Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
IEA Bioenergy
N e w s l e t t e r f o r I E A T a s k 2 6
B i o t e c h n o l o g y f o r t h e C o n v e r s i o n o f L i g n o c e l l u l o s i c s t o E t h a n o l
NUMBER 7, JUNE 2000
TASK MEMORANDAJ. N. Saddlermailto:[email protected]
From the Task Leader
As indicated in the main body of thisnewsletter, thanks to the good workof the various presenters at our IEAworkshop “Commercialization ofBiomass to Ethanol” we had a verysuccessful meeting in Gatlinburg,Tennessee that was attended by over70 people. We were also fortunate tobe allowed to hold our workshopwithin the 22nd Symposium on Bio-technology for Fuels and Chemicalswhich was again ably organized byBrian Davison and his colleaguesfrom the Oak Ridge National Labora-tory. It was apparent from both thepresentations within our IEA Bio-energy Task 26 workshop and thegeneral symposium that several areasof research have progressed signifi-cantly, such as the fermentation ofmixed pentose/hexose sugars to etha-nol, while several groups such asBCI and Iogen will be demonstratingthe technical feasibility of the overallbiomass-to-ethanol process in thenear future.
This is the last reminder of our IEABioenergy Task 26 session for thePACIFICHEM meeting that will beheld in Honolulu, Hawaii in Decem-ber. Although it is now too late tosend abstracts to ACS, a few e-mailed abstracts to David Gregg(djgregg @interchange.ubc.ca) mightstill be incorporated into our session.Details on the Hawaii meeting are at-tached at the end of this newsletter.
As our editor, David Gregg, indicatesbelow, we will only have 1-2 morenewsletters under the current trien-nium program of work that runs from1 Jan 1998 to 31 Dec 2000. Negotia-tions are underway at the IEA Bio-energy Executive Committee meet-ing, held 29-31 May in Utrecht,Netherlands, about the structure ofthe Tasks for the next 3 year programof work that will commence in Janu-ary, 2001. More details on our pro-posed future structure will be appear-ing in the next newsletter.
Thanks again to all the presenters andparticipants that made the Gatlinburgworkshop such a productive meet-ing. ♣
EDITORS NOTESD. J. Greggmailto:[email protected]
This is the last year of the current tri-ennium for Task 26 and we are cur-rently in the process of determiningthe level of participant interest andstructure of continuance.If you havefound issues of this newsletter to beof value, please inform the ExecutiveCommittee member(s) and/or IEATask 26 country representative fromyour country of the importance ofcontinuing this type of forum.
If it is supported by enough coun-tries, the new Liquid Biofuels Taskwhich should run from 2001-2003,will build on the combined strengthsand successes of the existing Task 26and 27. The overall objective of thisfuture Task is to provide participants
with comprehensive information toassist them with the developmentand deployment of biofuels for motorfuel use.
The Task will address both policyand technical issues relating to liquidbiofuels, particularly ethanol andbiodiesel. We will provide informa-tion and analyses on policy, regula-tory, and infrastructure issues to as-sist participants in their efforts toestablish biofuels markets. We willalso address technical issues relatedto development of advanced conver-sion technologies. In addition, we
NEWSLETTER CONTENTS
TASK MEMORANDA......... 1
EDITORS NOTES ............. 1
RECENT ACTIVITIES........ 2
TWENTY FIRST SYMPOSIUM ON
BIOTECHNOLOGY FOR FUELS AND
CHEMICALS, GATLINBURG ,TENNESSEE, U.S.A., MAY 7-11,2000. ......................................... 2
FUTUREWORKSHOPS/SYMPOSIA .16
IEA MEMBERSHIP ..........17
IEA TASK 26 COUNTRYREPRESENTATIVES ........17
IEA BIOENERGYEXECUTIVE COMMITTEE(EXCO) MEMBERS ..........17
NEWSLETTER 2
will deal with the specialized issuesrelating to biodiesel. This arrange-ment allows each of these compo-nents to benefit from the coordinatedinteraction with the others.
The Task will conduct work in threeareas. Work that began in Task 27 onpolicy, regulatory, and infrastructureissues will be continued and ex-panded with increased stakeholderinvolvement. Work will also buildon the successes from Task 26 tocatalyze cooperative RD&D projectsthat will help participants developimproved processes for convertinglignocellulosic biomass to ethanol.A third project will also address spe-cialized issues relating to biodiesel.The Task will provide for cohesiveinformation dissemination and out-reach through the establishment of abroad-based web site and periodicnewsletters. Stakeholder involvementwill actively be encouraged in allthree project areas. The Task willalso continue and expand its interac-tions with other IEA BioenergyTasks, other IEA Agreements, andother related groups.
Deliverables for this Task includetopical reports, analyses, workshopsand proceedings, newsletters, peri-odic progress reports, annual ac-counts, and other information prod-ucts. These are described in more de-tail in the full proposal. If supported,the Task will begin in 2001 and op-erate for a three-year period. Thecombined work is expected to beproductive from the start since itcombines the successful ongoing ef-forts of Task 26 and 27.
There will be a strong tendency tocontinue to profile the technical ad-vances but this will be tempered withdiscussions on various governmentalpolicies (environmental and institu-tional) and collaborative strategies(government, industry and researchgroups) that are currently operatingeffectively. An example of this typeof strategy currently under way in theNetherlands is discussed later in thisnewsletter.
Again do not forget that there is stillone more meeting for this current
Task in Hawaii this coming Decem-ber. We were hoping to have a grandfinish to the current Task by having agood turnout. This will not be thecase with the current level of ab-stracts that we have received so far! Ifyou do want to present at this meet-ing you will have to immediately e-mail me a copy of your abstract asthe deadline is officially past( [email protected] ) .♣
RECENT ACTIVITIES
Twenty First Symposium on Bio-technology for Fuels and Chemi-cals, Gatlinburg, Tennessee,U.S.A.,May 7-11, 2000.
This was a very successful sympo-sium, with over 180 participants, atotal of 35 oral presentations and 170posters categorized into the areas of:
• Feedstocks: Production, Modifi-cation, and Characterization
• Applied Biological Research;
• Processing Research;
• Emerging Opportunities for In-dustrial Chemicals;
• Bioenergy and Bioproducts;
• Industrial Chemicals
• Enzymatic Processes and En-zyme Production.
