Engineering the BBE : drop-in or drop-out ?
ICABR Ravello Italy | 20 june 2013
Luuk van der Wielen and Jan van Breugel
Innovation
BioBased
Max the BBE opportunities ?
A. drop-in (fuels, syngas, H2, biogas, bioethene, biosuccinate, bioPET, …)
blend with existing economy (existing industry, infrastructure, capital,
products, buyers, … so ‘hail shale gas’ ?), or
B. substitute (PLA, PEF, biojet fuel…) replace existing products by
biorenewables (similar functionalities, reduced emission - cost, …), or
C. drop-out: (bioconcrete, biosolar, …) “New Bioeconomy” (novel productsindustries, away from vested interests, full benefit of sustainable*
development, rural development-jobs-income, distributed manufacturing,
…
but Bio-Bubble – remember “New Economy-2001” ?)
•
Can A, B, C can all be realities ?
•
What does it require ?
* climate, economic, social
mass yield matters: products are sold per tonne
global production (MT/year)
fuels
2000 (jet 300)
cement 3000 (600 MT CO2)
food
4000 (50% waste)
CO2
glass
120
plastics 280 (big 5: 200)
steel
120 (200 MT CO2)
drop-outs ?
biomass
CH2O0.5
natural gas
C
crude
oil
O
H2O
substitutes
energy density
increases
sugars, lactic
ethanol
drop-ins
fuels (energy dense) &
polymers (PE,PP, PS, PVC)
mass composition biobased and fossil
feedstocks and products
H
BBE: time and investment scale estimates
investment (mio euro’s)
10000
agro & logistic systems
1000
commercial
100
demo
pilot
10
new product, new application
1
existing product, new application
0.1
0
5
10
15
20
25
years
Brazilian ethanol learning curve:
4x cost reduction in 30 yrs/20 x volume increase
vd Wall Bake et al. Biomass & Bioenergy 33, 644-658, 2009
partners & affiliates
BE-Basic Foundation supports with 45 M€ (60 M$) per year, BBE
innovation through industrial and environmental biotechnology worldwide
biodiversity
geophysics
DḀB
soil/water/air quality & nutrient/carbon recycles
C
nutrients
μ LS
CO2
land (use)
fertiliser
energy
agro/forestry
harvest
logistics &
biorefining
conversion &
purification
A fuels
water
chemicals
B
labour
others
socio-economics,sustainability,training,comm
materials
food/feed
Innovation strategy
B-Basic &
Ecogenomics
2004-2009
B-Basic
2004-2010
BE-Basic
2010-2015
spin- in via partners
fuzzy
front end
new processes
and products
wild ideas
new companies
lab
R&D
high risk
demo
plant
pilot
plant
full
plant
unbound
unbound
new monitoring
methods
new approaches
(e.g. Smart Soil
for CO2 capture)
failure is
an option
early spin-outs
DISCOVER
DEVELOP
DEMO
DEPLOY
Focus: (1) start-ups , (2) training bio-engineers, (3) pilot facilities
Bioprocess Pilot Facility at Delft Biotech Campus N
operational since mid 2012, while being renovated (www.bpf.eu)
80 M€ public-private investment
300+ M€ investments in Delft Biotech Campus (2009-’15)
Delft North – DSM site
Delft South – Technopolis Delft
8
Successful SME’s in BE-Basic (Q1 2013)
•
TUD-spin-out discovered FDCA-technology for sustainable PETreplacement (’09), developed in BE-Basic (’10-’11) for further
commercialisation in Purac (mar’13)
B
•
WUR-starter pioneer in chemicals from
waste streams, closes series A investment
with Horizon3 and DGF* (5 apr 2013)
•
DḀB
TUD starter (oct’12) with BPF, TUD, VC
develops advanced biorenewables processes
… and more to come !
