the u.s. perspective and outlook scott gregory minos on ...€¦ · energy efficiency &...

Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov

1

Program Name or Ancillary Text eere.energy.gov

The U.S. Perspective and Outlook on Investment in Biomass Technologies

Scott Gregory Minos Senior Policy and Communications Specilaist

Atlanta, Georgia March 18, 2012


2

DOE’s Mission

The Biomass Program is working to advance biomass technologies in support of DOE’s mission to strengthen America’s energy security,

environmental quality, and economic vitality through:

Feedstocks

Improving conversion

efficiencies and costs

Biorefineries that…

Evaluating vehicle

emissions, performance,

and deployment

options

Providing a clean,

domestic, dispatchable

renewable source of power

Expanding portfolio beyond

cellulosic ethanol to

hydrocarbon fuels

Developing lower cost feedstock logistics systems

Conversion technologies

Systematically

validating and deploying

technology at first-of-a-kind

facilities

Infrastructure

Biopower

Advanced biofuels

Integrated biorefineries


3

Develop and transform our renewable biomass resources into cost competitive, high-performance biofuels, bioproducts, and biopower through targeted research, development, demonstration, and deployment supported through public and private partnerships.

DOE’s Biomass Program Mission


4

Priority Areas

For the first time since 1997, net oil imports account for less than 50 percent of total U.S. demand for crude oil. That is down significantly from recent years when nearly two out of three barrels of oil used in the U.S. were sourced from other nations.…with ten percent of America’s gasoline supply now comprised of a domestic renewable fuel. This is partly a direct result of the rise in domestic ethanol production

To build on this record of success in domestic ethanol production, four important policy directions must be addressed.


5

Priority Areas

First, ensuring the integrity and intent of the Renewable Fuel Standard is paramount to both existing ethanol producers and companies developing new technologies. This policy is the only nationwide domestic energy strategy that is directly reducing imports of oil while also creating permanent U.S. jobs and economic opportunities. Moreover, it serves as the policy foundation for investment in and commercialization of advanced and cellulosic ethanol technologies.


6

Priority Areas

Second, extending key tax provisions for cellulosic ethanol production will be key to commercializing these technologies. Extensions of both the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for cellulosic ethanol and the Accelerated Depreciation Allowance for cellulosic biorefineries are two polices that are needed to spur continued investment and create some semblance of balance and parity within energy tax policy that is lacking today.


7

Priority Areas

Third, the continued focus on next generation production technologies, advanced farming practices, and renewable fuel infrastructure are critical to supplying a growing array of biofuel feedstocks and diversifying the nation’s fuel supply.


8

Priority Areas

Fourth, a level playing field is desperately needed in order for more domestic renewable fuels like ethanol to compete fairly and equitably in the market. Eiminate tax breaks to all oil companies, not just the largest or most profitable, and create the free open energy market for which so many anti-ethanol and renewable energy critics claim to desire.


9

These incentives are somewhat different than the models that have been highly successful in Germany to encourage the adoption of renewable technologies. But it is important to keep in mind that these incentives appeal more to the American consumer and make more sense to American business. But that aside, some political divisions have arisen that are questioning the economic and environmental viability of biomass technologies.


10

DOE’s sustainability efforts address environmental, social, and economic issues along the entire bioenergy supply chain. The Biomass Program is committed to maximizing environmental benefits while mitigating issues of concern. Through field- and laboratory-based research, computer modeling, and advanced analysis, the program investigates the life-cycle impacts of bioenergy production on greenhouse gas emissions, air quality, soil quality, water, biodiversity, and land use.

Sustainability and Strategic Analysis


11


12

A robust bioenergy industry will be the source of a variety of jobs across several sectors, from plant breeding, farming, and trucking to biochemical engineering and microbiology. The sector is projected to stimulate significant job growth over the next 10–15 years.

Bioenergy Industry Creates Green Jobs


13

Sustainable Biofuels, Biopower, and Bioproducts

The Biomass Program is working to advance biomass technologies in support of DOE’s mission to strengthen America’s energy security,

environmental quality, and economic vitality through:

Feedstocks




Evaluating vehicle


and deployment

options

Providing a clean,





hydrocarbon fuels



Systematically



facilities

Infrastructure

Biopower

Advanced biofuels



14

The emerging U.S. bioenergy industry will provide a secure supply of advanced biofuels, biopower, and bioproducts from a range of biomass resources. Abundant, renewable bioenergy can help secure America’s energy future, reducing our dependence on foreign oil and ensuring American prosperity while protecting the environment. Success of the U.S. bioindustry relies on the research and development (R&D) of efficient new technologies and systems. Cost-effective systems are needed to sustainably produce, harvest, and transport large quantities of diverse feedstocks, convert biomass to infrastructure-compatible fuels, and efficiently deliver these fuels to consumers across the nation.

Replacing the Whole Barrel


15


16


17


18


19


20


Feedstocks




Evaluating vehicle


and deployment

options

Providing a clean,





hydrocarbon fuels



Systematically



facilities

Infrastructure

Biopower

Advanced biofuels


Unlocking the potential of diverse, non-food biomass resources—such as switchgrass, agricultural and forest residues,municipal waste, and algae—will yield advanced biofuels that are compatible with our existing vehicles and infrastructure. These advanced hydrocarbon or “drop-in” fuels include renewable gasoline, aviation, and diesel fuels.