For more information on this confer-ence or to purchase a copy of the con-ference proceedings please contact:
Dr. Brian DavisonConference ChairmanOak Ridge National LaboratoryP.O. Box 2008, Bldg. 4505Oak Ridge, TNUSA 37831-6226Tel: 423 576 8522Fax: 423 574 6442mailto:[email protected]
_____________________________
Our IEA network sponsored a SpecialTopic Discussion Group focused onthe “Commercialization of Biomassto Ethanol”, which, was held withinthe larger Gatlinburg Symposium onMay 10, 2000. The workshop had 70participants from 11 countries andrepresented academia (30 partici-pants), the public sector (19 partici-pants), consultants (5 participants)and the industrial sector (15 partici-pants).
The goal of this workshop was toshow participants that we are close todemonstrating the technical viabilityof an integrated biomass-to-ethanolprocess and that progressive technicaladvances and policy decisions willlikely greatly enhance the economicattractiveness of the process.
There were nine individuals that pre-sented material (10-15 minutes each)with questions being brought up aftereach presentation. The highlights ofthe presentations and the names andaddresses of the presenters (the pre-senting author in a multiple authorpresentation is marked with an aster-isk i.e., *) are indicated below.
BRAZILGisella Maria Zanin*, Cesar C.Santana, Elba P.S. Bon, Raquel C.L. Giordano, Flávio F. De Moraes,Silvio R. Andrietta, Carlos CoelhoDe Carvalho Neto, Isaias C. M a - cedo, Djalma Lahr Fo, Luiz P. R a - mos, and José D. FontanaUniversidade Estadual de Maringamailto:[email protected] m.br
Although Luiz Ramos from FederalUniversity of Paraná was originallyslated to present, it was obvious withthe imminent arrival of his secondchild, regretfully had to make a moreimportant appearance elsewhere!Gisella filled in admirably and pro-vided us with the following informa-tion.
Brazilian Bioethanol Pr o gram
Brazil is the largest producer ofbioethanol (from sugarcane) and hasbeen producing fuel ethanol since
NEWSLETTER 3
1975. Three factors led to the im-plementation of a national programto introduce fuel ethanol: trade defi-cits as a consequence of:
• high imported crude oil prices(from $600 million in 1973 to$2.6 billion in 1974);
• Brazil in 1973 imported 34% ofits total energy consumption inthe form of crude oil. Thisdropped to 18% after implement-ing the ethanol program.
• The most important factor wasthe major drop in sugar pricesfrom $1400/tonne in November1974 to $268/tonne in December1975. Sugar mill owners havealways been a strong lobby inBrazil and the program repre-sented an ideal solution to theirproblems. The production of al-cohol allowed for flexibility inthe sector, preventing largestockpiling of sugar by divertingany excess to ethanol produc-tion.
The Brazilian National Alcohol Planwas implemented in two phases. Thefirst phase, started in 1975, and tookadvantage of the structure and capac-ity of existing sugar mills to produceonly hydrated alcohol to replace tet-raethyl lead as a gasoline additive.The proportion of ethanol was in-creased from 1.1% in 1975 to 16.7%in 1979, without having to modifyautomobile engines.
The second phase, beginning after1979, involved the production of hy-drated alcohol for direct use as anautomobile fuel and required a com-plete modification of automobile en-gines. A number of factors contrib-uted to the rise of alcohol-driven carsto a level of up to 96% of the indus-try’s production by 1986. These in-cluded an agreement between the fed-eral government and ANFAVEA, theofficial government representative ofthe Brazilian automobile industry, afavorable stable price for ethanol (hy-drated held at 65% of gasoline) andlower industrialized products tax(IPI) for alcohol-driven automobiles.Very favorable financial incentives
were also given to the sugarcane pro-ducers which resulted in a stunning35% growth in the sector.
Problems with the Program
By 1980, several problems resultingfrom a variety of factors began toplague the program. The period ofthe “Brazilian miracle” was over andwas replaced by a retraction of thecountry’s economy. This meant thegovernment was forced to redefinenational priorities. Stabilization ofthe price of crude oil at about$10/barrel no longer made the substi-tution of gasoline with alcohol ad-vantageous, as had been the case inpast years. The government decidedto reduce the price of ethanol to bepaid to the produces. This price wasset on the average cost of the differ-ent producers, but production costsvaried significantly between modern,productive mills and outdated millswith high production cost, located inareas that were not traditionally sug-arcane-producing regions. This differ-ence in cost further aggravated thesituation with outdated mills.
In 1986 a new reduction in the pro-gram incentives was introduced. Thespecial credit line for the cultivationof sugarcane was cut, worsening thesituation for the mills. The resultinglack of sugarcane caused a drop inproduction of 4 billion L of alcoholin 1987, which represented the differ-ence between the installed industrialcapacity and production capacity ofthe agricultural sector. The idle ca-pacity caused the production costs toincrease even further.
Brazil faced a crisis in 1988 when thegrowth in the sugar market, causedproduction to be diverted from etha-nol to sugar, and a continuousgrowth in demand for hydrated alco-hol led to the country importingethanol and methanol.
Several unfavorable factors related tothe production of alcohol-fueled ve-hicles also began to surface. Fuelsupplies became unstable as the priceof hydrated alcohol gradually in-creased in relation to gasoline. Thefederal government established tax
incentives for gasoline-driven auto-mobiles while also reducing the taxincentive for alcohol-driven vehicles.This combination of factors led theindustry to reduce production of al-cohol vehicles from 96% of totaldomestic sales in 1985 to 0.01% in1997.
Nevertheless, ethanol still represents51% of the liquid fuel consumed inBrazil (hydrated alcohol plus blendswith other fuels) with 63% being hy-drated alcohol fuel. The sugarcaneindustry still generates nearly 1.3million direct jobs, 54% of which aredirectly related to ethanol production.Therefore, the maintenance of theprogram is not only strategically im-portant from a technoeconomic view-point but also because its completedemise would impart a tremendoussocial problem for those regionswhere sugarcane is the main source ofrevenue.
Future Perspectives for the Pro-Alcohol Program
More than two decades since its crea-tion, it is easy to recognize that theBrazilian Pro-Alcohol Program de-mands a redirection to minimize thehuge conflict now existing betweenthe historical policy and the currentunfavorable reality (e.g., the “green”fleet stagnation). This redirectioncould be based on several actions,such as returning to the original poli-cies of tax incentives and price con-trol, implementing new policies toensure availability of fuel, and estab-lishing strict regulations for commer-cialization and good standards forquality control.
Based on a gradual return to theoriginal ruling established for the na-tional plan, one could anticipate anew boom in the Brazilian ethanolmarket based on the (re)creation of arenewed “green” fleet of taxis andother small transportation vehicles.This has been strongly supported bythe government, and steps to some-how subsidize the future of this ac-tivity are now being studied (e.g.,“green” taxation on diesel and gaso-line consumption).
