livestock categories. The estimated
amount is for wet manure as delivered.
Amount and type of
manure
Region/ Livestock
South peninsula
Tons manure yr-1
Fur
animals
451
Cattle
9.081
Sheep
1.847
Horses
10.849
Hens & poultry
7.551
Pigs
44.093
West
62.845
31.644
9.559
77
14.526
0
Westfjords
16.087
19.327
1.050
5
0
0
North West
72.709
42.771
18.773
186
112
1.371
North East
116.291
30.461
7.431
701
11.989
715
East
30.890
32.519
3.232
284
247
1.004
South
179.759
32.634
27.382
3.414
24.786
2.547
Total
487.661
191.203
78.276
12.218
95.752
6.087
To be able to use these data above for further estimation of potential production of biomethane, the
VS content of the manure needs to be determined. Another estimation of amount of manure has
therefore been made and can be seen in Table 8. This estimation is also based on number of
animals, the time animals is kept indoors and estimated amount of manure per animal for a known
TS and VS content (VGK Hönnun. Project (2632)) (Sveinsson).
25
Table 8 Estimated amount of manure, used for calculation of potential methane production
Amount and type of
manure
Region/Livestock
Tons manure yr-1
Cattle (VS 8%)
Sheep (VS 24%)
Horses (VS 16%)
Pigs (VS 8%)
South peninsula
15.160
2.130
10.910
35.470
West
102.580
36.560
9.850
11.690
Westfjords
25.560
22.530
1.080
0
North West
115.420
49.640
19.440
90
North East
193.430
35.140
7.680
9.640
East
48.680
37.590
3.330
200
South
291.690
37.660
28.490
19.940
Total
792.510
221.240
80.780
77.030
The methane production from manure is here estimated out from the latter numbers for amount of
manure. The estimated biomethane production from manure can be seen in Table 9 (Carlsson &
Uldal, 2009). Manure from hens and poultry, and fur animals is not further considered here. It is
assumed that the amount of manure will remain constant over the years.
Table 9 Potential quantity of biomethane from manure
Yield
Annual production
2010-2030
[kg/ton manure]
[ton]
Cattle
11
8.570
Sheep1
27
5.730
Horses
18
1.390
Pigs
14
1.050
Total
1
16.740
Yield [kg/ton VS] for sheep manure assumed to be same as horses
26
3.3.2 Waste hay
The amount of waste hay is registered yearly, and was estimated to 24 thousand ton dw in the year
2008. Most likely the amount of waste hay varies between the years. It has further been estimated
that the amount of waste hay could come to increase with up to 60-90 thousand ton dw if
undeveloped fields are used as well (Guðmundsson, 2009).
Waste hay (timothy-grass) is assumed to consist of 29% cellulose, 27% hemicellulose, 3,5% lignin
(Mannvit, 2010b). The potential production of biofuels from waste hay can be seen in Table 10.
Table 10 Potential quantity of biofuel from waste hay
Yield
Annual production
2010-2030
[kg/ton dw waste hay]
[ton]
Biomethane
176
4.020
Bioethanol (theoretical)
286
110
6.520
2.510
Biohydrogen
12
280
FT-diesel
117
2.660
FT-petrol
27
610
283
6.460
105
2.390
600
13.680
3.4 Organic waste from household, industry and services
Organic waste from household, industry and services is a valuable source for production of biofuels.
In the year 2004, The Environment Agency of Iceland set up a National plan for the handling of waste
for the period 2004-2016. The objectives are to lower the amount of organic waste which is
landfilled over the coming years, according to the following time plan (Landsáætlun um meðhöndlun
úrgangs 2004-2016);
In the year 2009, less than 75 % of total organic waste 1995 should be landfilled
A newer objective is that in the year 2020 no organic or combustible waste should be landfilled
which speaks for an even increased interest of investigating the use of organic waste for production
of biofuels (Svæðisáætlun höfuðborgarsvæðið, c).
27
There are also objectives to prevent the formation of packaging waste. At least 50 % and maximum
65 % by weight of the packaging waste shall be re-used. Also, at least 25 % and maximum 45 % by
weight of all packaging materials in packaging waste should be recycled, out of which at least 15 % of
each packaging material separately (Landsáætlun um meðhöndlun úrgangs 2004-2016).
The treatment of waste in Iceland is in hands of both municipalities and private companies and it is
difficult to get an overview of the origin and quantity of waste. The private companies are not
obliged to register the amount or treatment of the waste while there are specific regulations for
waste management handled by the municipalities. To be able to fully survey the amount of waste
available in Iceland a complete system for registration of waste needs to be integrated. However,
the numbers available today will give a fairly good estimation for the amount of raw material, even
though one has to consider these numbers to have a relatively high uncertainty (Svæðisáætlun
höfuðborgarsvæðið, c).
The growing prosperity and increasing consumption have led to an increased amount of waste in
Iceland over past years. To predict the amount of waste for coming years one has to consider if this
trend will continue as earlier, or if the consumption has somehow reached its maximum and will
remain more or less constant from now on. It also has to be considered what result can be expected
due to the aim of lowering the amount of waste produced (Svæðisáætlun höfuðborgarsvæðið, c).
A general estimation often used is that approximately 60% of the total waste is organic waste.
Another estimation often used is that approximately 70% of the organic waste is obtained from the
industry and services and 30% from households (Landsáætlun um meðhöndlun úrgangs 2004-2016).
Following categories of organic waste from household, industry and services will be defined and
discussed further in this report;
Paper and paperboard
Timber and wood
Fish waste
Meat and slaughter waste
Garden waste
MSW
Waste bio oil
The waste bio oil will further be divided into following categories; Waste vegetable oil (WVO), Waste
animal fat (WAF), Fish oil from fish waste, Waste fish oil from fish meal plants, Waste fish oil from
cod liver oil production and Waste oil from sewage.
3.4.1 Paper and paperboard
Main sources of paper and paperboard waste that are considered suitable for biofuel production
(bioethanol, biomethane and biohydrogen) are newspapers, magazines and packaging waste. The
data presented here about paper and paperboard waste and the potential production of bioethanol
28
are available from on-going investigations (Mannvit, 2010b). The amount of paper and paperboard
waste is based on import and export figures available from Statistics Iceland. It is here assumed that
60-70% of the imported amount is suitable for recycling. Probably up to 20-25 thousand ton per year
was not delivered to recycling. The estimated yearly amount of paper and paperboard considered
suitable for recycling can be seen in Figure 15, and is used as base for further predictions.
Figure 15 Estimated yearly amount of paper and paperboard considered suitable for recycling ■ imported
paper and paperboard, ■ exported paper and paperboard (for recycling), ■ available waste (difference
import and export).
The amount of paper and paperboard waste until the year 2030 is assumed to depend on population
growth and economic growth. It is further expected that the delivery rate of recycling will increase
linearly from the value in 2008, 60%, to 90% at the end of the forecast period. The produced amount
of paper and paperboard waste in 2030 is estimated to almost 68 thousand ton and 61 thousand ton
is delivered for recycling and assumed to be available for biofuel production. A low prediction for
produced paper and paper waste was made based on the same criteria as for high prediction, but
with an additional assumption that there will be a reduction of packaging and paper use of 1,5%, due
to efforts to reduce packaging, technological advances and an increased environmental public
awareness. This will result in a 30% lower amount of paper and paperboard waste at the end of the
forecast period compared to the high prediction. Further it is assumed that the delivery rate for
recycling will remain constant at 50%, which is the average value for the years. The produced
amount of waste in 2030 is estimated to 46 thousand ton where almost 28 thousand ton is recycled
and available for biofuel production. The high and low prediction can be seen graphically in Figure 16
and Figure 17 respectively.