21

To reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil, the nation needs to displace the whole barrel. Since only about 40% of a barrel of crude goes toward conventional petroleum gasoline, technologies are needed to transform domestic, renewable resources into commodities that can displace diesel, jet fuel, heavy distillates, and a range of chemicals and products made from crude. The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Biomass Program works with industry, academia, and nonprofits to accelerate the sustainable production of clean, affordable biofuels by developing advanced technologies and real-world solutions to reduce costs and spur market growth.

Replacing the Whole Barrel – A Strategic Approach


22

Corn ethanol production continues to expand rapidly in the United States. Between 2000 and 2010, production increased nearly 8 times.

Ethanol production grew nearly 19% in 2010 to reach 13,000 million gallons per year.

Ethanol has steadily increased its percentage of the overall gasoline pool, and was 9.4% in 2010.

In 2010, the United States* produced 56.5% of the world’s ethanol, followed by Brazil at 30.1%, the European Union at 5.1%, China at 2.4%, and Canada at 1.5%.


23


24


25

U.S. Corn Ethanol Production and Price Trends


26


27


28

The success of the U.S. bioenergy industry depends in part on the quantity and quality of biomass available, as well as the industry’s ability to collect, store, and cost-effectively transport it.

DOE, is identifying sustainable biomass feedstock resources, developing economically viable and environmentally sound production methods, and designing, building, and demonstrating feedstock logistics systems to ensure resource readiness at an appropriate cost.

DOE focuses on several types of herbaceous and woody feedstocks and residues as well as algal feedstock R&D. Advances in algal research may lead to the sustainable production of algae-derived bio-fuels.

Terrestrial and Aquatic Feedstocks


29

Critics argue that there simply is not enough farmland to produce all the biomass required for target levels established by the government. The federal government disagrees. As an example, displacing 15% of the world’s coal-fired capacity would require just 2% of total available arable land. Moreover, land less suitable to traditional row crops would be utilized primarily.


30

U.S. Billion-Ton Update: Biomass Supply for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry • Officially released August 10, 2011 • 5 years in the making • Comprehensive and detailed

• Supply cost curves • County estimates • Modeled land use change

• Collaborative effort – 50 contributors

• Report only provides national summary – more information on website

Data and analysis tools located on the Knowledge Discovery Framework: http://bioenergykdf.net

U.S. Billion-Ton Update


31

U.S. Billion-Ton Update: Findings

• Baseline scenario at $60/dry ton – 2012

• About 473 million dry tons annually

• 45% is currently used for energy

– 2030 • Nearly 1.1 billion dry tons

annually • About 30% as used • 70% as potentially additional

• High-yield scenario at $60/dry ton – Total resources

• Ranges from nearly 1.4 to over 1.6 billion dry tons annually (1% to 4% yield increases)

• 80% is potentially additional – No high-yield scenario for forest

residues

Baseline

High-yield


32

Feedstock Logistics Research Path: Ensuring a High-Quality, High-Density, Stable Feedstock Supply

Existing Feedstock Supply System

Uniform Format Supply System

Solution

~ 50% of total feedstock resource can be utilized

~ 90% of total feedstock resource can be utilized

Dry matter loss during storage >10%

Dry matter loss during storage ~ 5%

Average Transport Distance ~ 50 miles

Average Transport Distance ~ 300 miles

Achieved density target of 12 lbs/cubic foot in 2010 (improved from 9 lbs/cubic foot in 2009)

Depot design needs to achieve 20+ lbs/cubic foot

Related Projects

Idaho National Laboratory Deployable Process Demonstration Unit – Replicates one depot preprocessing unit at pilot scale 5 Industry and University-led demonstration projects to test logistics units at field scale Core Engineering and Design work conducted at Idaho National Laboratory

Advanced Preprocessing

2012 SOT Feedstocks

Uniform Format Targets


33

5-20 miles

50-150 miles

150-300 miles

Current Barrier Uniform Format Supply System

Solution Low productivity areas/stranded resources

Access to stranded resources via local depots

Risk associated with lack of stable feedstock supply (i.e. price fluctuations, extreme weather events, year-round availability)

Biomass exchange market commodity system decreases supply risk and price fluctuations

Lack of consistent feedstock specifications

Ability to achieve conversion specifications for feedstock quality

Technical barriers – low density, dry matter loss, etc.

Density Improvements Met density target of

12 lbs/cubic foot in 2010 (improved from 9 lbs/cubic foot in 2009)

Pioneer depot design needs to achieve 14 -16 lbs/cubic foot

Feedstock Logistics Research Path: Ensuring a High-Quality, High-Density, Stable Feedstock Supply


34

Feedstock Logistics Accomplishments

• Reduced feedstock logistics cost from $37.80/dry ton to $36.10/dry ton

• Achieved a storage dry matter loss improvement of 1.9% (7.9% to 6%)

• Achieved a grinder capacity improvement of 5.2 tons/hour (26 to 31.2) utilizing 470 kilowatts of power

• INL Deployable Process Development Unit • Baseline system completed and operational • Round-robin test and deployment plan being developed in

collaboration with industry partners • Densification Workshop

• August 2011 at INL • Industry and research community stakeholders invited participated technology reviews and provided

input for feedstock logistics research roadmap • Workshop report and roadmap in progress