NEWSLETTER 4
Apart from these structural changes,there is also a need for the identifica-tion of new market opportunities.This is being pursued by the gov-ernment through the following ac-tions:
1. An increase in the anhydrousethanol content in fuel blendswith gasoline from 24 to 25 to26%;
2. The utilization of 3% anhydrousethanol in diesel blends for die-sel engines;
3. An increase of the aforemen-tioned level of 11-13% by apply-ing a cosolvent that could stabi-lize the anhydrous ethanol/dieselmixture.
Alternative technologies such as co-generation are still under evaluation,and their potential has been identifiedas promising for further reductions inthe cost of producing ethanol fromrenewable resources. All these per-spectives refer to ethanol as the mainproduct. These government directionsare under the responsibility of the In-terministerial Council for theSugar/Alcohol Industry and the Na-tional Department of Energy Devel-opment – Ministry of Mines and En-ergy.
Companies that produce ethanol (200mills) have jointly created Brazil Al-cohol S.A. with the mission of in-creasing the price paid by the largedistributors to the mills and secondlyto improve the quoted value of Bra-zilian sugar in the internationalcommodity markets.
Utilization of sucrose in alternativeand improved fermentation processeswould also appear to be another tar-get for research and implementation.There is a large array of opportunitiesranging from PHB from cane molas-ses and bagasse formulations for cat-tle feed to low-cost media for SCPproduction.
Sugarcane bagasse should also be in-creasingly viewed as an acceptablestarting material for new alternativeagroindustrial businesses. These
might include the production of bio-degradable composites; lignocellu-losic matrices for solid-state fermen-tation; and new material derived fromnatural polymers such as lignin, cel-lulose and hemicellulose.
_____________________________
THE NETHERLANDS
Ethanol for Fuel, The Approachwithin the Nethe r lands
Part 1 - Perspective of the DutchGovernmentArjan de Zeeuwmailto:[email protected]
Novem (Nederlandse ondernemingvoor energie en milieu) is the Nether-lands agency for Energy and Envi-ronment. Novem is a service organi-sation specialising in themanagement of energy and environ-mental programs on behalf of thecentral government, the EuropeanUnion and the International EnergyAgency. In addition to knowledgeand expertise, Novem also offersvarious forms of financial support.Novem cooperates with the businessworld, not-for-profit organisations,governmental bodies and research in-stitutions.
More information on Novem isavailable at the following website:http://www.novem.org/novem/home. htm
Incentives
Third Paper on Energy
This document recommends a 33%energy efficiency increase for the anda 10% Renewable Energy componentfor the Netherlands by 2020.
Kyoto protocol
The government of the Netherlandscommitted to a 6% reduction ingreenhouse gas emission by 2010with 50% (25 Mton) of that comingfrom international measures and the
other 50% within the Netherlands it-self.
_____________________________
Background on theGAVE Programmedrawn from “Working Together on En-ergy for the Future: Inventory andanalysis of new gaseous and liquidenergy carriers” & “GAVE: Gaseousand Liquid Energy Carriers” bothpublished by Novem B.B. in coopera-tion with the Ministry of Housing, Spa-tial Planning & the Environment andthe Ministry of Economic Affairs of theNetherlands.
In order to promote the market intro-duction of new gaseous and liquidenergy carriers, a sum of NLG 40million was reserved by the Nether-lands government from the CO2 re-ductions funds for a programme con-sisting of three phases: an inventoryand field survey; a long-term researchprogramme; and the development anddemonstration of promising options.The three phases will take place overa 10-year period starting in 1998.
The inventory and field survey wascompleted in December of 1999 sothat a decision could be made on thecontinuation of the other scheduledphases. The objective of the firstphase was to draw up an inventory ofthe prospects for liquid and gaseousfuels. Where relevent, and certainlywith respect to biomass, the marketprospects and cost-effectiveness wascompared with that of electricity gen-eration and other reference situations.The results of Phase I were used todetermine whether or not the nextphase will be carried out, and if so,which direction it will take.
The inventory phase was carried outby Novem, at the request of the min-istries of Health, Spatial Planning &Environment and Economic Affairs.The GAVE activities were overseenby a manager, Mr Eric van den Heu-vel of Novem and guided by repre-sentatives of the organisations in-volved. During this phase, aninventory and evaluation of varioustechnological options was made sothat preliminary priorities could be
NEWSLETTER 5
given to these options. The needs ofthe parties involved was also consid-ered. Based on the above, the twoministries then made a go/no-go de-cision on the progress and content ofPhases 2 and 3.
Both technological aspects, as wellas environmental, economic, socialand communicative aspects were in-cluded. The following paragraphsprovide a discussion of these aspectsin greater detail.
Objective and envisaged results
The main aim of Phase I was to forma clear basis for a decision by the twoministries concerning the possiblefollow-up phase, which will begeared to realising large-scale demon-stration projects.
When the decision is taken, it is im-portant that the industrial sector andthe other parties involved support thedecision, and that suitable plan forrealising these demonstration projectswill be based on the results of analy-ses performed during Phase I and thediscussions with the stakeholders.
A decision must also be reached onthe further development of those op-tions that are promising but not yetfully developed, as well as the mostsuitable support that can be providedbeyond the scope of the GAVE pro-gramme.
The envisaged results for Phase Iwere:
• Insight into the technical, finan-cial, ecological and internationaldimensions and prospects of thepotential conversion and productchains, compared to other op-tions for sustainable energy andreduction in CO2 emissions (in-cluding CO2 storage);
• Insight into the non-technicalaspects of the product chains andalso, with regard to using bio-mass as fuel, the availability ofbiomass;
• Insight into the safety aspects ofthe various options;
• A list of technical options ac-cording to priority, based on theresults of the various analyses;
• Insight into the possibilities ofperforming the pre-competitivestudy, to be carried out withinthe framework of theDutch/Japanese partnership, forthe possible second and thirdphases of this programme;
• A list of criteria to serve as thebasis for making go/no-go deci-sions on the implementation ofPhases 2 and 3. This criteria listwill be drawn up in consultationwith both ministries;
• The commitment of the indus-trial sector and other parties toparticipate in the further devel-opment of technological optionswhich may be the subject ofPhases 2 and 3;
• A detailed development plan forPhases 2 and 3, including ex-plicit objectives and expected re-sults for both phases, the plan ofapproach being used to realisethese objectives, time span, or-ganisational structure, evaluationcriteria and proposed communi-cation activities;
• Insight into social support forthe developments envisaged inthis programme;
• Insight into the way in whichthe proposed projects for Phases2 and 3 can be financed by usingthe possibility of linking up toother sources of funding;
• Communication with, and trans-fer of knowledge to, relevant or-ganisations and companies.
