skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Bio-Carbon Accounting for Bio-Oil Co-Processing: 14C and 13C/ 12C

Abstract

This is a powerpoint presentation on bio-carbon accounting for bio-oil co-processing. Because of the overlapping range in the stable C isotope compositions of fossil oils and biooils from C3-type feedstocks, it is widely thought that stable isotopes are not useful to track renewable carbon during co-production. In contrast, our study demonstrates the utility of stable isotopes to: • capture a record of renewable carbon allocation between FCC products of co-processing • record changes in carbon apportionments due to changes in reactor or feed temperature Stable isotope trends as a function of percent bio-oil in the feed are more pronounced when the δ 13C of the bio-oil endmember differs greatly from the VGO (i.e., it has a C4 biomass source–corn stover, switch grass, Miscanthus, sugarcane– versus a C3 biomass source– pine, wheat, rice, potato), but trends on the latter case are significant for endmember differences of just a few permil. The correlation between measured 14C and δ 13C may be useful as an alternative to carbon accounting, but the relationship must first be established for different bio-oil sources.

Authors:
 [1];  [1];  [1]
  1. Los Alamos National Lab. (LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States)
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Los Alamos National Lab. (LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)
OSTI Identifier:
1258359
Report Number(s):
LA-UR-16-24366
DOE Contract Number:
AC52-06NA25396
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
09 BIOMASS FUELS; Energy Sciences

Citation Formats

Mora, Claudia I., Li, Zhenghua, and Vance, Zachary. Bio-Carbon Accounting for Bio-Oil Co-Processing: 14C and 13C/12C. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.2172/1258359.
Mora, Claudia I., Li, Zhenghua, & Vance, Zachary. Bio-Carbon Accounting for Bio-Oil Co-Processing: 14C and 13C/12C. United States. doi:10.2172/1258359.
Mora, Claudia I., Li, Zhenghua, and Vance, Zachary. 2016. "Bio-Carbon Accounting for Bio-Oil Co-Processing: 14C and 13C/12C". United States. doi:10.2172/1258359. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1258359.
@article{osti_1258359,
title = {Bio-Carbon Accounting for Bio-Oil Co-Processing: 14C and 13C/12C},
author = {Mora, Claudia I. and Li, Zhenghua and Vance, Zachary},
abstractNote = {This is a powerpoint presentation on bio-carbon accounting for bio-oil co-processing. Because of the overlapping range in the stable C isotope compositions of fossil oils and biooils from C3-type feedstocks, it is widely thought that stable isotopes are not useful to track renewable carbon during co-production. In contrast, our study demonstrates the utility of stable isotopes to: • capture a record of renewable carbon allocation between FCC products of co-processing • record changes in carbon apportionments due to changes in reactor or feed temperature Stable isotope trends as a function of percent bio-oil in the feed are more pronounced when the δ13C of the bio-oil endmember differs greatly from the VGO (i.e., it has a C4 biomass source–corn stover, switch grass, Miscanthus, sugarcane– versus a C3 biomass source– pine, wheat, rice, potato), but trends on the latter case are significant for endmember differences of just a few permil. The correlation between measured 14C and δ13C may be useful as an alternative to carbon accounting, but the relationship must first be established for different bio-oil sources.},
doi = {10.2172/1258359},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}

Technical Report:

Save / Share:
  • The Cap-and-Trade and Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) programs being administered by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) include Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS) as a potential means to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, there is currently no universal standard approach that quantifies GHG emissions reductions for CCS and that is suitable for the quantitative needs of the Cap-and-Trade and LCFS programs. CCS involves emissions related to the capture (e.g., arising from increased energy needed to separate carbon dioxide (CO 2) from a flue gas and compress it for transport), transport (e.g., by pipeline), and storage of COmore » 2 (e.g., due to leakage to the atmosphere from geologic CO 2 storage sites). In this project, we reviewed and compared monitoring, verification, and accounting (MVA) protocols for CCS from around the world by focusing on protocols specific to the geologic storage part of CCS. In addition to presenting the review of these protocols, we highlight in this report those storage-related MVA protocols that we believe are particularly appropriate for CCS in California. We find that none of the existing protocols is completely appropriate for California, but various elements of all of them could be adopted and/or augmented to develop a rigorous, defensible, and practical surface leakage MVA protocol for California. The key features of a suitable surface leakage MVA plan for California are that it: (1) informs and validates the leakage risk assessment, (2) specifies use of the most effective monitoring strategies while still being flexible enough to accommodate special or site-specific conditions, (3) quantifies stored CO 2, and (4) offers defensible estimates of uncertainty in monitored properties. California’s surface leakage MVA protocol needs to be applicable to the main CO 2 storage opportunities (in California and in other states with entities participating in California’s Cap-and-Trade or LCFS programs), specifically CO 2-enhanced oil recovery (CO 2-EOR), CO 2 injection into depleted gas reservoirs (with or without CO 2-enhanced gas recovery (CO 2-EGR)), as well as deep saline storage. Regarding the elements of an effective surface leakage MVA protocol, our recommendations for California are that: (1) both CO 2 and methane (CH 4) surface leakage should be monitored, especially for enhanced recovery scenarios, (2) emissions from all sources not directly related to injection and geologic storage (e.g., from capture, or pipeline transport) should be monitored and reported under a plan separate from the surface leakage MVA plan that is included as another component of the quantification methodology (QM), (3) the primary objective of the surface leakage MVA plan should be to quantify surface leakage of CO 2 and CH 4 and its uncertainty, with consideration of best-practices and state-of-the-art approaches to monitoring including attribution assessment, (4) effort should be made to monitor CO 2 storage and migration in the subsurface to anticipate future surface leakage monitoring needs, (5) detailed descriptions of specific monitoring technologies and approaches should be provided in the MVA plan, (6) the main purpose of the CO 2 injection project (CO 2-EOR, CO 2-EGR, or pure geologic carbon sequestration (GCS)) needs to be stated up front, (7) approaches to dealing with missing data and quantifying uncertainty need to be described, and (8) post-injection monitoring should go on for a period consistent with or longer than that prescribed by the U.S. EPA.« less
  • A complete accounting is made of major fuel use (including electricity) in the food processing industry to the State, four-digit SIC (Standard Industrial Classification) level. A methodology is developed to estimate fuel consumption not reported by Census, using data from the 1975 Annual Survey of Manufacturers and the 1972 Census of Manufactures.