BT-TUD/BE-Basic’s network with top
players in EU, Brazil, ASEAN and USA
BE-Basic NL/EU
EBI / ONRL
via GSB 5 M€
CLIMATE KIC
CLIB2012
VAST 2 M€
OPBC 5 M€
BE-Basic ASEAN
BE-Basic/BIOEN 8 M$
BE-Basic Brazil
contents
1. Why ? global & regional drivers
2. How ? BBE technology portfolio
3. What ? feedstocks, products, yields
4. How – again ?
5. Why – again ?
Global drivers for a BBE ?
• more people with more wealth
• less nett GHG emission (global warming)
and/or climate adaptation
• politics (security of oil/gas supply)
• innovation, rural income and economic development
• increasing (and decreasing) prices of resources
• in time*, limited fossil reserves
• add sustainability to food chain
• add value to food chain and prevent hunger
Pick your personal selection !
Scales of biorenewables (illustration)
Demand : stabilisation CO2 emissions of transport
transport fuels = 2 billion ton (GT)/jr worldwide,
annual growth 1.5% or 30 MT/yr (~120 MT/yr biomass)
`
investments in 2nd generation production:
→ 200 plants or $ 50 billion every year
→ every 3 years an extra Port of Rotterdam (360 MT/jr)
→ (or every 5-6 years new Port of Shanghai)
Potential: residuals & energy crops
•
maximum estimate
•
global total demand
•
average
•
double
•
current
50 100
300
450
700
EJ/jr
NRW and NL are #1 and # 2 in Europe
#1
#2
CO2/ha/yr
… in GHG emissions !
(so we have carbon to be recycled)
two sides of the coin in NW EU
CO2/ha/yr
GDP € 512 bn (#20 in 2010)
chemicals €13bn / 3% of GDP
€47bn sales / 20% export
energy
€30bn sales
imports
150 MT oil/ gas / 30% EU
emissions 224 MT CO2e/yr
GDP € 2500 (#5)
543 bn (#19)
chemicals €46bn / 8% of NRW GDP
€145bn sales / 20% export
energy
€33bn of GDP
chemical €109bn exports / €87bn imports (12%)
emissions 827 MT CO2e/yr
jobs/ha (red-high)
Rhine corridor
S&T for higher added value portfolio
added € /ton biomass (eq)*
ton biomass*
chemicals
materials
feed/food
cellulosics
X
fuels
biorefinery (C,E)
thermal conversion (E)
100 - 250
chem/cat conversion (C,E)
100 - 250
indus/env. biotech (C,E,A)
100 - 250
50 -100
heat
50 -100
fertiliser
services
byprocess eng. (C,E)
10X larger
volume
lignin
nutrients
agro-forestry (A&F)
250 - 1000
power
protein
science & techn. fields
feed/food (A, E)
chem’s/materials (C, E)
fuel efficiency (E,M)
power & heat (E)
5 - 20
??
*eq: domestic, imports, derivatives (estim, McK)
socio-econ./ecologics** (all)
+
now € 130-180 mio/yr
(50 % gov, 25 % private)
scenarios and value of 1 mio tonne of biomass
1
cascading & biorefining /
conversion
protein 10%
M€ 100
cellulosics
M€ 175 (biofuels) … M€ 1100 (chemicals/materials)
food and feed
70%
lignin 20%
M€ 7 electricity & heat
economic value low, critical for sustainability
nutrients ~ 1%
2
15 PJ =
150 mio kWh
M€ 35 cofire electricity & heat ~ 0.5% NL energy consumption)
50 000 trucks
compare NL: 150 M tonnes oil / gas per year &
40 M tonnes food imports (50% waste)
materials/chemicals (1500 € /ton), food (1000 €/ton), fuel (500 €/ton), energy € 0,23 / kWh
Technology roadmap and (direct) economic impact (’08)
target € 20 bn/yr
(incl indirect: 4-5% GDP)
Internat HighTech
Chem’s, fuels & € 5-7 bn/yr
materials
200
2030
added value
€/ton
€ 2-3 bn/yr
€ 1-2 bn/yr
2010
0
0
- CO2e
Mton/yr
€ 2-3 bn/yr 2020
100
56 (25 %)
30
National LowTech
EU & electricity focus
todays technology
8 (4 %)
2030
domestic
production
50
biomass (eq)
Mton/yr
0
100
NL: chemistry 2010: € 13 bn GDP (3%) / € 47 bn sales / 20% export ; energy € 30 bn sales