Approach
This phase comprises the inventoryand evaluation of the technical op-tions and a survey of the long termneeds of the Dutch parties involved.
To achieve this, the following analy-ses will be performed.
a) Inventory and analysis of the tech-nical options.
b) Methodological analyses.
c) Socio-economic analyses.
d) Integral analysis.
Inventory and analysis of technicaloptions
The inventory and analysis of thetechnical options will determine thecurrent state of the art and their po-tential contribution to the CO2 andsustainable energy objectives. To thisend, an inventory must be made ofthe existing technical options (e.g.using a Quick Scan based on avail-able information and a SWOT analy-sis), and compared to (reference) op-tions. The technical performance ofthe following options can then be de-termined.
Options based on fossil fuels for theproduction and application of newliquid and gaseous energy carriers.
Biomass options for the generationof heat and electricity.
Biomass options for producing andusing new liquids and gaseous en-ergy carriers.
CO2 storage options.
Throughout the analysis, performancecan be explicitly described in termsof potential reductions of fossil fuelconsumption and CO2 emissions.The technical environmental effects(including Nox, dust emissions, pro-duction waste and residues) will bedescribed, as well as the economicperformance of this option (in termsof cost-effectiveness with regard tosustainable energy and CO2 reduc-tion). A preliminary priority rankingcan then be given in terms of tech-nology, economics, and the envi-ronment. It is also important to iden-tify the main bottlenecks indevelopment and suggest possiblesolutions. It is vital that the analysisis based on a chain approach, exam-ining not only the core of the tech-nology, but also the preliminary and
NEWSLETTER 6
final stages of developments. Whenevaluating the performance of bio-mass-based options, the availabilityand suitability of the fuel play a sig-nificant role. The performance forliquid and gaseous fuel options arealso compared to that of other bio-mass applications. The preliminaryand final stages can also play a role(e.g. infrastructure aspects in usingmethanol or hydrogen as fuel). Anoverview of the safety aspects mustalso be made.
Methodological analyses
Not all technological options havereached the same level of develop-ment. Nevertheless, a clearly definedcomparative parameter is needed. Amethod of comparison must be usedto analyse the various options. Inview of the limited duration of Phase1, a new method will not be devel-oped, but existing methods, such asLCA method, will be used in the fi-nancial, environmental and technicalanalyses. To ensure comparison ofthe financial analysis, a common de-nominator must be found betweenthose technologies that are still in adevelopmental stage (such as theHTU process) and those that aremuch further developed (ETBE frombio-ethanol). Here, the expertise ofcost engineers in the chemicals sectorwill be valuable in drawing up aworkable and comparable investmentestimate. Information on the com-parative parameter should be avail-able as soon as possible in Phase 1as this methodology will be used inthe technology analysis.
Socio-economic analyses
Socio-economic analyses are definedas:
A non-technical SWOT analysis toimplement a technical option;
A three-layer assessment of the avail-ability of biomass, representing theglobal, European and national con-text. At a global level, the possibleconflict between sufficient biomassand food production could play arole. At the European level, theavailability of biomass for the Neth-
erlands must be viewed in the con-text of the DE objectives of otherEuropean countries and the EuropeanUnion. At a national level, usingtechnology, legislation, and spatialplanning to link several objectivescan play an important role;
An analysis of requirements of theparties involved in new liquid andgaseous energy carriers. This willprobably include more parties thanthe aforementioned stakeholders, whowill mainly be approached about en-ergy-related, technical and industrialinterests. Parties could be organisa-tions such as the Consumer Organi-sation, ANWB (Royal Dutch Tour-ing Club), BOVAG (Association ofCar Dealers and Garage Owners),plus environmental and nature con-servation associations. In otherwords, organisations that are impor-tant in terms of establishing socialsupport.
The socio-economic analyses indicatethe non-technical risks and opportu-nities within the technical optionsand the direction from which solu-tions could be found.
Integral analysis
In order to evaluate the results of thetechnical and socio-economic analy-ses, an integral analysis based on theaforementioned analyses will be per-formed at the end of Phase 1. Theobjective is to provide a foundationfor the possible step towards Phases2 and 3. Multi-criteria analysismethods will be used. The long-term
research programme in Phase 2, andthe demonstration of several pilotprojects in Phase 3, must be gearedto technologies with the best chancesof success.
The analyses will generate a widerange of data from which the variousoptions can be evaluated. In mostcases, no single option will scorebetter than any of the others on allfronts. The technical, environmental,financial and non-technological fac-tors must be evaluated. By using dif-ferent forms of approach in the inte-gral analysis (e.g. emphasising eithertechnical factors or economic factors),we can establish which options scorebetter than those already in progress,and which technical options shouldbe top of the priority list in terms ofoverall factors.
Summary of methodology
Options with good prospects will beassessed and compared with existingenergy sources on the grounds oftheir cost-effectiveness, conservationof fossil fuel and reduction in CO2
emissions. In the assessment otherthan technological, economical andenvironmental aspects are important.The following aspects play a role inthis regard:
• TechnologicalWhat are the technological fea-tures of the option?
• EconomicalWhat is the viability?
Criter iaC riteria
Technology development phase
Technology developm ent phase
B reakt hroughs requiredBreakthroughs required
Viabilit y ofcommercialisat ion
V iability ofcommercialisation
Abs. contribution to CO2emission red.
Abs. cont ri but ion to CO2emission red.
A bility t o realise trendreversal
Abilit y to real ise t rendreversal
Direct costs & benefit s(avoided CO2-eq. )
Direct cost s & benef its(avoided CO2-eq. )
Indirect cost s & benef its(economic si de-ef fect s)
I ndirect costs & benefit s(economic side-eff ects)
Feedst ock pri ce stabilityFeedstock price st abilit y
Support from governmentEnd-users/ NGO’s/SuppliersSupport f rom government
End-users/NGO’s/ Suppliers
Degree of otherenvironmental eff ects (soil,
water, air emissions)
Degree of ot herenvironmental ef fect s (soil,
wat er, air emissions)
Applicabilit y abroadA pplicabi lity abroad
Analyse sAnalys es
Ana lysi s p erformed to ass ess criteria
Te chnologya nd R is kA na ly sis
Tec hnologyand RiskAnalys is
EmissionsA na ly sis
Em is sionsAnalys is
Cost / B enefitAnalys is
Cost / Be ne fitAnalysis
Mac ro- a ndSocio-
EconomicAnalysis
Macr o- andSocio-
Ec onom icA na ly sis
Stak eholderSuppor tAnalys is
Stake holde rSupportA na ly sis
R eplica tionPote ntialAnalys is
Replic ationPotentia lA na ly sis
NEWSLETTER 7
• EnvironmentalWhat are the environmental ef-fects?