• Feedstock logistics industrial partnership projects • Agco Corporation of Duluth, GA (up to $5 million) for agricultural residues • Auburn University of Auburn, Alabama (up to $4.9 million) for woody biomass • FDC Enterprises Inc. of Columbus, Ohio (up to $4.9 million) for energy crops • Genera Energy, LLC of Knoxville, Tennessee (up to $4.9 million) for energy crops • The SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry of Syracuse, New York (up to $1.3 million)

for woody biomass


35


36

Feedstock Logistics Technical Challenges and Barriers

• Sustainable Harvesting • Feedstock Quality and Monitoring • Biomass Storage Systems • Biomass Material Properties • Biomass Physical State Alteration • Biomass Material Handling and

Transportation • Overall Integration and Scale-Up


37

$53.70/dry ton

$37.80/dry ton $35.00/dry ton $35.00/dry ton

Maintain cost at higher feedstock quality (i.e. density, stability, convertibility, etc.) and quantities

Niche Resource Full Resource Potential

Feedstock Logistics and Supply Cost Reduction


38

Conversion Technologies


39


Feedstocks




Evaluating vehicle


and deployment

options

Providing a clean,





hydrocarbon fuels



Systematically



facilities

Infrastructure

Biopower

Advanced biofuels


Biomass Program conversion efforts focus on pathways to deconstruct biomass into either sugars (or carbohydrate derivatives) or bio-oils and to subsequently upgrade both types of intermediates into biofuels and bioproducts.


40

Pretreatment and enzymatic saccharification Pretreatment breaks down plant cell walls, making lignocellulosic biomass accessible for catalytic enzymes, microorganisms, and other catalysts to process into sugars. Non-enzymatic routes to carbohydrates This pathway typically requires a mechanical system to fractionate a biomass slurry (using various reagents) under varying temperatures and pressures. Such systems offer the potential to rapidly hydrolyze biomass based sugars -yet impose the need to economically recycle reagents in a closed-loop system.

Deconstruction into Sugars or Carbohydrate Derivatives


41

Microbial conversion of carbohydrates to biofuels. Micro-organisms that naturally produce fatty acids or other energy-rich molecules directly from sugars can be engineered to emphasize production of structurally tailored fatty acids and other biofuel precursors - which can then be extracted and readily upgraded to hydrocarbon biofuels. Catalytic processes for converting carbohydrates to biofuels. Chemical conversion represents a relatively new route to hydrocarbon fuels - one that uses a wide range of sugars and sugar derived intermediates.

Upgrading Sugars to Biofuels and Bioproducts


42

Bio-oils can be produced from various types of biomass using pyrolysis or liquefaction. These bio-oils can have high oxygen content and other destabilizing components that must be removed. A better understanding of pyrolysis is needed to engineer the production of bio-oils with desirable qualities. Lipids from algae do not require cleaning and stabilizing. The challenges in using algae as a feedstock are to lower the cost of its production, harvesting, and extraction.

Deconstruction into Bio-Oils


43

Bio-oils can be converted to biofuels via hydrotreating, hydroprocessing, or hydrocracking in traditional petroleum refineries to leverage their economies of scale and existing infrastructure - though some modifications would be needed to the bio-oil products or the refinery processes. Challenges include:

• High-temperature solid-vapor separation • Hydrogen cost and supply • Catalytic processing limitations • Oxygen removal without hydrogen addition • Improved understanding of upgrading processes

Upgrading Bio-Oils to Biofuels and Bioproducts


44

Biochemical Conversion Cost Reduction

$0.89 $0.64

$0.29

$0.39

$0.36

$0.34

$0.35

$0.28

$0.20

$0.14

$0.13

$0.12

$0.77

$0.54

$0.46

$1.01

$0.72

$0.74

$3.55

$2.67

0%

3%

0%

3%

1% 13%

$2.15

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

$3.50

$4.00

2007 SOT 2010 SOT Feedstocks Balance of Plant Distillation &Solids Recovery

Saccharification& Fermentation

Enzymes Prehydrolysis 2012 Projection

mo

del

ed m

inim

um

fu

el s

elli

ng

pri

ce, 2

00

7$

, ($

/gal

eth

ano

l)

Biochemical conversion of corn stover to ethanol

Feedstocks

Balance of Plant

Distillation & Solids Recovery

Saccharification & Fermentation

Enzymes

Prehydrolysis/treatment

19% Reduction (2010 to 2012)


45

Biochemical Conversion – Major Challenges

Feedstock Supply

Pretreatment Hydrolysis

Biological Conversion

Chemical Conversion

Product Recovery

Biofuels End-Use Biomass to Sugar/Intermediates

DECONSTRUCTION Pretreatment – Decrease recalcitrance Increase C5/C6 yields Decrease sugar degradation Decrease reagent loading Hydrolysis – Produce pure & cheap sugars Increase enzymatic activity/decrease enzyme titer Utilization of non-C6 polysaccharides Optimize chemical/catalytic routes

Sugar Upgrades to Fuels & Products PRODUCT TRANSFORMATION

Biological Conversion: Strain development C5/C6 co-fermentation Increased cellular product output rates Increased toxicity resistance and process robustness Chemical Conversion: Optimize chemical/catalytic reforming of sugars into fuels and chemicals

