Improving bio aviation fuel yield from biogenic carbon sources through electrolysis assisted chemical looping gasification.

• An experimentally validated CLG model has been used to evaluate incorporation of electrolysis in BtL process. • Syngas conditioning with electrolyzers results in higher biofuel yield. • Due to WGS reaction in MCEC, less biogenic carbon ends up in the biofuel compared to PEM. • Tar reforming improves the biogenic carbon efficiency. • The study predicts better economic performance for future electricity price scenarios. The second-generation bio aviation fuel production via Chemical Looping Gasification (CLG) of biomass combined with downstream Fischer-Tropsch synthesis is a possible way to decarbonize the aviation sector. Although CLG has a higher syngas yield and conversion efficiency compared to the conventional gasification processes, the fraction of biogenic carbon which is converted to biofuel is still low (around 28%). To increase carbon utilization and biofuel yield, incorporation of two types of electrolyzers, Polymer Electrolyte Membrane (PEM) and Molten Carbonate Electrolysis Cell (MCEC), for syngas conditioning has been investigated. Full chain process models have been developed using an experimentally validated CLG model in Aspen Plus for Iron sand as an oxygen carrier. Techno-economic parameters were calculated and compared for different cases. The results show that syngas conditioning with sustainable hydrogen from PEM and MCEC electrolyzers results in up to 11.5% higher conversion efficiency and up to 8.1 % higher biogenic carbon efficiencies in comparison to the syngas conditioning with water gas shift reactor. The study shows that the lowest carbon capture rates are found in the configurations with the highest biogenic carbon efficiency which means up to 14% more carbon ends up in FT crude compared to the case with conventional WGS conditioning. Techno-economic analysis indicates that syngas conditioning using PEM and MCEC electrolyzers would result in an increase of the annual profit by a factor of 1.4 and 1.7, respectively, when compared to using only WGS reactors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]