contents
1. Why ? global & regional drivers
2. How ? BBE technology portfolio
A drop-in, B drop-out, C drop in & out
3. What ? feedstocks, products, yields
4. How – again ?
5. Why – again ?
BBE : full economic bio-mass-utilisation
“CO2”
1e generation
biofuels
2e generation
bioplastics
agro-emissions
(run-offs, N2O)
biobricks
nutrients
A
Synthetic Biology in the real world?
glucose
xylose
arabinose
acetate
glycerol
furanics
commercial product
based patent portfolio
sustainable ethanol can green EU plastics industry fast
Large scale ethanol-toethylene conversion is
feasible in R’dam.
tomorrow.
Rotterdam
ARG Connections
tons
Connected Ethylene Supply
11m
Connected Ethylene Derivatives
18m
Terneuzen
Oberhausen
Antwerpen
Marl
Geleen
Feluy
Tessenderlo
Jemeppe
Köln
Frankfurt
ARG Pipeline
Connected pipelines
Ludwigshafen
bio-ethylene products
“Drop-in Greenification” of Chemical Industry
B substitute
A drop-in
BIOMASS
Biorefinery
Gasification
protein / sugar / lignocellulose
Fermentation and other processes
Aerobic
Fermentation
An-aerobic
Funct. Lactic
molecules acid
succinic
acid
acetic other
-acid
Iso-butanol
ethanol
Iso-butylene
Ethylene
Paraxylene
Biopower
plastics, Preservatives synthet.
thickeners , plastics polymers
glue
From: Ton Runneboom Bio Based Chemicals March
22 2011, Rotterdam
PETbottles
BioPVC
methane SNG
glycerol
Reforming
Propylene
Plastics,
surfactants,
detergents
=80% chemical industry
BioHydro
carbons
Plastics,
carpet
fertilizer
methanol
B
FDCA as (70%) substitute in “BioPEF”
• Top-12 value-added chemicals from biomass
• Platform chemical - market size 4-12 bn $/yr
• Replace terephthalate in 15 mio ton polymers
• Concept in B-Basic (TUD/TNO - ’09) – FDCA direct
production from lignocellulosic HMF
• indust biocat (BIRD Eng /TUD-’09) – bioprocess
(BIRD –’10) – invest round - piloting (BE-Basic-’11)
• 2013 - acquisition of BIRD Eng / FDCA by Purac
biomass
HM-furOH
kg-scale process
Cost price due to feedstock, waste and separation costs
concentration from reactor [kg/m3]
0,1
1
100
1000
… and most of costs is
(water) separation
10000
1000
cost price ($/lb)
10
biopharma
active ingredients
100
100
bio-bulk
10
1000
10
petrochemicals
1
1
0,1
0,1
Cooney, ‘84
0,01
0,001
0,01
0,1
10
production [kT/yr]
1000
100000
waste
[kg/kg]
C
trends in biobased production
concentration from reactor [kg/m3]
0,01
1
10
100
1000
10000
cost price ($/lb)
1000
biopharma
active ingredients
100
bio-bulk
10
MAb, HSA
1
petrochemicals
antibiotics,
nutraceuticals
bioplastics
0,1
(PLA, PHA, PDO, ...)
Cooney, ‘84
0,01
0,001
0,1
10
production [kT/yr]
Bioconstruction materials
(self-healing, cement,
bioconcrete,biogrout,
bioasphalt,, …)
(2nd gen) biofuels
1000
100000
Life in a Delta is …
River erosion
Leaking earth dams
Settlement
Dike breach
C
Biogrout & bioconcrete: from soft soil to rock solid
In-situ concrete by carbonate fixation
100 micrometer (10-4 m)
Van Paassen Animations ©
C. drop-out
Soft soils engineering
•
Mechanical properties –
civil engineering/
long and short term
construction sector
•
Permeability
agri-engineering
•
Molecular and biological
biodiversity/nature
composition
engineering
CO2: from 4 €/tonne ‘problem’ to 40 … 400
€/tonne bioconstruction/fertiliser solution
contents
1. Why ? global & regional drivers
2. How ? BBE technology portfolio
3. What ? feedstocks, products, yields
a. yield, b. scale, c. structure (in practise)