Optimize separations (i.e., distillation) Increase efficiency


46

R E

F I

N I

N G

Exploring Multiple Routes to Bioenergy

Platforms

Feedstock Production & Logistics

• Energy crops

• Waste Streams

• Algae

Ethanol

Butanol

Olefins

Aromatics

Gasoline

Diesel

Jet

Heat and Power

Co or By

Products

Power

Pyrolysis Oil Platform

Syngas Platform

Liquid Bio-oil

Enzymatic Hydrolysis

Sugars Fermentation

Cellulosic Sugar Platform

Algal and other Bio-Oils

Transesterification Catalytic Upgrading

Products Feedstocks

Fast Pyrolysis

Gasification

Lipid (Oil) Platform

Raw syngas

Filtration & Clean-up

Upgrading


47

Biochemical Conversion FY 12 direction

Enzyme and ethanologen work will be leveraged in OBP’s goal to produce gasoline, diesel and jet fuel type hydrocarbon blendstocks

• A new technology roadmapping workshop in December of 2012 will be used to update the “Breaking the Biological Barriers to Cellulosic Ethanol” report

• Focus will be on drop-in fuels

• New focus likely to be on organismal development to generate fatty acids, isoprenoids, polyketides and oxygenates that can be upgraded to hyrdocarbons

• Enzymatic saccharification work will continue to be developed to further reduce the cost of sugar streams and intermediates

• Design case(s) for the production of hydrocarbons will be developed to drive future calls for proposals


48

Thermochemical Platform – Major Challenges

Feedstock Supply

Feed Processing

Gasification Syngas Cleanup

Fuel Synthesis &

Finishing

Minimize ash content, mean particle size, moisture

Minimize tar formation Maximize clean syngas production

Reform tars and methane, minimize inorganics

Optimize yield of fuel synthesis catalysts and processes.

Pyrolysis/ Liquefaction

Stabilization & Upgrading Fuel Finishing

Minimize char formation, Maximize stable oil production

Reduce oxygen content and acidity

Meeting “insertion” needs of refinery

BIOFUELS

Being De-emphasized

“Oil Upgrading”

“Biomass to Oil”


49

Thermochemical Conversion – 2012 (Gasification to EtOH)


50

Thermochemical Conversion – 2012 (Pyrolysis to Gasoline & Diesel)

Cost competitive target is set at 2017


51


Feedstocks




Evaluating vehicle


and deployment

options

Providing a clean,





hydrocarbon fuels



Systematically



facilities

Infrastructure

Biopower

Advanced biofuels



52

The Biomass Program provides cost shared support for construction and start-up of pilot, demonstration, and commercial-scale biorefineries that convert various feedstocks to advanced biofuels using multiple conversion pathways. These projects will validate new technology integration to produce advanced biofuels, bioproducts, and heat and power, which will reduce technical and financial risks and encourage the private investment required for commercial replication.

Integrated Biorefinery Demonstrations


53

End Use – Transportation and Power


54


Feedstocks




Evaluating vehicle


and deployment

options

Providing a clean,





hydrocarbon fuels



Systematically



facilities

Infrastructure

Biopower

Advanced biofuels



55

Transportation and Infrastructure


56


57


58

Alternative Fueling Stations by State


59

Alternative Fueling Stations


60

Consumption of Alternative Fuel in the U.S. (2005–2009)


61


62

U.S. Ethanol Production and Growth in Gasoline Pool by Volume


63

U.S. Ethanol Production Capacity


64

U.S. Ethanol Production Capacity


65

Global Ethanol Production


66

Biodiesel has expanded from a relatively small production base in 2000, to a total U.S. production of 315 million gallons in 2010. However, biodiesel is still a small percentage of the alternative fuel pool in the U.S., as over 40 times more ethanol was produced in 2010. • Biodiesel production in the U.S. in 2010 is 63 times what it was in 2001. • Germany leads the world in biodiesel production, followed by Brazil, Argentina and France. • Biodiesel production globally grew more than 14% in 2010.


67

U.S. Biodiesel Demand and Price (2000–2010)


68

U.S. Biodiesel Production Capacity


69

Global Biodiesel Production


70

Biopower Generation


71

Top Countries with Installed Renewable Electricity by Technology (2010)


72

Renewable Electricity Generation Worldwide by Technology (2000–2010)


73

Worldwide Renewable Electricity Generation as a Percent of Total Generation


74

World Landfill Gas Production By Country As Of 2010


75

Biopower generation has remained steady during the past seven years, and currently accounts for 33% of all renewable energy generated in the United States (excluding hydropower).

Biomass electricity primarily comes from wood and agricultural residues that are burned as a fuel for cogeneration in the industrial sector (such as in the pulp and paper industry).

U.S. installed biopower capacity has grown recently, with a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 3.1% from 2006–2010.


76

States Leading Biopower Energy Development (2010)


77

U.S. Biopower Nameplate Capacity and Generation


78

U.S. Biopower Generation Sources (2000–2010)


79

U.S. Biopower Forecast


80


81


Feedstocks




Evaluating vehicle


and deployment

options

Providing a clean,





hydrocarbon fuels



Systematically



facilities

Infrastructure

Biopower

Advanced biofuels



82

Algae Spending by Recipient

$2,891,927

$6,165,712

$4,834,852

2011 Spending

Industry

University

National Lab

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

2011 Spending 2012 PlannedSpending

National Laboratory Spending Detail

SRNL

SNL

PNNL

ORNL

NREL

LANL

INL

BNL

ANL

*Many algae activities were initiated in FY2010; these ongoing activities are represented in the FY11 and FY12 spending. ARRA spending is not included.