29
Figure 16 High prediction for available amount of paper and paperboard waste suitable for bioethanol
production. ▬ potential amount of raw material ▬ amount of raw material returned for recycling
Figure 17 High prediction for available amount of paper and paperboard waste suitable for bioethanol
production. ▬ potential amount of raw material ▬ amount of raw material returned for recycling
In Figure 18, predictions for ethanol production can be seen, based on an average of the high and
low prediction of waste defined above. The theoretical maximum production of bioethanol is 511 kg
per ton sugar, or 345 kg/ton of paper and paperboard waste, assuming a dry content of 90% and a
sugar content of 75% (Mannvit, 2010b). The high prediction gives a production of approximately 14
thousand ton at the end of the forecast period. It is here assumed that all paper and paperboard
waste delivered for recycling is used for ethanol production, and that a 100% recovery is achieved.
Obviously, it is impossible to achieve 100% recovery, but this give an indication of what is possible
with technological advances. A more realistic prediction for bioethanol production allows for the
recovery of bioethanol that have been obtained experimentally. Current results in practice show an
average recovery of 197 kg ethanol per ton of sugar, or 133 kg ethanol per ton paper and
paperboard waste. The low prediction allows for a bioethanol production of approximately 5
thousand ton. It can be assumed that with further development the realistic amount of ethanol
30
production may come to increase. The potential production of bioethanol from paper and
paperboard waste can be seen graphically in Figure 18.
Figure 18 Potential production of bioethanol from paper and paperboard waste
Biomethane production from paper and paperboard waste is estimated to 135 kg CH4/ton waste,
based on the assumption that paper and paperboard waste have a moisture content of 10%. It is
assumed that corrugated paper is 35% of total waste and paper 65%, divided equally into office
paper, newspaper and magazine (Gunaseelan, 1997). The potential production of biomethane and
biohydrogen can be seen in Figure 19.
Biofuel production [ton]
6.000
5.000
4.000
3.000
2.000
1.000
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
0
Biomethane
Biohydrogen
Figure 19 Potential production of biomethane and biohydrogen from paper and paperboard waste
Figure 20 shows the potential production of biofuels from syngas produced from paper and
paperboard waste.
31
20.000
15.000
10.000
5.000
0
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Biofuel production from syngas [ton]
25.000
FT-diesel
FT-petrol
Bioethanol
Biohydrogen
Biomethanol
Figure 20 Potential production of biofuels from syngas produced from paper and paperboard waste
Table 11 summarizes the potential biofuel production from paper and paperboard waste.
Table 11 Potential quantity of biofuel from paper and paperboard waste
Biofuel
Yield
[kg/ton waste]
Annual production
2010-2030
[ton]
Biomethane
345
133
135
5.890-13.790
2.260-5.300
2.310-5.400
Biohydrogen
15
250-590
FT-diesel
105
1.790-4.200
FT-petrol
24
410-970
255
4.360-10.190
95
1.610-3.780
540
9.220-21.580
3.4.2 Timber and wood
Timber waste is generally defined as unpainted timber and painted timber and is available from
varies locations and sources. Main sources of timber waste are timber from construction/demolition
work, packaging waste and pallets. The total amount of timber waste in Iceland in 2010 can be
estimated to approximately 37 ± 11 thousand ton (Svæðisáætlun höfuðborgarsvæðið, c)
(Svæðisáætlun Eyjafjörður) (Svæðisáætlun Norðurá) (Svæðisáætlun Austurland, b). Numbers for
Northeast and Westfjords are estimated by scaling up the numbers for each region and using
32
weighed average. The estimated amount of timber waste in different areas in 2010 can be seen in
Figure 21. An uncertainty of 30% is assumed.
Figure 21 Estimated amount of timber waste in different regions in 2010
Figure 22 Ratio of timber waste in different regions in 2010
The amount of timber waste produced annually until the year 2030 is estimated by assuming that
the amount of timber waste will increase with 0,6 % per capita. A low prediction is made by
assuming that the amount of timber waste per capita will remain constant. The total timber waste
produced in 2030 is estimated to approximately 49 ± 15 and 43 ± 13 thousand ton respectively, see
Figure 23.
33
60.000
Timber waste (ton)
50.000
40.000
30.000
20.000
10.000
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
0
High prediction
Low prediction
Figure 23 Predicted amount of timber waste in Iceland until the year 2030
Wood waste is also available from forestry, and the amount has been estimated to approximately
8.260 ton/year (dw) (Þórðardóttir, 2008). However, this is not included in the above mentioned
numbers for timber waste, but may also be a potential source for biofuel production.
Currently there is collaboration between Sorpa, the waste management company in the Capital area,
and Elkem Iceland. The majority of unpainted timber waste obtained in the Southwest area,
approximately 18 thousand ton, is used at Elkem Iceland as a carbon source in their production of
ferrosilicon. The painted timber can not be used at Elkem Iceland and is currently landfilled at
Álfsnes (Elkem). In Eyjafjörður almost all timber waste is used for composting. However, in this study
all timber waste is considered as potential for biofuel production.
It is here assumed that timber and wood waste mainly consist of softwood, with a composition of
45% cellulose, 22% hemicellulose and 28% lignin as well as extractives, acids, salts and minerals. The
amount of sugars can then be estimated to 67%, out of which 88% hexose sugars and 12% pentose
sugars (Hamelinck, Hooijdonk, & Faaij, 2005).
Theoretical maximum ethanol yield is 511 kg per ton of sugars, or 257 kg per ton of timber, with the
assumption that 67% are sugars, and that timber waste has a moisture content of 25%. However, in
practice the yield is considerably lower and technological advances regarding pretreatment and
fermentation need to be achieved in order to obtain a sufficiently high yield. The potential
production of biofuels from timber waste can be seen in Figure 24, Figure 25 and Table 12.
34
Bioethanol production [ton]
12.000
10.000
8.000
6.000
4.000
2.000
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
0
Bioethanol
25.000
20.000
15.000
10.000
5.000
0
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Figure 24 Potential production of bioethanol from syngas produced from timber waste
FT-diesel
FT-petrol
Biohydrogen
Biomethanol
Bioethanol
Figure 25 Potential production of biofuel from syngas produced from timber waste
Table 12 Potential quantity of biofuel from timber waste
Biofuel
[kg/ton waste]
257
Annual production
2010-2030
[ton]
9.120-11.250
FT-diesel
87
3.110-3.830
FT-petrol
20
710-880
213
7.550-9.310
79
2.800-3.450
450
15.980-19.710
Yield
35
Timber waste can also be used as support material for dry methane process as in the Aikan process,
allowing for aeration and drainage of the waste mass.
3.4.3 Fish waste
The catch of fish in Iceland with respect to domestic processing from 2003 to 2008 can be seen in
Figure 26 (Fish processing, a) (Fish processing, b). The fish species defined for estimating fish waste
can be seen in Appendix C.
70.000
Domestic processing (ton)
60.000
Capital region
Southwest
50.000
South
40.000
West
East
30.000
Northeast
20.000
Eyjafjörður
Northwest
10.000
Westfjords
0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Figure 26 Quantity of fish processed annually in different regions
The amount of fish waste in Eyjafjörður in 2006 has previously been estimated to 1414 ton. These
numbers are based on data obtained from fish processing plants and Sorpey, the waste
management company in the area (VGK Hönnun. Project (2632)). The amount of fish waste in
Eyjafjörður is estimated to be approximately 3,8% of the catch. The fish waste in different regions is
estimated by assuming that the ratio of fish waste/catch of fish in Eyjafjörður applies for all regions.
The estimated amount of fish waste in different regions can be seen in Figure 27 and is based on the
average fish catch from the years 2003 to 2008. The total amount of fish waste available in Iceland
can be estimated to approximately 10-12 thousand ton.