• Market potentialCan the technology achieve asubstantial reduction in fossilfuels and/or CO2 emissions?
• SafetyWhich safety factors would playa role in the production and useof the energy carrier if it were tobe implemented on a large scale?
• SupportIs the industry prepared to in-vest? And what is the support ofe.g consumer and environmentalorganisations?
• InfrastructureWhat modifications to the infra-structure are required?
• AvailabilityFor example, is sufficient bio-mass available?
• Job opportunitiesDoes the technology directly orindirectly create jobs?
The technologies will be assessedand ranked on grounds of the aboveaspects. Naturally, the analysis takesinto account the developmental stageof the new technologies, so that a faircomparison can be made.
_____________________________
Part 1 - Perspective of the DutchGovernment (continued)Arjan de Zeeuwmailto:[email protected]
Results of Phase 1
The most promising energy produc-tion chains were identified as bio-mass based and fossil fuels with CO2
sequestration. Transportation fuelclusters have a lower cost whereas thenatural gas replacement cluster has agreater CO2 reduction potential.Short term solutions were identifiedas well as long term perspectives.The stakeholders have expressed an
interest in committing to the pro-posed solutions which involves atransparent process with market in-volvement.
Biomass based solutions include the
replacement of gasoline with ethanolfrom cellulosic biomass. This optionwas shown to be attractive for CO2
emission reduction.
Ethanol fits into the existing infra-
Natura l Ga s Re place me nt (NGR) fue l chainsN atural Ga s Replace ment (NGR) fue l chainsNa tur al Gas R epla cem ent (N GR ) fuel cha insTransportation Fuel ChainsTr anspor tation Fuel C ha insTr ansporta tion Fuel C hains
Fue l chains that re plac e ga soline in ICEsFuel c ha ins tha t r epla ce gas oline in IC Es
Fuel c ha ins that replace diese l in IC EsFue l chains that re plac e dies el in ICEs
Compar is on fuel chains r efer enced to av era ge D utc hve hicle
C om pa rison fuel c hains refe re nc ed to a ver age Dutchv ehic le
Synthe tic natura l ga s fue l chainsSy nthetic na tur al gas fuel c ha ins
Re fere nc e fue l chainsRefe rence fuel chains
Hy dr ogen fuel chains 1H ydroge n fuel chains1
C om pa rison fue l chains2Compar ison fuel chains 2
R efe rence fuel c ha inRe fere nc e fue l chain
• Cellul os ic ethanol (SS F)• Cellul os ic ethanol (CPB)• B iomas s met hanol• B iomas s FT gas oline
• Cellulosic ethanol (SSF)• Cellulosic ethanol (CP B)• Biomass methanol• Biomass FT gasoline
• HTU diesel• Biomass FT dies el• Biomass DME• Py rolys is oil diesel
• B iomas s compres sed SNG• B iomas s hy drogen• Natural gas H2 with CO2 s equest ration• E lec trolyt ic hy drogen• B iomas s met hanol in Fuel Cell V ehic le• Grid elec tric vehic les
• Biomass c ompress ed S NG• Biomass hydrogen• Natural gas H2 wit h CO2 seques trat ion• Elect roly tic hydrogen• Biomass methanol in Fuel Cell Vehicl e• Grid elect ri c v ehi cles
• Biomass S NG• B iomas s SNG
• P et roleum-based gasoline• P et roleum-based diesel• LPG
• Petroleum-bas ed gas ol ine• Petroleum-bas ed di es el• LP G
• Natural gas H2 wit h CO2 seques tration• Biomass hydrogen• Elect roly tic hydrogen with renewable elec tricit y
• Natural gas H2 with CO2 s equest rati on• B iomas s hy drogen• E lectrolyt ic hy drogen wit h renewable elect ric ity
• All el ec tric• Di stributed power / PEM FC• A ll elect ri c• Dis tri buted power / P EMFC
• Conventional natural gas• Conv ent ional natural gas
Tec
hn
olo
gy
Filt
er
Fu
el C
hai
nE
mis
sio
ns
Filt
er
Co
st F
ilter
R econside r Disc arded Fuel C ha ins
Re je cte d In the Tec hnology Filter
• Compressed air-driven vehicles• Human / anim al-powered transport• Rail, wat er, and air t ransport applicat ions• Carbon sequest rati on f rom nat ural gas by
carbon black product ion• Coal-based hydrogen production chains• SNG from land-f ill gas• HTU biocrude• DMM -based fuel chai ns
Re je cte d In the Tec hnology Filter
• Compressed air-driven vehicles• Human / anim al-powered transport• Rail, wat er, and air t ransport applicat ions• Carbon sequest rati on f rom nat ural gas by
carbon black product ion• Coal-based hydrogen production chains• SNG from land-f ill gas• HTU biocrude• DMM -based fuel chai ns
Re je cted In theEm is sions Filter
• E lectrolytic hydrogen fromlocal non-renewable elect ri cit y
• P et roleum based diesel• P et roleum based LPG• CNG vehicles
Re je cted In theEm is sions Filter
• E lectrolytic hydrogen fromlocal non-renewable elect ri cit y
• P et roleum based diesel• P et roleum based LPG• CNG vehicles
Re je cted In t he C os tFilte r
• Biodiesel from soybeans• Sugar / starch - based ethanol
Re je cted In the C os tFilte r
• Biodiesel from soybeans• Sugar / starch - based ethanol
Rev is ite d• Cellulosic ethanol vi a SSF process*• Coal-based H2• S ugar / st arch -based ethanol• Rapeseed-based bi odiesel• HTU biocrude• H2 vehicles wit h hydri de storage
* added t o complete analysis andkept in f inal analysi s, others are not
Rev is ite d• Cellulosic ethanol vi a SSF process*• Coal-based H2• S ugar / st arch -based ethanol• Rapeseed-based bi odiesel• HTU biocrude• H2 vehicles wit h hydri de storage
* added t o complete analysis andkept in f inal analysi s, others are not
Al l possibl e fuel chai ns
Low CO2fuel chai ns
Attracti ve fuel chainsPlausiblefuel chains
20 .0 00 4 0.00 0 6 0.000 80 .0 00 10 0.000 120 .0 00
500
2 50
Ele ctrolytic hy dr ogen
Ce llulosic ethanol CBP
N atural ga s H2 + C O2 s eq.