$3,647,927

$5,623,911 $4,324,179

$6,000,000

2012 Planned Spending

Industry

University

National Lab

New FOA


83

FY11 Techno-economic Analysis: Algal Baseline Costs

$523

Direct Installed Capital, $MM (PBR) PBR System

CO2 Delivery

Harvesting

Extraction

Digestion

PowerGenerationInoculum System

Hydrotreating

$114

Baselines (2012) show high costs of today’s currently available technologies, opportunities for cost reduction

$9.28

$17.52

$10.66

$19.89

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

OP(TAG)

PBR(TAG)

OP(Diesel)

PBR(Diesel)

2012

Pro

duct

sel

ling

pric

e ($

/gal

)

TAG/Diesel Selling Prices (OP vs PBR)

Operating ($/gal of product) Capital ($/gal of product)

$67

$12

$46 $18 $12

$13

$24

$9

$21

$22

Direct Installed Capital, $MM (Ponds)

Ponds

CO2 Delivery

Harvesting

Extraction

Digestion

PowerGenerationInoculum System

Hydrotreating


84

Key FY11 Accomplishments - Algae

• Algal consortia kickoff – NAABB: May 2010 – SABC: November 2010 – Cellana: January 2011 – CAB-Comm: April 2011

• National Research Council study “Sustainable Development of Algal Biofuels” initiated

• Publications – Pate, R.C., G. Klise, and B. Wu, “Resource demand implications for

US algae biofuels production scale-up” (2011). Applied Energy, 88:10 – Davis R, Aden A, Jarvis, E, Knoshaug, E. “Techno-economic

analysis of baseline and out-year projections for algal biofuels” (2011).

– Wigmosta, M. S., A. M. Coleman, R. J. Skaggs, M. H. Huesemann, and L. J. Lane, “National microalgae biofuel production potential and resource demand”(2011). Water Resource Research 47

– NAABB Consortia: 26 peer reviewed publications in 2010/2011


85

Algal Challenge And Success

Accomplishment (2010): Using DOE funding to NAABB, Michigan State University developed a desktop-sized, high-throughput algal photobioreactor that simulates field growing conditions. The technology was licensed by Phenometrics, Inc. of Lansing, Michigan, a company founded in 2010 by Mimi C. Hall and Dr. David Kramer, the inventor of the technology, to develop and market unique research tools to accelerate algal discoveries in the biofuel, food, pharmaceuticals, and waste remediation industries.

Challenge from the Aquatic Species Program (1998, Close-Out Report, p. 12):

Algal species that looked very promising when tested in the

laboratory were not robust under conditions encountered in the

field.


86

FY12 Next Steps for Algae

• Algae Modeling Harmonization Workshop • Tucson, AZ; 11/30-12/1

• Consistency of process assumptions and performance metrics in baseline

• Techno-economics (production cost, energy balance) • Life cycle analysis (GHG emission, water consumption) • National resource assessment (land, water, nutrients)

• Stakeholder (research) buy-in and input for future technical improvements that will improve baseline

• Promote algae production systems for R&D (Testbed)

• Promote innovation in cultivation: Reduce water intensity and

nutrient inputs


87

Advanced Biofuels Process Development Unit The PDU will allow for small-scale demonstration and further

development of scientific breakthroughs in advanced biofuels, Initial scale up could lay the groundwork for eventual commercialization. Unique Capabilities:

Pretreatment: Solubilization by solvents

Fuel flexible: Hydrocarbon chains, Esters and Alcohols

Feedstock flexible Unit Operations:

Biomass Preprocessing Biomass Pretreatment Enzyme Production and Purification

and Inoculation Tanks Biofuels Production

Alcohols such as ethanol and butanol Advanced biofuels such as alkanes,

cyclic alkanes and aromatics. Product Separations


88

Investments in Biomass


89

U.S. investment in renewable energy has grown dramatically in the past decade, and in 2010 annual investment reached more than $28 billion.

In 2010, U.S. venture capital and private equity investment in renewable energy technology companies was $2.7 billion—up from $261 million in 2001.

U.S. investment in wind energy projects grew from $303 million in 2001 to more than $13 billion in 2010.

U.S. venture capital and private equity investment in solar technology companies has increased from $40 million in 2001 to more than $1.7 billion in 2010.

Investments in Renewables


90

U.S. and Global Total Investment in Renewable Energy, 2010


91

Public Renewable Energy Index Performance, 2010 (Indexed to 100)


92

U.S. Venture Capital and Private Equity Investment in Renewable Energy Technology Companies, 2001–2010


93

U.S. Venture Capital and Private Equity Investment in Biofuels Technology Companies, 2001–2010


94

The Bottom Line Recent Biofuels Cost Reduction Achievements

$30

$35

$40

$45

$50

$55

$1.00

$1.25

$1.50

$1.75

$2.00

$2.25

$2.50

$2.75

$3.00

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012*

Co

nve

rsio

n T

ech

no

log

ies

$/g

al E

tOH

F

eedsto

ck Lo

gistics $/d

ry ton

Thermochemical Conversion Biochemical Conversion

Feedstock Logistics


95

70.0, 46%

49.4, 32%

6.8, 4%

7.6, 5%

20.0, 13%

FY 2012 Planned1 Biomass Funding by Recipient Type

National Laboratory

Industry

HQ Technical Support and Outreach Partner

Academia

TBD -- New FOA Awards

Program Funding by Recipient – FY 12


96

Program Funding by Recipient – FY 11


97


98


99

Scott Gregory Minos Senior Policy and Communication Specialist

United States Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW 5B-194, MS EE-12