Figure 27 Estimated annual amount of fish waste
36
Figure 28 Ratio of fish waste in different regions
The annual catch of fish is depending on the total allowable catch (TAC) for each species, which is set
by the Minister of Fisheries for one year at the time (1st of September to 31st of August) (Icelandic
fisheries management). It is therefore difficult to predict the catch for coming decades. Other factors
that may affect the amount of fish waste are variations in the fish market which is hard to predict. In
this investigation it will be assumed that the annual catch of fish will stay constant until 2030. It will
further be assumed that the amount of fish waste will stay constant over the years. Approximately
10-12 thousand ton of fish waste is produced in Iceland annually.
These numbers above are based on data available for fish processed on land, and a considerable
amount of fish waste is excluded in these numbers. One possibility could be to introduce a process
for extracting fish oil from fish waste on board the vessels. However, this is not further considered at
this stage of project.
For fish waste there are two potential scenarios; either all fish waste can be used for biomethane
production or the oily part of fish waste can be used for biodiesel production and the rest for
biomethane production. The potential quantity of biofuel from fish waste can be seen in Table 13. It
is assumed that fish waste contains 0,5% of oil (Melturannsóknir, 1995).
Table 13 Potential quantity of biofuel from fish waste
Biofuel
Yield
Annual production
2010-2030
[kg/ton waste]
[ton]
Methane
256
2.710
Biodiesel (FAME/FAEE)
4,5
50
HDRD
4,4
50
-
2.690
Methane
(after biodiesel production)
37
3.4.4 Meat and slaughter waste
Main sources of slaughter waste are lamb, beef, pork and poultry. Meat and slaughter waste can be
used for biomethane production and the fat can be used for biodiesel production. The total amount
of meat and slaughter waste in Iceland in 2010 can be estimated to approximately 17 ± 5 thousand
ton, out of which approximately 14 thousand ton is slaughter waste and 3 thousand ton meat waste.
The amounts of meat and slaughter waste in each area are mainly obtained from area plans
(Svæðisáætlun höfuðborgarsvæðið, a) (Svæðisáætlun Norðurá) (Svæðisáætlun Austurland, b).
Numbers for Eyjafjörður and Northeast are based on previous investigations made by Mannvit (VGK
Hönnun. Project (2632)). The ratio of meat waste/slaughter waste is known for Eyjafjörður and
assumed to apply for all areas, except for East area where the amounts of slaughter and meat waste
are reported separately. It is assumed that no slaughter waste is produced in Westfjords. An
overview of the amount of slaughter waste in different areas can be seen in Figure 29. The amount
of meat waste in different areas can be seen in Figure 31. An uncertainty of 30% is assumed.
Figure 29 Estimated amount of slaughter waste in different regions in 2010
Figure 30 Ratio of slaughter waste in different regions
38
Figure 31 Estimated amount of meat waste in different regions in 2010
Figure 32 Ratio of meat waste in different regions
The amount of slaughter and meat waste produced annually until the year 2030 is estimated by
assuming that the amount of slaughter and meat waste primarily is depending on the population,
see Figure 33.
Slaughter and meat waste (ton)
25.000
20.000
15.000
10.000
5.000
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
0
Figure 33 Predicted amount of slaughter and meat waste in Iceland until the year 2030
39
The amount of slaughter waste produced in 2030 is estimated to approximately 16 ± 5 thousand ton
and the amount of meat waste 4 ± 1 thousand ton, giving a total amount of 20 ± 6 thousand ton.
For estimating the potential production of biofuels it is assumed that slaughter and meat waste
mainly consists of soft tissue. For slaughter and meat waste there are two possible scenarios; either
all waste can be used for biomethane production or the fat can be used for biodiesel production and
the rest for biomethane production. The potential production of biofuels from slaughter and meat
waste can be seen in Figure 34 and Table 14. Slaughter waste is assumed to have a dry content of
30% and meat waste a dry content of 91%, out which only 10% is meat and the rest bones (VGK
Hönnun. Project (2632)). It can be assumed that 17% of total slaughter and meat waste is potential
for biodiesel production.
2.500
2.000
1.500
1.000
500
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
0
Methane
Methane after biodiesel
FAME/FAEE
HDRD
Figure 34 Potential production of biofuels from meat and slaughter waste
Table 14 Potential quantity of biofuel from meat and slaughter waste
Biofuel
Yield
Annual production
2010 - 2030
[kg/ton waste]
[ton]
Methane
114
1.830 – 2.130
Biodiesel (FAME/FAEE)
125
2.020 – 2.340
HDRD
123
1.980 – 2.290
-
1.590 – 1.840
Methane
(after biodiesel production)
3.4.5 Garden waste
Garden waste can be defined as grass, branches and other garden waste. The total amount of
garden waste in Iceland in 2010 can be estimated to approximately 16 ± 5 thousand ton
(Svæðisáætlun höfuðborgarsvæðið, c) (Svæðisáætlun Eyjafjörður) (Svæðisáætlun Norðurá)
40
(Svæðisáætlun Austurland, b). Numbers for Northeast and Westfjords are estimated by scaling up
the numbers for each region and using weighed average. The estimated amount of garden waste in
different areas in 2010 can be seen in Figure 35. An uncertainty of 30% is assumed.
Figure 35 Estimated amount of garden waste in different regions in 2010
Figure 36 Ratio of garden waste in different regions
The amount of garden waste produced annually until the year 2030 is estimated by assuming that
the amount of garden waste will increase with 0,6 % per capita per year. A low prediction is made by
assuming that the amount of garden waste per capita will remain constant. The amount of garden
waste produced in 2030 is estimated to approximately 20 ± 6 thousand ton and 18 ± 5 thousand ton
respectively, see Figure 37.
41
25.000
Garden waste (ton)
20.000
15.000
10.000
5.000
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
0
High prediction
Low prediction
Figure 37 Predicted amount of garden waste until 2030
Today garden waste collected in the Southwest area is used for producing MOLTA, a soil supplement
produced from only grass and chopped branches. In Eyjafjörður most of the garden waste is used for
composting. The amount of garden waste is seasonal dependent, and assumed to be available in the
summer months from April to September, with main peaks in July and August.
Garden waste is assumed to mainly include branches (80%) and leaves (20%) (Mannvit. Project
(9.610.259)). Contents of leaves are 15-20% cellulose and 80-85% hemicellulose. It is here assumed
that branches are both hardwood and softwood. Hardwood is having a cellulose content of 40-55%,
a hemicellulose content of 24-40% and a lignin content of 18-25%, and softwood is having a cellulose
content of 45-50%, a hemicellulose content of 25-35% and a lignin content of 25-35% (Sun & Cheng,
2002). For estimating the production of bioethanol, garden waste is assumed to have a sugar
content of 57% and a dry content of 60% (Carlsson & Uldal, 2009).
The biohydrogen production by anaerobic digestion can be estimated to 22 kg/ton sugar (50% of
theoretical yield), or 8 kg/ton garden waste (I. Ntaikou, Kornaros, & Lyberatos, 2008).
The potential production of biofuel from garden waste can be seen in Figure 38, Figure 39, Figure 40
and Table 15.
Bioethanol production [ton]
3.500
3.000
2.500
2.000
1.500
1.000
500
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
0
Theoretical
In practice
Figure 38 Potential production of bioethanol from garden waste
42
1.200
1.000
800
600
400
200
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
0
Methane
Hydrogen
7.000
6.000
5.000
4.000
3.000
2.000
1.000
0
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Biofuel production from syngas
[ton]
Figure 39 Potential production of biomethane and biohydrogen from garden waste
FT-diesel
FT-petrol
Biohydrogen
Biomethanol
Bioethanol
Figure 40 Potential production of biofuels from syngas produced from garden waste
Table 15 Potential quantity of biofuel from garden waste
Biofuel
Yield
Annual production
2010 - 2030
[kg/ton waste]
[ton]
Methane
60
890 – 1.100
Ethanol (theoretical)
Ethanol (in practice)
175
67
2.590-3.200
1.000-1.230
Hydrogen
8
110-140
FT-diesel
70
1.040-1.280
43
FT-petrol
16
240-290
170
2.520-3.110
63
930-1.150
360
5.340-6.590
3.4.6 Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
MSW is defined as regular household waste handled by municipal waste management companies.