4. How – again ?
5. Why – again ?
Fermentable sugars
Glucose
Xylose
Plantation image from: biofuel.webgarden.com
Cost contribution of feedstocks
600
products
feedstocks
methane
biomass
yield
$660/ton
crude oil
0.25
palmitic acid
0.3
DHcomb
105 J/kg
lignine
0.3
4
0.4
0.5
glycerol
sugars
biomass
$400/ton
$50..130*/ton
1.0
$1600/ton
ethylene
jetfuel/diesel
p-xylene
$1200/ton
butanol
propylene
ethanol
1,4 BDO
methanol
propionic acid
adipic/acrylic
syngas
lactic acid
succinic acid
1.1
$800/ton
$400/ton
$402/ton
citric acid
$6/ton
0
CO2
Only established biomass market: APEX ENDEX Woodpellets ~ $130*/ton
33
Combined (drop-in/substitute/-out) scenarios ?
600
products
feedstocks
methane
biomass
yield
$660/ton
crude oil
0.25
palmitic acid
0.3
DHcomb
105 J/kg
lignine
0.3
4
0.4
0.5
$400/ton
glycerol
sugars
biomass
$50..130/ton
1.0
ethylene
advanced
jetfuel/diesel
fuels
p-xylene
butanol
propylene
ethanol
1,4 BDO
methanol
propionic acid
adipic/acrylic
syngas
lactic acid
succinic acid
connect
2 sectors
w megavolumes
1.1
citric acid
$6/ton
0
CO2
bioconstruction
34
Sustainability in multi-feed/multi-product biorefineries
crop eg
s-cane
lignocellulose
bioplastic
biorefinery
sugars
biofuel
Does scheme matter ?
crop eg
s-cane
lignocellulose
biofuel
biorefinery
sugars
bioplastic
YES – A LOT !
… depending on biomass logistics and process
scale/structure, volatility/properties and specs of products, LCprocessing (byproducts, colours etc), and regulations,
allocation (LCA), perception etc
ASEAN - Scenarios mill-integrated biomass processing
A1
(n=1)
mill based
plantation +
mill based B1
A2
B2
A5
B5
(n=5)
n regular mills
per
1 central biomass
processing plant
Mill-integrated lignocellulosics ?
General Expenses
Overhead
Capital charge
Labour and other DPC
LTC M’sia 1770 (U$ 557)
NY #11 1685 (U$ 530)
margin (excluding
energy credits)
USD/tonne Fermentatble sugar
BRAZILIAN 1465 (U$ 460)
Logistics
Raw materials
$$400/ton
400/ton
400
200
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Number of mills
per conversion plant
Distributed biomass processes are often favorable
LTC US$ 557
NY No. 12 US$ 530
Brazilian US$ 460
approximate
method
full plant designs
include (process) learning effects:
logistical costs dominate
Example: conversion of lignocellulosic palm biomass to sugars
M del Mar Palmeros et al (2013)
NPV / DCCF / PBT for 3* and 10 PO mill clusters
3 mills cluster has lower
OPEX yet the effect is
discounted by time
* with learning effects like in SC
EtOH (Goldemberg), single-POmill-integration appears feasible:
every mill produces PO & sugars
3 mills cluster has
higher CAPEX
* productivity of 3 mill cluster is scaled (x 3.3) to that of 10 mill cluster
M del Mar Palmeros et al (2013); final report of MICCI project
BBE strategy
mega-scale
biorefineries
versus
versus
hi-tech distributed
manufacturing ….
Sustainability in multi-feed/multi-product biorefineries
crop eg
s-cane
lignocellulose
bioplastic
biorefinery
sugars
biofuel
Does scheme matter ?
crop eg
s-cane
lignocellulose
biofuel
biorefinery
sugars
bioplastic
YES – A LOT !