Washington, DC 20585 [email protected]


100

The End


101

Supporting Documentation


102

Metric 2007 SOT 2008 SOT 2009 SOT 2010 SOT 2011 Target 2012 Target

Corn

Stover Corn Stover Corn Stover Corn

Stover Corn Stover Corn Stover Conversion Contribution $/gal $2.52 $2.52 $2.24 $1.95 $1.85 $1.41

Year $ basis 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 Minimum Ethanol Selling Price $/gal EtOH $ 3.64 $ 3.57 $ 3.18 $ 2.77 $ 2.62 $ 2.15 Total Capital Investment per Annual Gallon $ $ 11.33 $ 11.32 $ 10.60 $ 10.15 $ 9.40 $ 6.92 Plant Capacity (Dry Feedstock Basis) Tonnes/day 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000

Ethanol Yield gal EtOH/dry US ton 69 70 73 75 78 79

Feedstock

Operating Cost Contribution $/gal EtOH $1.12 $1.04 $0.95 $0.82 $0.76 $0.74 Carbohydrate Content % (dry Basis) 59.8% 59.8% 59.8% 59.8% 59.8% 59.8% Feedstock Cost $/dry US ton $ 77.20 $ 72.90 $ 69.65 $ 61.30 $ 59.60 $ 58.50 Prehydrolysis/ treatment

Total Cost Contribution $/gal EtOH $0.89 $0.89 $0.78 $0.64 $0.62 $0.29 Capital Cost Contribution $/gal EtOH $0.46 $0.46 $0.43 $0.42 $0.40 $0.13 Operating Cost Contribution $/gal EtOH $0.43 $0.43 $0.34 $0.22 $0.21 $0.16

Solids Loading wt% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% Xylan to Xylose % 75% 75% 84% 85% 88% 90% Xylan to Degradation Products % 13% 11% 6% 8% 5% 5% Xylose Sugar Loss % 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% Glucose Sugar Loss % 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0%

Enzymes


Saccharification & Fermentation Total Cost Contribution $/gal EtOH $0.35 $0.35 $0.33 $0.28 $0.22 $0.20

Capital Cost Contribution $/gal EtOH $0.19 $0.20 $0.18 $0.15 $0.13 $0.12 Operating Cost Contribution $/gal EtOH $0.15 $0.15 $0.14 $0.13 $0.09 $0.08

Total Solids Loading wt% 20% 20% 20% 17% 20% 20% Combined Sacc./Fermentation Time days 7 7 7 5 5 5 Overall Cellulose to Ethanol % 86% 86% 84% 86% 86% 86% Xylose to Ethanol % 76% 80% 82% 79% 85% 85% Arabinose to Ethanol % 0% 0% 51% 68% 80% 85%

Distillation & Solids Recovery


Balance of Plant

Total Cost Contribution $/gal EtOH $0.77 $0.76 $0.64 $0.54 $0.47 $0.46

Biochemical Technical Targets

102

Process Concept: Dilute Acid, Enzymatic Hydrolyis, Ethanol Fermentation and Recovery, Lignin Combustion for CHP


103

Process Integration FOA FY 11 Prime/partners Primary Unit Operation Product

Texas Engineering Experimental Station Pretreatment Unique ptretreatment to produce sugars

Genomatica, Inc Blue Fire Renewables

Fermentation Conversion of cellulosic sugars to the industrial chemical, 1,4-butanediol (BDO)

Michigan Biotechnology Institute International Michigan State University, TetraVitae Biosciences, INL

Pretreatment Improved pretreatment process to provide a stable, conversion-ready sugars of consistent quality at a cost

Virent NREL Northwestern University

Enzyme Hydrolysis & Aqueous Phase Reforming

Fully integrated process that can convert feedstock to a mix of hydrocarbons for blending into jet fuel.

HCL Clean, Inc LS9 Crown Iron Works, Southern Research Institute, CH2M Hill

Pretreatment, Hydrolysis & Conversion/Fermentation

Conc. hydrochloric acid hydrolysis to convert pre-extracted wood waste into fermentable sugars, and then further convert the sugars into diesel products.

General Atomics TSD Management

Fermentation

Integration of conventional fermentation processes w/ heterotrophic algal strains on lignocellulosic sugars to produce algal oils


104

Biochem Key Accomplishments

• Announcement of Process Integration FOA selection, (June 2011)

• Submittal of the enzyme comparative analysis, NREL

• Completion of 4 ethanologen projects (5 originally selected)

• Completion of PDUs: – IBRF August 2010 – ABPDU July 2011

• Completion of the feedstock characterization library, INL (April, 2011)

Publications (examples)

• Submittal of the enzyme comparative analysis, NREL, (forthcoming)

• Publication of A. Niger & T. Reesei papers, PNNL (Nov 2010 – April, 2011)

• 2011 Biochemical Design Case ( electronic: May 2011)


105

Gasification Technical Targets

Processing Area Cost Contributions & Key Technical Parameters

Metric 2007 SOT 2008 SOT 2009 SOT 2010 SOT 2011 Projection

2012 Projection

Process Concept: Gasification, Syngas Cleanup, Mixed Alcohol Synthesis & Recovery Woody