The total amount of MSW in Iceland in 2010 can be estimated to 76 ± 6 thousand ton, based on data
available from Sorpa, the waste management company in the Capital area. The annual amount of
MSW per capita has been estimated to 222-257 kg and is assumed to apply for all areas. It is further
assumed that 56 % of MSW is organic, based on numbers for Capital area (Mannvit. Project
(2.140.021)). The amount of MSW in different regions can be seen in Figure 41.
Figure 41 Estimated amount of MSW in different regions in 2010
Figure 42 Ratio of MSW in different regions
44
The amount of MSW produced annually until the year 2030 is estimated by assuming that the
amount of MSW will increase with 0,6 % per capita per year. A low prediction is made by assuming
that the amount of MSW per capita will remain constant. The amount of MSW produced in 2030 is
estimated to approximately 100 ± 7 thousand ton and 88 ± 7 thousand ton respectively, see Figure
43.
120.000
MSW (ton)
100.000
80.000
60.000
40.000
20.000
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
0
High prediction
Low prediction
Figure 43 Predicted amount of MSW until 2030
However, these numbers are based on a Business As Usual scenario and one has to consider the fact
that the amount of MSW can come to decrease as an effect of the aim of increasing the recycling of
waste. Main components of MSW in Iceland today are food waste (25 %), paper and paper board (29
%), plastic (16 %) and metals and glass (8 %) (Mannvit. Project (2.140.021)).
MSW can be used for production of biomethane, biohydrogen and biosyngas. Potential production
of biofuel from MSW can be seen in Figure 44, Figure 45 and Table 16.
12.000
10.000
8.000
6.000
4.000
2.000
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
0
Methane
Hydrogen
Figure 44 Potential production of biomethane and biohydrogen from MSW
45
30.000
25.000
20.000
15.000
10.000
5.000
0
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
35.000
FT-diesel
FT-petrol
Biohydrogen
Biomethanol
Bioethanol
Figure 45 Potential production of biofuels from syngas produced from MSW
Table 16 Potential quantity of biofuels from MSW
Biofuel
Yield
Annual production
2010 - 2030
[kg/ton waste]
[ton]
Biomethane2
109
7.860-9.700
Biohydrogen3
7
500-620
FT-diesel
65
4.730-5.830
FT-petrol
15
1.090-1.340
160
11.550-14.250
59
4.260-5.250
336
24.330-30.020
3.4.7 Waste bio oil
Waste bio oil can be converted to fatty acid alkyl esters by transesterification reaction. Following
types of waste bio oil is considered in this report; Waste vegetable oil (WVO), Waste animal fat
(WAF), Waste fish oil from fish waste, Waste fish oil from fish meal plants, Waste products from cod
liver oil production and Waste oil from sewage.
2
3
(Svæðisáætlun höfuðborgarsvæðið, a)
(Kapdan & Kargi, 2006)
46
3.4.7.1 Waste vegetable oil (WVO)
WVO is mainly obtained from food manufactures, food processing plants, restaurants and fast foods.
Previous investigations made by Mannvit shows that 5.00-1.000 tons of WVO per year could be
collected in Iceland in 2007. This could be expressed as 1,6-3,2 kg WVO per capita per year, which is
comparable to numbers from U.S. where the annual production have been estimated to 4 kg per
capita. The numbers for WVO were originally based on the amount of vegetable oil imported to
Iceland, out of which 30-50% could be recovered as WVO. These numbers were confirmed by data
based on personal communication with all restaurants and food production plants in Eyjafjörður,
where 75-80 tons of WVO could be collected annually. However, there is known that a considerable
part of WVO is disposed into the sewage system, which could affect the total amount available. This
source could be worth further investigation (Borkowska, 2009).
The production of WVO in 2010 can be estimated to 770 ± 260 ton by assuming that the amount of
produced WVO depends on the population growth. The estimated production of WVO in each area
can be seen in Figure 46. The numbers are obtained by assuming that the amount of WVO primarily
depends on the population.
Figure 46 Estimated amount of WVO in different regions in 2010
Figure 47 Ratio of WVO in different regions
47
The amount of WVO produced yearly until the year 2030 is estimated by assuming that the amount
of WVO primarily is depending on the population growth. The amount of WVO produced in 2030 is
estimated to approximately ton 900 ± 300 ton, see Figure 48.
1.000
900
800
700
WVO (ton)
600
500
400
300
200
100
2030
2029
2028
2027
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
0
Figure 48 Predicted amount of WVO in Iceland until the year 2030
The potential production of biofuels from WVO can be seen in Figure 49 and Table 17.
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
0
FAME/FAEE
HDRD
Figure 49 Potential production of biodiesel from WVO
Table 17 Potential quantity of biofuels from WVO
Biofuel
Yield
Annual production
2010 - 2030
[kg/ton waste]
[ton]
Biodiesel (FAME)
900
660-770
HDRD
880
650-750
48
Earlier investigations show that WVO collected in Akureyri has a lower FFA content than mentioned
in the literature. This could be explained by the fact that the cooking oil in Iceland is less used and
more often changed compared to other countries. The amount of WVO is assumed to be more or
less stable over the year, though with a possible increase during tourist seasons, from June to
September, with main peaks in July and August.
3.4.7.2 Waste animal fat (WAF) from meat and slaughter waste
WAF has previously been discussed in chapter 3.4.4.
3.4.7.3 Waste fish oil from fish waste
Waste fish oil from fish waste has previously been discussed in chapter 3.4.3.
3.4.7.4 Waste fish oil from fish meal plants
Earlier studies performed by Mannvit shows an amount of waste fish oil from fishmeal plants of
2.000-2.500 ton in 2007 (Borkowska, 2009). However, currently there is no waste fish oil from
fishmeal plants available due to a higher quality of the raw material used today. All raw material is
used for the production of fishmeal and fish oil. A couple of years ago, when a lower quality raw
material was used, considerable amounts of waste fish oil were available. Then the oil was burned
instead of fuel oil (Gunnarsson, 2010) (Andersen, 2010). Since there is no waste fish oil available
today, there is a little chance that this condition will change over coming years and this is not
considered to be reliable source of raw material for production of biofuels.
3.4.7.5 Waste products from cod liver oil production
Lysi hf is the major fish oil processing company in Iceland, and is considered to be the largest regular
source of waste fish oil. Among the by-products originating from cod liver oil production are 200.000
L ethyl esters and 3.000 ton soap. The ethyl esters are already used and not taken into further
consideration. Soap is the main waste product from cod liver oil production which will be considered
in this survey. A soap separator is currently being processed (Halldórsson, 2010). The soaps, which
also usually derive as a by-product in biodiesel production, can be esterified and used as biodiesel. It
is difficult to make an estimation of the amount of waste from cod liver oil production for the
coming decades. According to Árnar Halldórsson, there will be no significant increase of waste until
2015 (Halldórsson, 2010). An assumption is made that the amount of waste will stay constant until
the year 2030. Approximately 2.922 ton of biodiesel can be theoretically be produced through
esterification of soap available from Lysi hf assuming that approximately 974 g of biodiesel can be
produced from 1 kg of soap.
3.4.7.6 Trap grease from sewage
The amount of grease in sewage has earlier been estimated to 220 tons per year (Iðntæknistofnun,
2006). There is also a noticeable amount of trap grease from fish meal plants and Lysi hf, as well as
WVO from restaurants. This source could be worth further investigation.