… depending on biomass logistics and process
scale/structure, volatility/properties and specs of products, LCprocessing (byproducts, colours etc), and regulations,
allocation (LCA), perception etc
Life Cycle Assessment
1.8
case: conversion of lignocellulosic
palm biomass to sugars
1.6
1.4
(M del Mar Palmeros et al, 2013)
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
Mississippi delta bloom
0.4
0.2
0
Much of non-sustainability is due to agri-practices
integral process design including nutrient recycles
connect to 2C ‘soil engineering / bioconstruction’
BBE: time and investment scale estimates
investment (mio euro’s)
10000
agro & logistic systems
1000
commercial
100
demo
pilot
10
new product, new application
1
existing product, new application
0.1
0
5
10
15
20
25
years
Brazilian ethanol learning curve:
4x cost reduction in 30 yrs/20 x volume increase
vd Wall Bake et al. Biomass & Bioenergy 33, 644-658, 2009
Sustainability in multi-feed/multi-product biorefineries
crop eg
s-cane
lignocellulose
bioplastic
biorefinery
sugars
biofuel
Does scheme matter ?
crop eg
s-cane
lignocellulose
biofuel
biorefinery
sugars
bioplastic
YES – A LOT !
… depending on biomass logistics and process
scale/structure, volatility/properties and specs of products, LCprocessing (byproducts, colours etc), and regulations,
allocation (LCA), perception etc
Integrated 1G2G ethanol + FDCA production (1)
cogen
bagasse
cane
extract
bagasse
pretreat
trash
vinasse /biogas
juice
C5
sugars
power*
juice+
lignin
delignin
ferment
Distil/dehyd.
ethanol
HMF process
FDCA
C6
sugars
hydrolyse
Cogeneration system

Originally designed to (inefficiently) get rid of bagasse: changed now

Vinasse biodigestion for biogas production

Combustion of bagasse, straw and solids residues
Zenaide Ramos Santos, et al, 2013
Integrated 1G2G ethanol + FDCA production (1,2)
cogen
1
bagasse
cane
extract
bagasse
trash
juice
C5
sugars
pretreat
power*
vinasse /biogas
juice+
lignin
ferment
Distil/dehyd.
ethanol
HMF process
FDCA
C6
sugars
delignin
hydrolyse
cogen
2
power*
vinasse /biogas
cane
extract
bagasse
trash
pretreat
juice
HMF process
FDCA
Distil/dehyd.
ethanol
lignin
delign/hydrol
ferment
C5 sugars
‘2’ is simpler, cheaper, more sustainable then ‘1’
but needs clear regulations / certification systems
contents
1. Why ? global & regional drivers
2. How ? BBE technology portfolio
3. What ? feedstocks, products, yields
4. How ? structuring BBE
5. Why – again ?
Structuring principles in metabolism– key platforms
Large variety of Csources
12 key metabolites
Carbon-”Bowtie”
J J Heijnen TUD’10
≈ 1000 molecules
Un-structured in single organism:
100 feedstock molecules x 1000 metabolic products = 100 000 pathways
Structured via platforms
(100 feed mol + 1000 products) x 12 key metabolites = 13 000 pathways
order of magnitude less “CAPEX” (enzymes, etc)
Structuring principles in ecology – similar platforms
Ecology of (micro)organisms digests complex organic feedstocks into few
platform molecules and then, in range of (phase separating storage) products.