Feedstock Woody

Feedstock Woody

Feedstock Woody

Feedstock Woody

Feedstock Woody

Feedstock

Conversion Contribution $/gal EtOH $3.35 $2.11 $2.03 $1.65 $1.62 $1.31

Year $ basis 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007

EIA Reference Case‡ $/GGE* $2.18 $2.57 $1.69 $2.29 $2.47 $2.62

$/gal EtOH $1.46 $1.72 $1.13 $1.53 $1.66 $1.76

Projected Minimum Ethanol Selling Price▲ $/gal EtOH $4.76 $3.35 $3.26 $2.70 $2.52 $2.05

Total Project Investment per Annual Gallon $ $12.76 $9.48 $9.24 $7.97 $7.85 $7.61

Plant Capacity (Dry Feedstock Basis) Tonnes/day 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000

Ethanol Yield gal EtOH/dry ton 61.6 69.8 70.5 78.7 79.8 83.8

Mixed Alcohol Yield gal MA/dry ton 67.0 77.3 78.2 87.7 89.3 93.9

Feedstock


Capital Cost Contribution $/gal EtOH - - - - - -

Operating Cost Contribution $/gal EtOH $1.41 $1.24 $1.23 $1.06 $0.90 $0.74

Feedstock Cost $/dry US ton $86.75 $86.75 $86.75 $83.20 $72.10 $61.57

Feedstock Moisture at Plant Gate wt % H2O 50% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30%

In-Plant Handling and Drying $/dry US ton $22.65 $22.65 $22.65 $20.60 $14.30 $7.25

Cost Contribution $/gal EtOH $0.37 $0.32 $0.32 $0.26 $0.18 $0.09

Feed Moisture Content to Gasifier wt % H2O 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%

Energy Content (LHV, dry basis) Btu/lb 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000

Gasification


Capital Cost Contribution $/gal EtOH $0.21 $0.19 $0.19 $0.17 $0.16 $0.16


Raw Dry Syngas Yield lb/lb dry feed 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78

Raw Syngas Methane (dry basis) Mole % 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15%

Gasifier Efficiency (LHV) % LHV 74% 74% 74% 74% 74% 74%


106

Gasification Technical Targets Processing Area Cost Contributions & Key Technical Parameters

Metric 2007 SOT 2008 SOT 2009 SOT 2010 SOT 2011 Projection

2012 Projection

Synthesis Gas Clean-up (Reforming and Quench) Total Cost Contribution $/gal EtOH $1.22 $0.61 $0.58 $0.42 $0.43 $0.17



Tar Reformer (TR) Exit CH4 (dry basis) Mole % 13% 5% 4% 2% 2% 2%

TR CH4 Conversion % 20% 50% 56% 80% 80% 80%

TR Benzene Conversion % 80% 98% 98% 99% 99% 99%

TR Tars Conversion % 97% 97% 97% 99% 99% 99%

Catalyst Replacement % inventory/day 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.1%

Acid Gas and Sulfur Removal




Sulfur Level at Reactor Inlet (as H2S) ppmv 70 70 70 70 70 70

Synthesis Gas Compression and Power Recovery Expansion Total Cost Contribution $/gal EtOH $1.28 $0.84 $0.81 $0.67 $0.67 $0.67


Operating Cost Contribution $/gal EtOH $0.63 $0.45 $0.44 $0.38 $0.38 $0.38 Electricity Production from Syngas Expander (credit included in operating cost above) $/gal EtOH ($0.35) ($0.15) ($0.14) ($0.08) ($0.09) ($0.09)

Fuels Synthesis Reaction



Operating Cost Contribution $/gal EtOH $0.00 ($0.07) ($0.08) ($0.10) ($0.12) ($0.12)

Pressure psia 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000

Single Pass CO Conversion % CO 25% 24% 25% 26% 29% 29%

Overall CO Conversion % CO 55% 68% 70% 80% 79% 79%

Selectivity to Alcohols % CO (CO2 free) 78% 81% 81% 81% 81% 81%

Selectivity to Ethanol % CO (CO2 free) 59% 63% 63% 63% 63% 63%

Ethanol Productivity g/kg-cat/hr 101 128 132 143 153 160

Mixed Alcohols Co-Product (credit included in operating cost above)

$/gal EtOH ($0.18) ($0.22) ($0.22) ($0.23) ($0.24) ($0.24)


107

FY11 Key Accomplishments – Established gasification test platforms at NREL and PNNL

• Gasifier, syngas cleanup, and fuel synthesis reactors will be integrated for 2012 demonstration • Allows identification of key technical barriers to commercialization • Allows validation of technical accomplishments

– Developed and validated 2 classes of MA catalysts • Cobalt-Molybdenum based • Rhodium-based

2011 Thermochemical Conversion Joule Achieve a modeled ethanol price of $2.51/gal – Conversion Cost: $1.62/gal of EtOH – Achieved by: Single pass CO conversion of 50% and Overall CO Conversion of 50% – Achieve Tar Reforming Catalyst Replacement of 1% per day – Ethanol yield of 71 gal /ton

2012 Thermochemical Conversion Joule

– Achieve a modeled ethanol price of $2.05/gal. – Conversion Cost: $1.31/gal of EtOH – Tar Reforming Catalyst Replacement of 1/10 % per day

Performance – Gasification Pathway (gasification followed by cleanup and fuel synthesis)


108

Pyrolysis Technical Targets


109



110



111

Performance – Pyrolysis Pathway (pyrolysis followed by upgrading and refining)

FY11 Key Accomplishments – Completed development of 5 processes for stabilizing raw pyrolysis oil (FY08 FOA) – Kicked-off 4 strategies for upgrading pyrolysis oil to gasoline, diesel, and jet fuels