3.5 Sewage
Sewage can be used for biomethane production. The amount of sewage from households can be
estimated to 270 L per capita per day (Leiðbeningar um hönnunarrennsli skólps og ofanvatns, 2008).
BOD is typically estimated to 60 g BOD per capita per day. The ratio COD/BOD in household sewage
can be estimated to approximately 2. The methane production can be expressed as 0,25 kg CH4/kg
COD (Henze, Harremoës, & Jes la Cour Jansen, 2006). The quantity of biomethane production from
49
sewage can then roughly be estimated to 9.530 kg CH4/day or 3,5 million kg CH4/year (5,2 million
Nm3/year). There is also a considerable amount of sewage produced from various industries and
institutes. This could be worth further investigation but is not considered in this investigation.
3.6 Emissions of biogas from landfill sites
Landfill gas is currently processed at Álfsnes landfill site by Metan hf. The composition of the landfill
gas collected at Álfsnes is approximately 57% methane, 41% carbon dioxide and 2% other
compounds (Metan). The production of landfill gas at Álfsnes is expected to continue until the year
2040. Approximately 80% of the gas produced at Álfsnes is collected and used as energy source. In
2006, approximately 500 m3 of landfill gas was collected per hour at Álfsnes landfill site, which is
more than 4 million m3 per year and the amount is growing (Svæðisáætlun höfuðborgarsvæðið, c).
Other landfill sites suitable for landfill gas processing are Fíflholt in Borgarbyggð, Glerárdalur in
Akureyri and Kirkjuferjuhjáleiga in Ölfus (R.P.M. Kamsma, 2003). The amount of landfill gas emitted
from Glerárdalur landfill site in Akureyri has been estimated to reach 6,0 million Nm3 in the year
2012. In the year 2045 landfill gas emitted from the landfill site is estimated to 2,0 million Nm3. With
an operation of 8.000 hours per year, the total amount of landfill gas produced annually can be
estimated to 3,2 Nm3. Generally the concentration of methane is between 50-55%, although first
measurements have shown higher concentrations. The annual production of methane gas (92%) can
be estimated to 1,6 million to 1,8 million Nm3 per year. The expected method for upgrading of the
landfill gas is scrubber, which is the method used at Álfsnes landfill site (Mannvit. Project
(2.140.023)). Landfill gas output test in Kirkjuferjuhjálega have been carried out and the first result
show that 1,5 million Nm3 of landfill gas can be utilized annually until 2020. The estimated
concentration of methane is between 50-55%. The amount of landfill gas emitted from the landfills
sites mentioned above can roughly be estimated to approximately 9 million Nm3. The landfill gas is
containing approximately 55% methane, which would give an amount of 5 million Nm3 of methane
(3,3 million kg CH4/year).
50
4 Summary
production
of
potential
biofuel
This chapter will summarize the potential production of various types of biofuels from biomass. The
large range is due to type of plant considered for cultivation. The potential production of bioethanol
can be seen in Table 18. The theoretical potential bioethanol production is estimated to reach 1.00079.400 TJLHV in the end of the forecast period. A more realistic number may be estimated to 30030.500 TJLHV.
Table 18 Overview of bioethanol production
Bioethanol
(theoretical)
2010-2030
[ton]
Bioethanol
(theoretical)
2010-2030
[TJLHV]
Bioethanol
(in practice)
2010-2030
[ton]
Bioethanol
(in practice)
2010-2030
[TJLHV]
Oil seed plants
(stems
and
leaves)
Cereals (straw)
3.110
80
1.200
30
Competitive
8.440
230
3.260
90
Competitive
Hemp
19.230
520
7.420
200
Competitive
2.915.610
78430
1.125.450
30280
Competitive
6.520
180
2.510
70
Paper
and
paperboard
Timber
5.890-13.790
160-370
2.260-5.300
60-140
9.120-11.250
250-300
Garden waste
2.590-3.200
70-90
1.000-1.230
30
Total (min)
27.230-37.870
730-1.020
190-280
Total (max)
2.939.7302.950.370
79.08079.370
6.96010.230
1.131.2101.134.480
Perennial grass
Waste hay
30.430-30.520
An overview of potential total production of biodiesel from various types of biomass can be seen in
Table 19. The potential production of FAME in the year 2030 may be estimated to 400 TJLHV and the
production of HDRD 300 TJLHV.
Table 19 Overview of biodiesel production
Biodiesel
(FAME)
Biodiesel
(FAME)
Biodiesel
(HDRD)
Biodiesel
51
(HDRD)
[ton]
[TJLHV]
[ton]
[TJLHV]
Oil seeds
4.670
180
4.110
180
Fish waste
50
2
50
2
2.020-2.340
80-90
1.980-2.290
90-100
660-770
30
650-750
30
2.920
110
10.32010.750
390-410
6780-7200
290-310
Meat
waste
WVO
and
slaughter
Waste from cod liver oil
production
Total
The potential total production of biomethane from various types of biomass can be seen in Table 20.
The potential production of biomethane may be estimated to reach 6.300-96.100 TJLHV in the end of
the forecast period.
Table 20 Overview of biomethane production
Biomethane
2010-2030
[ton]
Biomethane
2010-2030
[TJLHV]
Oil seed plants
(stems and leaves)
Cereals (straw)
1.740
90
Competitive
2.930
150
Competitive
Hemp
11.840
590
Competitive
1.796.810
89840
Competitive
Waste hay
4.020
200
Manure
16.740
840
2.310-5.400
120-270
2.710
140
1.830-2.130
90-110
890-1.100
50-60
7.860-9.700
390-490
Perennial grass
Fish waste
Meat and
waste
Garden waste
MSW
52
slaughter
Emission of biogas from
landfill sites
Sewage
3.500
180
3.340
170
Total (min)
120.770-126.200
6.040-6.310
Total (max)
1.915.840-1.921.270
95.790-96.060
An overview of potential total production of biohydrogen from various types of biomass can be seen
in Table 21. The potential production of biohydrogen may be estimated to reach 220-15.500 TJLHV in
2030.
Table 21 Overview of biohydrogen production
Biohydrogen
2010-2030
[ton]
Biohydrogen
2010-2030
[TJLHV]
Oil seed plants
(stems and leaves)
Cereals (straw)
130
20
Competitive
360
40
Competitive
Hemp
830
100
Competitive
125.530
15250
Competitive
280
30
250-590
30-70
Garden waste
110-140
10-20
MSW
500-620
60-80
Total (min)
1.280-1.770
160-220
Total (max)
126.670-127.160
15.390-15.450
Perennial grass
Waste hay
Potential production of biofuels from syngas is shown in Table 22. The production of biofuels from
syngas is competitive. The potential production of FT-diesel is estimated to reach 810-51.600 TJLHV
and the production of FT-petrol 190-12.000 TJLHV. Approximately 1.200-79.200 TJLHV of bioethanol,
2.100-131.900 TJLHV biohydrogen or 1.900-123.500 TJLHV biomethanol may be produced.