Biom ass SN G
Ce llulosic ethanol SSF
Biom ass D ME
Biomas s FT Dies el
I
IIIII
0
I Etha nol cl uster
II D iese l cluster*
III H ydrog en clu ste r
Note: costs are based on displacement of directly competing fuels, while reduction is based on displacement of all fuels*HTU diesel joins the diesel cluster provided a low-cost green upgrading technology is developed
Cost of CO 2 reductionin NLG per ton
NEWSLETTER 8
structure with blending experience inboth the Brazil, Canada and USA.Pure ethanol requires very fewchanges in the current infrastructure.Various production technologies arepossible with an estimated laboratoryscale cost of 100 NLG/ton and ademonstrated cost of 130 NLG/ton.Sugar beet based technology can beused in the demonstrations but is noteconomical for full-scale production.The ethanol option is relatively un-known in the Netherlands and dem-onstration of the whole productionchain will need broad collaboration.
Other gasoline alternatives appear tobe two to three times more expensiveon a NLG/ton CO2 equivalentavoided basis than biomass derivedethanol. CO2 avoidance with diesel-type fules appears to be significantlymore expensive than for gasoline-based fuels. DME appears to offer theleast expensive alternative to diesel atabout 240-250 NLG/ton. FT dieselwould cost about 330 NLG/ton buthas a greater CO2 reduction poten-tial.
The costs of other alternative fuelchains that cannot use the existinginfrastructure are significantly higher.The end-use technology significantlyincreases the cost and the CO2 reduc-tion potential is not significantlyhigher.
Final Recommendations to the Min-istries
• Start-up a demonstration facilityin both the transportation andnatural gas sectors to reduceCO2 emissions.
• Draw up the preconditions to in-vestigate the optimal applicationof biomass and stimulate (i) thewhole chain approach and the in-ternational orientation of indus-trial stakeholders and researchinstitutes, (ii) active involve-ment of public players and de-velop the lay-out and content ofa new program in a short prepa-ration period.
Coming activities
• industrial parties have beenasked to present their demonstra-tion plans;
• initiation of a study to evaluatethe long-term world-wide avail-ability of biomass;
• development of a program lay-out and content;
• developent of preconditions forproject selection;
• investigation of the potential forinternational collaboration activi-ties.
Part 2 - Nedalco’s ActivitiesHans Niessenmailto:[email protected]
Present Situation
The Netherlands and Nedalco are cur-rently not in the fuel alcohol market.Although Nedalco is the largest pro-ducer of potable alcohol in Europefrom sugar beet, cane molasses andgrain.
Nedalco supplies 130 thousand m3 ofthe European market 2000 thousandm3 annual production. This produc-tion represents a leading market sharein the food grade alcohol market andan intermediate position in the indus-trial grade alcohol market. Nedalcohas locations in Belgium, Denmark,Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spainand UK.
More information on Nedalco isavailable at their website:http://www.nedalco.com
Research Objectives
Nedalco has the following researchobjectives:
• To develop route(s) from multi-ple feedstocks to fuel alcohol;
• These route(s) should be eco-nomically viable without sub-sidy within 10 years;
• The ethanol should have a pro-duction cost of 0.17-0.25USD/L;
• Reduce carbon dioxide emis-sions.
Development Constraints
Sufficient finances must be generatedfor development and the developmentrisk must be under control i.e., lowrisk of failure (financial, technologi-cal). A step by step approach will beused to mitigate the risk.
The initial step was to look at theavailable proven process technology,feedstocks and markets for by-products. This was followed by anevaluation of available production fa-cilities and pilot/semi-production fa-cilities.
Development Program
The Nedalco program has two mainelements:
1) Bioethanol project
This project has a market to marketapproach in that involves the conver-sion of an existing MTBE plant to aETBE process. There already is adedicated customer for the ETBE tobe added to gasoline. The facilitywill represent a semi-production sizefacility producing 3 million lites ofethanol annually.
2) Additional projects
These will include basic research byresearch institutes and a semi-pilotproduction facility at Nedalco andpossibly at a number of alternativelocations. The products producedfrom these facilities will be marketedthrough the bioethanol project.
Conclusion
It is our belief that fuel ethanol willbe economically viable within 10years. A step by step and market ap-proach with partnerships is requiredto be successful.
_____________________________
NEWSLETTER 9
CANADAWilliam CruickshankNatural Resources Canadamailto:[email protected]
Production of Fuel Ethanol fromLignocellulosic Feedstocks in Ca n - ada
Natural Resources Canada’s researchprogram on ethanol from biomass issupported by PERD through theBioenergy Development Program.The objective of the program is todevelop technologies and integratedsystems for the cost-competitive pro-duction of ethanol and value-addedproducts from lignocellulosic feed-stocks. The issues that are drivingthis program are environmental is-sues such as the GHG’s through theKyoto Protocol and agricultural di-versification. The R&D projects forthis program are contracted-out to in-terested parties on a cost-shared (25%minimum) basis. The annual researchbudget for this program is 1 millionCan$. The active projects are:
Feedstocks/Pretreatment:Steam Pretreatment of SoftwoodResidues - University of British Co-lumbia - Dr. Jack Saddler
Hydrolysis:Improved Cellulase Enzyme Hy-drolysis of Biomass FeedstocksIogen Corporation - Dr. TheresaWhite
Fermentation:Pilot Scale Fermentation of PentoseSugars - Tembec Inc. - Dr. DavidCameron & Mr. Bob Benson
Coproduct Development:Biorefining of Biomass Feedstocksfor the Production of Ethanol andValue Added Co-Products - Keme-strie Inc. - Dr. Esteban Chornet
Integrated Biomass:Operation of a Demonstration Plantfor Ethanol Production ProducingFuel Ethanol from Biomass - IogenCorporation - Mr. Patrick Foody Jr.
Conclusion:Cooperation and cost sharing be-
tween Natural Resources Canada,Canadian Industry and Academia hasenabled the development of state-of-the art biomass-to-ethanol technol-ogy. Participation in IEA Task 26provides and ideal mechanism forCanada to cooperate internationallywith other countries who share thesame objective of making biomassethanol a commercial reality.
_____________________________
AUSTRALIANeville Pamment* & Zhou, B.Department of Chemical EngineeringUniversity of Melbournemailto:[email protected]. edu.au
“Hemicellulose-to-Ethanol ferment a - tions - How far have we come?”