Costs: 10-40% of feedstock (gibbs) energy to drive multistep synthesis
= low OPEX
Organic (Biomass) matter anaerobic
Fatty acids (C2, C3, C4) H2
Production of polymeric storage
compounds, CH4
Same structuring principle in petro-industry ecology
 complex crudes (oil, coal) are ‘cracked’ into few high quality
platforms (lower alkenes, low alcohols, aromatics, H2, syngas) to
build complete product families
 requires an Ecology of Industries for efficient use (success of
Port Industry Cluster in Rotterdam, S’pore, Houston, etc)
 petro-industry is carbon-constrainted (mass utilisation), because
of abundent energy (heat, H2) – needs rethinking
Implications for biorefineries / BBE
It will not develop as a refining complex of all sorts of products from all
sort of feedstocks (so no dedicated-product crops !)
 platforms preferrably compatible with existing infrastructure
(drop-in: lower alkenes, low alcohols, aromatics, H2, syngas) to build
complete product families ? (Bio-ethylene project in PoR)
requires an ecology of industries for efficient use (‘symbiosys’)
carbon-constrainted (full mass utilisation) as well as energy
constrainted (energy integration) – needs rethinking
contents
1. Why ? global & regional drivers
2. How ? BBE technology portfolio
3. What ? feedstocks, products, yields
4. How ? structuring BBE
5. Why – again ?
Global drivers for a BBE ?
• more people with more wealth
• less nett GHG emission (global warming)
and/or climate adaptation
• politics (security of oil/gas supply)
• innovation, rural income and economic development
• increasing (and decreasing) prices of resources
• in time*, limited fossil reserves
• add sustainability to food chain
• add value to food chain and prevent hunger
Pick your personal selection !
BBE International
Anticipated global biomass/derivate flows (after Faaij et al.)
82 EJ
C.I.S.+ Baltic
13 EJ
39 EJ
North America
West Europe
N. Africa + Mi. East
50 EJ
East Europe
2 EJ
22 EJ
2 EJ
Japan
East Asia
23 EJ
South Asia
82 EJ
48 EJ
Caribbean + S. America
Sub Saharan Africa
Surplus forest growth:World 64 EJ
40 EJ
Oceania
Dedicated woody bioenergy crops on surplus
agricultural land: World 215 EJ
Agricultural and forestry residues and wastes:
World 76 EJ
Is this / this is a typical “Western” view ?
BBE International – more likely scenario ?
82 EJ
C.I.S.+ Baltic
13 EJ
39 EJ
North America
West Europe
N. Africa + Mi. East
50 EJ
East Europe
2 EJ
22 EJ
2 EJ
Japan
East Asia
23 EJ
South Asia
82 EJ
48 EJ
Caribbean + S. America
Sub Saharan Africa
Surplus forest growth:World 64 EJ
40 EJ
Oceania
Dedicated woody bioenergy crops on surplus
agricultural land: World 215 EJ
Agricultural and forestry residues and wastes:
World 76 EJ
After ‘easy’ oil is gone, where is ‘easy’
(sustainable/secure) biomass’ ?
Chemical clusters – drop-in ?
R’dam
Ruhr
Houston
Shanghai
S’pore
Paulinia
Rest of the World – substitute or drop-out
scenario’s ?
Max the BBE opportunities !
•
(A) drop-in, (B) substitute and (C) drop-out can all be
realities and require:
•
further integration of industrial sectors – fuel & construction,
fuel & agro, waste & feed, … to enable full (bio)mass utilisation
(mass, energy, economy, climate)
•
regional diversification to benefit fully from brown field (EU,
USA) and green field (LA, Africa, Asia) situations
•
rethink scale & regulations – hi-tech distributed
manufacturing, process technology, infrastructure, agri-models,
finance models, regulations (especially around recycling), ...
Contact us
B(E)-Basic Foundation
T +31 15 – 2782363
E info@be-basic.org
W www.be-basic.org
or
L.A.M.vanderWielen@tudelft.nl
B-BASIC strength triad
high
biocatalytic
selectivity
low
bioprocess
investment
low feedstocks costs
Foundation Imagine Life Sciences
School Competition
Foundation Imagine challenges high school students and
leading scientists to translate research from the
Life Science & Technology field to a sustainable and
innovative application in a developing country.
Curious for their ideas?
Please come and visit the Grande Finale:
Presentations @ World Forum Theater 13:00 – 17:00
Posters @ Holland Pavilion 12:15 – 18:00
Topics on:
• Water
• Health
• Biorenewables
• Food
• Agriculture
Care to join? www.foundation-imagine.org