Power-to-Liquid (PtL) kerosene is considered by many experts as the only viable option to achieve a large scale decarbonization of the aviation sector in the near-medium term. In the PtL process carbon dioxide of renewable origin or from ambient air and green hydrogen are combined to produce a liquid fuel that can replace fossil kerosene. For this purpose the Fischer-Tropsch pathway and the methanol pathway are available. On the other hand, more production pathways are available when using a biomass feedstock. The aim of this work is to compare the power and biogenic routes for the production of sustainable kerosene in terms of performance and requirements. Indeed, there is a lack of studies in the literature that directly compare the two options, i.e. biofuels and e-fuels, on a common basis. Accordingly, simulation models are built in this work for both routes to calculate the yield of kerosene and co-products, the hydrogen demand, the flows of carbon dioxide, the electricity and thermal energy demands. The simulation outputs are compared against the results of the relevant studies in the literature. The expectation from this comparative study is to highlight the criticalities of each route and, possibly, any opportunity to overcome them by exploring any synergy between the different routes.
Power-to-liquid versus biomass-derived kerosene: a comparative study
Giovanni Manente
;Antonio Ficarella;Ahtasham Rahim
2023-01-01
Abstract
Power-to-Liquid (PtL) kerosene is considered by many experts as the only viable option to achieve a large scale decarbonization of the aviation sector in the near-medium term. In the PtL process carbon dioxide of renewable origin or from ambient air and green hydrogen are combined to produce a liquid fuel that can replace fossil kerosene. For this purpose the Fischer-Tropsch pathway and the methanol pathway are available. On the other hand, more production pathways are available when using a biomass feedstock. The aim of this work is to compare the power and biogenic routes for the production of sustainable kerosene in terms of performance and requirements. Indeed, there is a lack of studies in the literature that directly compare the two options, i.e. biofuels and e-fuels, on a common basis. Accordingly, simulation models are built in this work for both routes to calculate the yield of kerosene and co-products, the hydrogen demand, the flows of carbon dioxide, the electricity and thermal energy demands. The simulation outputs are compared against the results of the relevant studies in the literature. The expectation from this comparative study is to highlight the criticalities of each route and, possibly, any opportunity to overcome them by exploring any synergy between the different routes.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