Neville agreed to present an overviewof the advances in hemicellulose-to-ethanol fermentations from the pointof view of commercialisation andlooking at the international picture,especially developments in the USA.The talk focussed primarily on thefollowing recombinant high ethanolproducing strains:
1) Escherichia coli
Ingram, Univ. of FloridaK011 - chromosomal integrantLY01 - integrant with high ethanoltolerance
FBRI, USDA, PeoriaFBR series - stable plasmid strain
2) Saccharomyces cerevisiae
Ho et al., Purdue1400 pLNH32,33LNH-ST - chromosomal integrant(various patents)
3) Zymomonas mobilis
Zhang et al., NRELCP4 (pZB5)ZM4 (pZB5)C25 chromosomal integrant(xylose utilising)AX101 xylose/arabinose utilising
Current Levels of Fermentation
Neville then proceeded to comparesome of the best recent data obtainedby the various groups for batch fer-mentations under “real-world” condi-tions (i.e., data obtained with native,as opposed to synthetic, hydro-lysates, commercial nutritional sup-plements and in the absence of anti-biotics) Some issues to be resolvedwere highlighted, including:
• the relatively low rate of xyloseutilisation (compared to glucose)by all strains. (Efforts to remedythis are underway in at least twolabs)
• the problem of galactose sparing
• cost and supply issues associatedwith medium nutrients
• the potential for genetic manipu-lation work to reduce the re-quirement of organisims forcomplex nutrients
• the need for further work to as-sess the feasibility of cell recyclein repeat batch culture in hydro-lysates
• the need for more careful docu-mentation of strain maintenanceand inoculum preparation proce-dures
• the desirability of comparativestudies of the candidate organ-isms under closely comparablecultural and analytical conditionson a range of substrates
_____________________________
DENMARKBirgitte Ahring* & Anne BelindaThomsenTechnical University of Denmarkmailto:[email protected]
The Danish Concept of BioethanolProduction from Biomass
Birgitte discussed the current Danishvision of a bioethanol production
NEWSLETTER 10
process. This focused on convertingwheat straw into ethanol via a wetoxidation pretreatment, enzymatichydrolysis and thermophilic anaero-bic fermentation
Potential products & byproductsfrom bioethanol production frombiomass
Sugars: glucose, xylose, arabinose
Fermentation products: ethanol, xyli-tol, fatty acids, lactic acid, methane
Fibre products: plastic composites,fibre board, animal food fibres,hemicellulose plastics
Wet oxidation
Wet oxidation is the reaction of mo-lecular oxygen with an organic com-ponent taking place under aqueousconditions and at elevated pressureand temperature.
-R- + O2 -> Products + CO2 + H2O + Energy
Hemicellulose solubilization
Thermophilic anaerobic bacteria forproduction of bio-ethanol fromlignocellulosic biomass
Advantages
• Ferments both hexose and pen-tose sugars
• Produces ethanol at boilingpoint of ethanol (78 C)
• Low risk of pathogenic contami-nation at high temperature
• Produces thermostable enzymes
Disadvantages
• Low ethanol tolerance
• Production of by-products
• Low substrate tolerance
• Addition of co-substrates (yeastextract)
• Limited knowledge of biochem-istry and genetics
_____________________________
FINLANDLiisa Viikarimailto:[email protected]
VTT has been previously profiled inissue 4 of the IEA Task 26 newsletterwhich is available at the IEA Bio-energy website. VTT Biotechnologyhas primarily pursued the fermenta-tion and enzymatic hydrolysis ele-ments of biomass conversion forethanol and chemicals through thefollowing: enzyme research and de-velopment; partial and total hydroly-sis of lignocellulosics and metabolicengineering for more efficient fermen-tation.
Enzyme Research and Development
There are five main areas of interestin this major category of VTT’s bio-technology research. These are: im-provement or development of newcellulolytic enzymes; hemicellulasesand oxidases; combinations of en-zymes; molecular biology of enzymesecretion and mechanisms of geneexpression.
VTT Biotechnology has concentratedtheir efforts on the enzymes associ-ated with 10 species of microorgan-isms (see Table) for a number of ap-plications. Most of the work relatedto bioconversion is with the cellu-lolytic enzymes (Endoglucanase I toV and Cellobiohydrolase I and II) ofTrichoderma reesei..
For example the cellubiohydrolasesof Trichoderma reesei i.e., CBHI(Cel7A) and CBHII (Cel6A) havebeen characterized with regard to theirstucture, biochemical and biophysicalproperties and undergone protein en-gineering to explore their catalyticdomain, linker protein and cellulose-binding domain (CBD). These stud-ies have provided valuable informa-tion on the mechanisms of these en-zymes to hydrolyze cellulosicsubstrates.
Partial and Total Hydrolysis ofLignocellulosics
This area of research has concentratedon the modification of fibres, com-bined pretreatment techniques andoptimization of hydrolysis by newenzymes.
Metabolic Engineering
Examples of projects that have in-cluded metabolic engineering are: di-acetyl non-producing brewer’s yeast(patent filed in 1989 and ready forindustrial use), xylitol production(patent filed in 1990, process optimi-zation still needed), xylose fermenta-tion (patent filed in 1990, basic re-search still required to obtaintheoretical yields), and a major meta-bolic engineering program that ranfrom 1996 to 1999. The latter in-cluded the development of tech-niques, engineering major carbonfluxes of yeasts, balancing glycolysisand pentose phosphate pathways, xy-lose fermentation,
Organism Enzyme
Trichodermareesei
EndoglucanaseI-VCellobiohydro-laseI & IIXylanase I & IIβ-Xylosidaseα-Arabinosidaseα-GlucuronidaseAcetyl xylanesterasesMannanase
Aspergillusoryzae
Xylanase I & IIAcetyl mannanesteraseFeruloyl esterase
Aspergillusfumigatus
Xylanase I & II
Aspergillusniger
GalactanasesPolygalacturoni-dase
Aspergillusterreus
α-Arabinosidases
NEWSLETTER 11
Processing schemes
Penicilliumsimplicissimum
α-Galactosidases
Bacilluscirculans
Xylanase
Bacillussubtilis
Mannanase
Phlebiaradiata
Lignin peroxi-daseMn-peroxidaseLaccase
Coriolusversicolor
Laccase
redox and energy balancing. Therewere patents filed in 1997 and 1998associated with major improvementsin glucose and xylose fermentation.The program looked at non-conventional yeasts, bacteria as wellas brewer’s yeast and filamentousfungi.
_____________________________
SWEDENGuido Zacchi*, Mats Galbe, KerstinStenberg, Charlotte TengborgChemical Engineering 1Lund Universitymailto:[email protected]
Fuel Ethanol from Sof t woodProcess Development using a PDU
Guido discussed the Process Devel-opment Unit (PDU) at the Universityof Lund and some of the recent re-search findings using the PDU.
Process Development Unit (PDU)
The PDU allows us to evaluate thefollowing process units:
• Batch acid hydrolysis with theability to use a temperature rangeof 160-230 C and test scale-upby a factor of roughly a factor of5 (10 L & 2 L vessels).