Table 22 Overview of biofuel production from syngas
FT-diesel
2010-2030
FT-petrol
2010-2030
Bioethanol
2010-2030
Biohydrogen
2010-2030
Biomethanol
2010-2030
53
[ton]
[ton]
[ton]
[ton]
[ton]
Oil seed plants
(stems
and
leaves)
Cereals (straw)
1.160
270
2.840
1.050
5.990
Competitive
2.710
620
6.630
2.440
13.970
Competitive
Hemp
6.010
1.380
14.680
5.410
30.920
Competitive
1.188.040
273.190
2.902.050
2.069.820
6.113.250
Competitive
2.660
610
6.460
2.390
13.680
Paper
and 1.790-4.200
paperboard
Timber
3.110-3.830
410-970
1.610-3.780
9.220-21.580
2.800-3.450
Garden waste
1.040-1.280
240-290
15.98019.710
5.340-6.590
MSW
4.730-5.830
Total (min)
14.48018.960
1.201.3601.205.840
1.0901.340
3.3304.360
276.250277.280
4.36010.190
7.5509.310
2.5203.110
11.55014.250
35.28046.170
2.934.4902.945.380
Perennial grass
Waste hay
Total (max)
710-880
930-1.150
4.260-5.250
13.04017.070
1.081.8101.085.850
24.33030.020
74.53097.570
6.181.8006.204.830
Table 23 Overview of biofuel production from syngas
FT-diesel
FT-petrol
Bioethanol
Biohydrogen
Biomethanol
[TJLHV]
[TJLHV]
[TJLHV]
[TJLHV]
[TJLHV]
Oil seed plants
(stems
and
leaves)
Cereals (straw)
50
10
80
130
120
Competitive
120
30
180
300
280
Competitive
Hemp
260
60
400
660
620
Competitive
50.850
11.860
78.070
129.980
121.650
Competitive
110
30
170
290
270
80-180
20-40
120-270
200-460
180-430
130-160
30-40
200-250
340-420
320-390
Perennial grass
Waste hay
Paper
and
paperboard
Timber
54
Garden waste
40-60
10
70-80
110-140
110-130
MSW
200-250
50-60
310-380
520-640
480-600
Total (min)
620-810
150-190
950-1.240
1.590-2.080
1.480-1.940
Total (max)
51.42051.610
11.99012.030
78.94079.230
131.440131.930
123.020123.480
55
5 Conclusions
There are many types of biomass that can be used for production of biofuels, and this report focuses
on biomass available in Iceland. The raw materials have been divided into three main types; Biomass
obtained by cultivation, Organic waste from agriculture and Organic waste from household, industry
and services. Sewage and emissions from landfill sites are also discussed. A main objective of
introducing biofuels instead of fossil fuels is to lower the GHG emissions. Of great importance when
considering production of biofuels is the energy input vs. energy output.
At this stage of project, only the total potential quantity of biomass is evaluated. For cultivation of
biomass all potential land is counted for, which however would never be considered as realistic. Out
from these facts, the potential production of each type of biofuel has been considered,
independently of other possible production. However, one also has to consider competition of raw
materials as well as energy input and cost when evaluating potential production. The aim of this
report is primarily to present an overview of potential biomass available, and how much energy is
possible to obtain from this biomass.
The raw material has further been divided into different regions when appropriate. However, at this
stage of project, only the total potential production of biofuels in Iceland is considered. The amount
and origin of raw material is however of great importance when considering the feasibility of biofuel
production. When considering the potential of various raw materials the cost and energy input has
to be allowed for. The cost of waste is mainly due to collecting and transporting, while costs for
cultivation are generally higher.
A prediction of energy usage for vehicles can be seen in Figure 50. Data obtained from
Orkuspárnefnd (Mannvit. Project (1.010.208)).
2500
Energy [GWh]
2000
1500
Gasoline
Diesel
1000
Other
500
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
0
Figure 50 Prediction of energy usage for vehicles
56
When estimating the potential biofuel production in Iceland, and comparing this to total energy
usage for transport, it can clearly be seen that there is more than enough of biomass in Iceland to
produce the energy needed, see Figure 51.
40
35
Energy usage
Bioethanol
30
Energy [TWh]
Biodiesel (FAME)
25
Biodiesel (HDRD)
Biomethane
20
Biohydrogen
FT-diesel
15
FT-petrol
10
Ethanol from syngas
Hydrogen from syngas
5
Methanol from syngas
0
2030
Figure 51 Overview of potential biofuel production from biomass compared to energy usage for
transportation
Figure 52 shows potential production of biofuels when only waste biomass is considered as raw
material. It can clearly be seen that using waste biomass only is not enough to reach the energy
usage, and then no energy input is considered, only potential outcome from waste biomass.
4000
3500
Energy usage
Bioethanol
3000
Energy [GWh]
Biodiesel (FAME)
2500
Biodiesel (HDRD)
Biomethane
2000
Biohydrogen
FT-diesel
1500
FT-petrol
1000
Ethanol from syngas
Hydrogen from syngas
500
Methanol from syngas
0
2030
Figure 52 Overview of potential biofuel production from waste biomass compared to energy usage for
transportation
At this stage of project only an approximate investment cost for biofuel production is given.
However, care should be taken when using these numbers, since also the operational cost is of great
57
importance when evaluating the feasibility of the process. Also the production of valuable byproducts should be considered. An overview of approximate investment cost for biofuel production
can be seen in Table 24. For biodiesel produced from waste a recovery of 90% is assumed. The same
applies for biodiesel from oilseed, plus that an oil content of 40% is counted for. The recovery of
biomethane from biomass varies widely and is assumed to be between 150-600 kg/ton biomass dw.
For bioethanol a yield of 198 kg/ton biomass dw is counted for.
Table 24 Approximate investment cost for biofuel production
Investment cost
Biodiesel (FAME) from
waste
Biodiesel (FAME) from
oil seed
Biodiesel (HDRD)6
0,68 M€4
Investment cost
[€/kg biomass]
0,34
Investment cost
[€/kJ biofuel]
9,9
Biomass capacity
6,2 M€5
0,41
30
>15.000 ton/year
Biomethane
4,8 M€7
0,48
16-64
10.000 ton/year
Bioethanol
933 M€8
1,3
238
2.000 ton/day
16,5 M€10
0,17
<2.000 ton/year
Biohydrogen9
Biosyngas
100.000 ton/year
Production cost of bioethanol from lignocellulosic biomass have been estimated by Hamelinck et al.
to between 0,80 and 1,05 €/L in 2003. Further, future costs were projected to be around 0,51 €/L
after 5 years, 0,30 €/L after 10-15 years, and reach 0,20 €/L after more than 20 years. This is based
on that a number of technological advances will be achieved (Hamelinck, Hooijdonk, & Faaij, 2005).
NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory) have reported product value11 for cellulosic ethanol
to be from 0,69 €/L to 0,92 €/L, depending on the pretreatment technology used (Kazi, et al., 2010).
Data presented recently in Denmark shows a current production cost of ethanol as 0,71 €/L 12
(Bredsdorff, 2010). This shows that the technology is developing slower than previously suggested
and further advances still need to be achieved.
4
(Mannvit. Project (7.009.269))
(Mannvit. Project (7.009.269))
6
No numbers found
7
(Svæðisáætlun höfuðborgarsvæðið, c) (Mannvit. Project (2.140.023))
8
(Hamelinck, Hooijdonk, & Faaij, 2005)
9
No numbers found
10
(Guðmundsson M. )
11
defined as value of the product needed for a net present value of zero with a 10% internal rate of return
12
nd
Exchange rate EUR/DKK=0,1340 (22 September 2010)
5
58
Valuable by-products are obtained from biofuel production. By-products from oil plants include
protein-rich meal that can be used in the animal feed industry or as organic fertilizer. Other byproducts are residues including phospholipids (lecithins), proteins and carbohydrates. By-products
available from production of FAME is crude glycerol (approximately 100 g glycerol/kg of FA
glycerides), which can be refined technical or pharmaceutical grade, used as energy source or as raw
material for biomethane production. Propane is obtained as a by-product from HDRD production
(approximately 43 g propane/kg of FA glycerides). Main by-products from lignocellulosic biomass are
lignin which can be used as energy source and residues from fermentation which may be used as
feedstock for biomethane production. Hydrogen is often produced as a by-product in bacterial
fermentation. Sludge from biomethane production can be used as organic fertilizer or soil enhancer.
59
6 References
Andersen, J. P. (2010, March 4). FÍF, personal communication, phone call .
Biogasportalen. (2010). Retrieved from http://biogasportalen.se/
Borkowska, S. (2009). Biodiesel potential in Iceland.