(FY10 FOA) – Awarded 3 strategies for upgrading of thermochemically-derived intermediates to

gasoline, diesel, jet, and products (FY11 FOA)

2012 Thermochemical Conversion Goal – Achieve a modeled fuel price of $4.57/gal (diesel) and $4.50( gasoline) – Conversion Cost: $3.57 (diesel) and $3.51 (gasoline) – Catalyst Replace Period 40 days (2012) – Gasoline + Diesel yield: 73 gal/ton wood

2017 Thermochemical Conversion Goal – Achieve a modeled fuel price of $2.32/gal (diesel) and $2.32( gasoline) – Conversion Cost: $1.56/gal (diesel) and $1.56( gasoline) – Stable Oil yield of at least 0.55 lb/lb (2017) – Catalyst Replace Period to 329 days (2017) – Gasoline + Diesel yield: 106 gal/ton wood


112

Bio-Oil Upgrading Projects Selected for Award (FY10, Q4) Proposed

Leads: Gas Technology

Institute Battelle Memorial Institute W. R. Grace and Co PNNL

Proposed Partners

CRI/Criterion Inc, Shell Global Solutions, Cargill, Johnson Timber, PetroAlgae

PNNL, Marathon Oil Corporation, Sud-Chemie Inc, Praxair Inc, Domtar

Chevron, PNNL, VTT Albemarle, UOP, Michigan Technological University, Ensyn

Reactor Setup

GTI: Integrated Hydroprolysis and Hydroconversion (IH2)

3 step: Fast Pyrolysis followed by Vapor Catalysis followed by Single-Step Hydroprocessing

Ebullated-bed Reactors: Used in industry to crack heavy petroleum

3 Steps: Fast Pyrolysis followed by Two-staged Fixed Bed Hydroprocessing of Bio-oil

Project Focus

Demonstration of long-term operability and catalyst stability.

Develop/optimize catalyst and process for single-step hydroprocessing of the Intermediate Bio-Oil

Develop catalyst that hydrodeoxygenates an intermediate bio-oil to petroleum feedstocks

Develop catalyst(s) that partially deoxygenates the intermediate bio-oil

Catalyst Partner

CRI/Criterion Inc. (derivatives of commercially available catalysts)

Sud-Chemie (PNNL led catalyst development, with Sud providing catalyst/advising for commercial viability)

W. R. Grace and Co (begin with Grace commercial catalysts and modify)

Albemarle (use Albermarle commercial and modified catalysts, UOP to consult)

Final Product

fungible gasoline and diesel products

Either fuel blend or petroleum refinery feedstock

Hydrocarbons compatible with petroleum refineries

Either fungible gasoline/diesel/jet or petroleum refinery feedstock

Refinery Partner

Shell Global Solutions (SGS)

Marathon Oil Corporation Chevron UOP/Ensyn Joint Venture: Envergent (not true petroleum refiner)


113

Thermochemical Intermediates Upgrading Projects Selected for Award (FY11, Q4)

Applicant LanzaTech, Inc. Research Triangle Institute Virent Energy Systems, Inc.

Project Title A Hybrid Catalytic Route to Fuels from Biomass Syngas

Catalytic Upgrading of Thermochemical Intermediates to Hydrocarbons

Catalytic Upgrading of Thermochemical Intermediates to Hydrocarbons: Conversion of Lignocellulosic Feedstocks to Aromatic Fuels and High Value Chemicals

Conversion Route syngas fermentation → jet fuel syngas fermentation → 2,3-Butanediol, → butadiene

catalytic fast pyrolysis → hydroprocessing → gasoline and diesel

reductive catalytic liquefaction → cellulose/C5s/lignin → depolymerize/HDO → aromatics

Additional Feedstock(s) (Corn stover and woody biomass required by FOA)

Perennial Grasses Switchgrass

Collaborators

Imperium Renewables, Inc.; PNNL; NREL; Orochem Technologies; Michigan Technological University; University of Delaware; The Boeing Company

Archer Daniels Midland Company; Biofuels Center of North Carolina; Haldor Topsoe; The Shaw Group

Iowa State University; Bayer Material Science


114

Raw Oil LowSev Condensate B2 HiSev Condensate B Goal: Produce drop-in hydrocarbon fuels in the gasoline, diesel, and jet range

2D GC-GC/MS Analysis Capabilities – Characterization of Upgraded Products

From Oxygen-Rich Biomass to Hydrocarbon

Refinery catalysts and innovative processing techniques have led to hydrocarbon production from bio oil. Next: Improved catalysts and catalyst supports for long-term viability in acidic and aqueous environments


115

FY11 Techno-economic Analysis: Algal Design Configuration

Lipid Extraction

Phase Separation

Solvent Recovery

Upgrading (hydrotreater)

Anaerobic Digestion

Algae Growth

CO2

Makeup nutrients

Recycle nutrients/ water

Makeup solvent Solvent recycle

Spent algae + water

Sludge

Biogas for

energy Flue gas from turbine

Hydrogen Offgas

Naphtha

Diesel

Raw oil

Power

Flocculent

Recycle water Blowdown

Makeup water

Centrifuge DAF Settling

0.05% (OP) 0.4% (PBR)

1% 10% 20% 10% loss

5% loss

Green = algae cell density

Red = algae/oil losses

the u.s. perspective and outlook scott gregory minos on ...€¦ · energy efficiency &...

Documents