Carlsson, M., & Uldal, M. (2009). SGC 200 - Substrathandbok för biogasproduktion. Svenskt
Gastekniskt Center.
Elkem. (n.d.). Retrieved April 26, 2010, from Elkem: http://elkem.is/samfelagid/umhverfid/
Fish processing, a. (n.d.). Retrieved May 21, 2010, from Hagstofa Íslands:
http://www.statice.is/?PageID=1215&src=/temp_en/Dialog/varval.asp?ma=SJA09120%26ti=Disposa
l+of+catches+in+homeport+of+vessel+or+other+ports%2C+by+species+and+region+20032009%26path=../Database/sjavarutvegur/radsVerkun/%26lang=1%26units=Tonnes/1,000%20ISK
Fish
processing,
b.
(n.d.).
Retrieved
from
Hagstofa
Íslands:
http://www.statice.is/?PageID=1215&src=/temp_en/Dialog/varval.asp?ma=SJA09121%26ti=Disposa
l+of+catch+in+home+port+of+vessel+or+other+ports%2C+by+species+and+places+20032009%26path=../Database/sjavarutvegur/radsVerkun/%26lang=1%26units=Tonnes/1,000%20ISK
Flatarmál sveitarfélaga. (n.d.). Retrieved May 7, 2010, from Upplýsingaveita Sambands íslenskra
sveitarfélaga:
http://upplysingaveita.samband.is/dialog/varval.asp?ma=100FLATA&path=../database/Ymislegt/&la
ng=3&ti=Flatarm%E1l+sveitarf%E9laga+++
Gunnarsson, G. S. (2010, March 2). Mannvit, personal communication, email .
Halldórsson, Á. (2010, March 2). Lýsi, personal communication, email.
Icelandic fisheries management. (n.d.).
http://en.fiskistofa.is/cntPage.php?pID=4
Retrieved
May
21,
2010,
from
Fiskistofa:
ICI. (2010). Gasification of potential raw materials and fuel production from syngas. Innovation
Center Iceland.
Iðntæknistofnun. (2006). Framleiðsla lífsísils úr úrgangsfitu.
Landfræðilegar upplýsingar. (n.d.). Retrieved Februar 2010, from Hagstofa Íslands:
http://www.hagstofa.is/?PageID=618&src=/temp/Dialog/varval.asp?ma=UMH01001%26ti=%DDmsa
r+landfr%E6%F0ilegar+uppl%FDsingar++++%26path=../Database/land/landfr/%26lang=3%26units=F
erk%EDl%F3metri/k%EDl%F3metri/metri
Landmælingar Íslands. (n.d.). Retrieved May
http://lmi.is/pages/kort/okeypis-kort/okeypis-kort/
60
7,
2010,
from
Landmælingar
Íslands:
Landsáætlun um meðhöndlun úrgangs 2004-2016. (n.d.). Retrieved February 2010, from
Umhverfisstofnun: http://www.ust.is/media/skyrslur2004/Landsaaetlun2004-2016.pdf
Mannfjöldaspá. (2008, December 17). Retrieved February 18, 2010, from Hagstofa Íslands:
http://www.hagstofa.is/?PageID=631&src=/temp/Dialog/varval.asp?ma=MAN09002%26ti=Sp%E1+u
m+mannfj%F6lda+eftir+helstu+%FE%E1ttum+2008%2D2050+%26path=../Database/mannfjoldi/Man
nfjoldaspa/%26lang=3%26units=Fj%F6ldi
Mannfjöldi sveitarfélaga. (2010, March 3). Retrieved May 7, 2010, from Hagstofa Íslands:
http://www.hagstofa.is/?PageID=624&src=/temp/Dialog/varval.asp?ma=MAN02005%26ti=Mannfj%
F6ldi+eftir+kyni%2C+aldri+og+sveitarf%E9l%F6gum+1998%2D2010+%2D+Sveitarf%E9lagaskipan+1%
2E+jan%FAar+2010+%26path=../Database/mannfjoldi/sveitarfelog/%26lang=3%26units=F
Mannvit. (2010). RES608: Biofuels & Bioenergy.
Mannvit. Project (2.100.020).
Melturannsóknir. (1995, July 5). Retrieved from Matis: http://www.matis.is/media/utgafa//Rit44.pdf
Metan. (n.d.). Retrieved September 14, 2010, from
eldsneyti/Framleidsla-metans/Framleidsla-SORPU-/Hreinsun/
Metan:
http://metan.is/Metan-
R.P.M. Kamsma, C. (2003). Landfill gas formation in Iceland.
Regions
of
Iceland.
(n.d.).
Retrieved
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_Iceland
April
20,
2010,
Statistics
Iceland.
(2010).
Retrieved
02
18,
http://www.hagstofa.is/Hagtolur/Mannfjoldi/Framreikningur-mannfjoldans
from
Wikipedia:
2010,
Svæðisáætlun Austurland, a. (n.d.). Retrieved from Samband íslenskra
http://www.samband.is/media/urgangsmal/Svaedisaaaetlun_Austurland_2006.pdf
from
sveitarfélaga:
Svæðisáætlun Austurland, b. (n.d.). Retrieved from Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga:
http://www.samband.is/media/urgangsmal/Svaedisaaaetlun_Austurland_Endurskodun2008.pdf
Svæðisáætlun Eyjafjörður. (n.d.). Retrieved from Samband íslenskra
http://www.samband.is/media/urgangsmal/Svaedisaaaetlun_Eyjafjordur_2005.pdf
sveitarfélaga:
Svæðisáætlun höfuðborgarsvæðið, a. (n.d.). Retrieved from Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga:
http://www.samband.is/media/urgangsmal/Svaedisaaetlun_hofudborgarsv_lifr_urg_2007.pdf
Svæðisáætlun höfuðborgarsvæðið, b. (n.d.). Retrieved from Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga:
http://www.samband.is/media/urgangsmal/Svaedisaaetlun_hofudborgarsv_2005.pdf
61
Svæðisáætlun höfuðborgarsvæðið, c. (n.d.). Retrieved from Samband íslenskra sveitarfélaga:
http://www.samband.is/media/urgangsmal/Endurskodud_svaedisaaetlun_hofudborgarsvaedi_2009
_2020.pdf
Svæðisáætlun
Norðurá.
(n.d.).
Retrieved from
Samband
íslenskra
sveitarfélaga:
http://www.samband.is/media/urgangsmal/Svaedisaaaetlun_Nordurlandvestra_2007.pdf
VGK Hönnun. Project (2632).
Wikipedia. (2010a). Retrieved from Energy density: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
Brink, S. H. and J. Gudmundsson (2010). Greining möglegra landsvæða fyrir samþættingu
landgræðslu og ræktun orkuplantna. Fræðaþing Landbúnaðarins. Reykjavík.
Bændasamtök-Íslands. (1998). "Hagtölur landbúnaðarins 1998." Retrieved 25.5.10, 2010, from
http://www.landbunadur.is/landbunadur/wgbi.nsf/key2/statistics1998
Bændasamtök-Íslands (2008). Handbók bænda.
Bændasamtök-Íslands (2010). Hagtölur landbúaðarins, Bændasamtök Íslands.
Gudmundsson, J., F. Gísladóttir, E. B. Jónasdóttir and H. Óskarsson (in prep 2009). Description of
methods and data sources used in the Icelandic Geographical Land Use Database and Identification
of land use categories used.
Helgadóttir, Á. and J. Hermannsson (2003). Verðmæti ræktunarlands. Ráðunautafundur, Reykljavík.
Hermannsson, J. and J. Guðmundsson (2002). Gulrófur í tilraunum 2001. Ráðunautafundur,
Reykjavík.
Jóhannesson, B. (1988). Íslenskur jarðvegur. Reykjavík, Rannsóknastofnun landbúnaðarins.
Snæbjörnsson, A., D. Hjartardóttir, E. Blöndal, J. G. Pétursson, Ó. Eggertsson and ó. Halldórsson
(2010). Skýrsla nefndar um landnotkun. Athugun á notkun og varðveislu ræktanlegs lands. Reykjavík,
Sjávarútvegs- og landbúnaðarráðuneytið: 72.
Sveinsson, T. (2009). Uppskera hamps (Cannabis sativa) og hampyrki. Fræðaþing landbúnaðarins,
Reykjavík.
Sveinsson, T. and J. Hermannsson (2010). Ræktun orkujurta á bújörðum- forsendur og
framtíðarhorfur. Fræðaþing landbúnaðarins.
The_Farmers_Association_of_Iceland (2009). Iceland Agricultural Statistics: 30.
Traustason, B. and F. Ó. Gísladóttir (2009). Hlutur skógræktar í ræktunarlandi. Fræðaþing
Landbúnaðarins, Reykjavík.
Umhverfisstofnun (2010). Emissions of greenhouse gases in Iceland from 1990 to 2008. National
Inventory Report 2010; Submitted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change and the Kyoto Protocol: Birna S. Hallsdóttir, Kristín Harðardóttir, Jón Guðmundsson, Arnór
Snorrason and Jóhann þórsson, UST: 173.
62
Appendix
Appendix A – Map showing the municipalities in Iceland
Appendix B – Data for different regions in Iceland
Appendix C – Fish species defined for estimation of fish waste
Appendix D – Energy value and energy density for biofuels
63
Appendix A
Overview over the different municipalities in Iceland (Landmælingar Íslands)
64
Appendix B
st
Number of inhabitants (1 Jan 2010) and area for each region
Region
Capital area
South peninsula
South
West
East
Northeast
Eyjafjörður
Northwest
Westfjords
Total
Inhabitants
200,907
21,359
23,879
15,370
12,459
4,930
23,970
7,490
7,266
317,630
Area km2
1,043
818
24,688
9,522
21,986
18,439
4,255
13,105
8,842
102,698
st
Number of inhabitants (1 Jan 2010) and area for Capital area
Capital area
Reykjavík
Kópavogur
Seltjarnarnes
Garðabær
Hafnarfjörður
Sveitarfélagið Álftanes
Mosfellsbær
Kjósarhreppur
Total
Inhabitants Area km2
118326
273
30357
80
4395
2
10643
71
25913
143
2523
5
8553
185
197
284
200907
1043
st
Number of inhabitants (1 Jan 2010) and area for South peninsula
South peninsula
Reykjanesbær
Grindavíkurbær
Sandgerði
Sveitarfélagið Garður
Sveitarfélagið Vogar
Total
14091
145
2837
425
1710
62
1515
21
1206
165
21359
818
65
st
Number of inhabitants (1 Jan 2010) and area for South region
South
Sveitarfélagið Árborg
7811
158
Mýrdalshreppur
510
755
Skaftárhreppur
445
6946
Ásahreppur
190
2942
Rangárþing eystra
1745
1841
Rangárþing ytra
1543
3188
Hrunamannahreppur
788
1375
Hveragerði
2291
9
Sveitarfélagið Ölfus
1952
737
Grímsnes- og Grafningshreppur
415
900
Skeiða- og Gnúpverjahreppur
517
2231
Bláskógabyggð
935
3300
Flóahreppur
602
289
Vestmannaeyjar
4135
17
Total
23879
24688
st
Number of inhabitants (1 Jan 2010) and area for West region
West
Akranes
Skorradalshreppur
Hvalfjarðarsveit
Borgarbyggð
Grundarfjarðarbær
Helgafellssveit
Stykkishólmur
Eyja- og Miklaholtshreppur
Snæfellsbær
Dalabyggð
Total
66
6549
9
61
216
624
482
3542
4926
904
148
63
243
1092
10
139
383
1702
684
694
2421
15370
9522
st
Number of inhabitants (1 Jan 2010) and area for East region
East
Seyðisfjörður
Fjarðabyggð
Vopnafjarðarhreppur
Fljótsdalshreppur
Borgarfjarðarhreppur
Breiðdalshreppur
Djúpavogshreppur
Fljótsdalshérað
Sveitarfélagið Hornafjörður
Total
706
213
4641
1164
683
1903
89
1516
134
441
210
452
443
1133
3467
8884
2086
6280
12459
21986
st
Number of inhabitants (1 Jan 2010) and area for Northeast
Northeast
Norðurþing
Skútustaðahreppur
Tjörneshreppur
Þingeyjarsveit
Svalbarðshreppur
Langanesbyggð
Total
2926
3729
374
6036
56
199
942
5988
111
1155
521
1332
4930
18439
st
Number of inhabitants (1 Jan 2010) and area for Eyjafjörður
Eyjafjörður
Akureyri
Fjallabyggð
Dalvíkurbyggð
Arnarneshreppur
Eyjafjarðarsveit
Hörgárbyggð
Svalbarðastrandahreppur
Grýtubakkahreppur
Total
17573
138
2066
364
1949
598
178
88
1025
1775
429
805
413
55
337
432
23970
4255
67
st
Number of inhabitants (1 Jan 2010) and area for Northwest region
Northwest
Bæjarhreppur
Sveitarfélagið Skagafjörður
Húnaþing vestra
Blönduóssbær
Sveitarfélagið Skagaströnd
Skagabyggð
Húnavatnshreppur
Akrahreppur
Total
96
513
4131
4180
1116
2506
882
183
519
53
106
489
431
3817
209
1364
7490
13105
st
Number of inhabitants (1 Jan 2010) and area for Westfjords
Westfjords
Bolungarvík
Ísafjarðarbær
Reykhólahreppur
Tálknafjarðarhreppur
Vesturbyggð
Súðavíkurhreppur
Árneshreppur
Kaldrananeshreppur
Strandabyggð
Total
68
970
109
3899
2379
291
1090
299
176
935
1339
202
749
50
707
112
387
508
1906
7266
8842
Appendix C
Fish species defined for estimation of fish waste
Included fish species
Cod
Haddock
Saithe
Redfish
Oceanic redfish
Catfish
Spotted catfish
Ling
Blue ling
Tusk
Grenadier
Starry ray
Monk
Skate
Whiting
Silver smelt
Spiny dogfish
Other demersal
Halibut
Greenland halibut
Plaice
Lemon sole
Witch
Megrim
Dab
American plaice
Other flatfish
Excluded fish species
Greenland shark
Herring
Norwegian spring-spawning herring
Capelin
Capelin roe
Blue whiting
Other pelagics
Lobster
Shrimp
Scallop
Iceland cyprine
Other shellfish
Miscellaneous catch
69
Appendix D
Energy value and energy density for biofuels (Mannvit. Project (1.010.208))
Energy value (LHV) [MJ/kg]
Energy density (LHV) [MJ/dm3]
Bioethanol
26,9
21,4
Biohydrogen
121,5
2,913
Biomethane
50,0
10,514
Biodiesel (FAME)
38,0
33,6
Biodiesel (HDRD)
42,8
36,3
Gasoline
43,4
31,2
Biomethanol
19,9
15,8
13
14
700 bar
300 bar
70

Biofuel production in Iceland

Transcription

Similar documents

GUIDING LIGht IN marketING

Cool, Secure and Full of Icelandic Green Energy

biomass feedstock engineering opportunities and innovations

Take Advantage of Corporate Member Discount

cub couch - Keystone RV

Moody Construction Brochure - Moody Construction Services, Inc.

Perseo - The Business Booster by KIC InnoEnergy

Presentation KlasCement EU Commissie.pptx

Press - Annabelle von Girsewald

www.ryvarden.no