• Batch, fed-batch and continuousenzymatic hydrolysis over atemperature range of 40-90 C
with two vessel sizes for scale-up trials (20 & 40 L).
• Batch, fed-batch and continuousSSF fermentation with a tem-perature range of 35-80 C andthree different vessel scenarios(100 L, 3*20L, 2*5L).
• Separation will be accomplishedthrough both a centrifuge and afilter press.
4. Recovery will be through a 20 Levaporation and a distillationunit.
5. Analysis is through an HPLCand TOC.
The PDU provides enhanced knowl-edge of the material balances, flow-stream composition, characterisationof products/by-products and wastestreams, and the ability to adapt mi-
cro-organisms to continuous opera-tion. Thus providing a framework forprocess optimisation. The PDU alsoneeds to have a great deal of flexibil-ity as it will be required to evaluatevarious raw materials (cellulose &starch), various process steps (sepa-rate & integrated) and various processconfigurations (SSF, SHF, multi-stage acid hydrolysis, recycling ofprocess streams, etc.).
Softwood to Ethanol Process Re-search
Process Scheme Comparison
Two general process schemes havebeen compared i.e., Separate Hy-drolysis and Fermentation (SHF) andSimulataneous Saccharification andFermentation (SSF) for two soft-wood species.
Process Configuration
NEWSLETTER 12
Water Recycling Schemes
Substrate Ethanol Yield(% of theoretical)
Willow, SSF 85
Willow, SHF 85
Spruce, SSF 70
Spruce, SHF 58
SHF = separate enzymatic hydrolysisand fermentationSSF = simultaneous saccharificationand fermentation
Cellulose Conversion Rates usingVarious Fractionation Schemes
Substrate Cellulose con-version in rela-tion to reference
Whole slurry 1.00
Washed pre-treated spruce
1.32
+ prehydrolysateand washing wa-ter treated withlaccase
1.02
+ prehydrolysateand washing wa-ter treated withCa(OH)2
1.04
+ fermented pre-hydrolysate andwashing water
1.38
SSF Fermentation of Whole Slurry
Various Water Recycling Schemes
Four water recycling schemes havebeen evaluated and as shown in thefigure the integration of energy or re-covery of energy within the processreduces the cost of producing ethanolsubstantially. There was also a sig-nificant difference between recyclingbefore and after the distillation. Par-ticularly in the case where the energyis not integrated there was a majoradvantage to recycling the water be-fore the distillation.
NEWSLETTER 13
Bioethanol Process Technology Development Path
Opportunities &Needs
Strategic Objectives
Technology Portfolio
Technology Development
CommercializationFeedback
Product and Technology Life Cycle
Stage Gate Process
Bioethanol Production Cost Reduction Path
Time
Ethanol Production Cost, $/gal
1.20
0.60
Yr 2000
Near-term
Mid-term
Long-term
USAQuang Nguyen*, Cynthia Riley,John Sheehan and Robert WooleyNational Renewable EnergyLaboratorymailto:[email protected]
Bioethanol Process DevelopmentStrategies and Implementation: APerspective
Bioethanol Process Technology De-velopment Path
Quang outlined strategies and meth-ods NREL uses to help industry de-velop and commercialize bioethanolprocess technology. These includethe development of a listing of op-portunities and needs, strategic objec-tives, a portfolio of technologies tosatisfy the objectives, a stage gateprocess to manage technology devel-opment and assist industry in com-mercialization. Each of these aspectswas discussed in more detail.
Opportunities and Needs
Opportunities
General support of bioethanol as aremedy to environmental and ruraleconomic problems (farming and for-estry sectors) (near to mid term)
Phase out of MTBE in many states(near to mid term)
Conversion of unused biomass resi-dues to value-added products (near tomid term)
Needs
Biomass residue disposal (near tomid term)
Reduction in dependence on im-ported crude oil (mid to long term)
Green house gas reduction (mid tolong term)
Strategic Objectives for BioethanolTechnology Development
Technologies must be developed totake advantage of opportunities and
meet the needs identified (i.e., cus-tomer and time focussed)
Develop a Technology Portfoliowhich includes near term technolo-gies and mid to long term technolo-gies.
Leverage and integrate developmentefforts in various stages.
Product and Technology Life Cycle
There is a characteristic life cycle as-sociated with the research, develop-ment and deployment of any tech-nology. There is also a parallel cycleof market penetration. In the near-term the technology is in its infancywith the original ideas being furtherinvestigated and developed.
NEWSLETTER 14
Conversion of Softwood Residues to Ethanol via Two-stage DiluteAcid Hydrolysis
Wood Residues
First-Stage Pretreatment
Countercurrent Extraction Second-Stage Pretreatment
Dilute Sulfuric Acid
Water
Steam
Cellulose Hydrolysis &Ethanol Fermentation
To Ethanol Recovery
Fermenting organism
Liquid Slurry
Cellulase Enzyme
Near-Term Technology: Without cellulaseMid-Term Technology: With cellulase
Stage Gate Process for Managing Technology Development
Develop concept, preliminary technical & financialassessments
Exploratory research results define processes
Qualify opportunity, detailed assessments,evaluate competitive technology, may involveadditional exploratory research
Generate data to confirm feasibility, integratedprocess testing
Pilot scale testing, generate data for processguarantee, preliminary engineering design
Detailed engineering design, plant construction &startup
Ideas
1. Preliminary Investigation
2. Detailed Investigation
3. Development
5. Commercialization
Gate
4. Validation
$$
$$$$$
A Balanced Technology Portfolio Includes Strategic Leaps
Time
Ethanol Production Cost Reduction
Progress through incremental improvements
Progress through strategic leaps (breakthroughs)and incremental improvements
Bioethanol Production Cost Reduc-tion Path
A Balanced Technology Portfoliomust include Strategic Leaps (i.e.,major technical breakthroughs andinnovations) and Incremental Im-provements. Technical breakthroughsgenerally require fundamental knowl-edge of the characteristics of proc-esses or materials.
Near to mid term opportunities inniche feedstock in many areas of USinclude agricultural residues (cornstover, bagasse, straw), forest resi-dues and muncipal solid waste.
As an example, a technology devel-opment path for conversion of soft-wood residues to ethanol was pro-posed.
Near-term hydrolysis technologiesinclude the use of two-stage diluteacid hydrolysis or concentrated acidhydrolysis.
Mid-term hydrolysis technologies in-clude the use of: co-current (or coun-tercurrent) dilute acid pretreatmentfollowed by enzymatic cellulose hy-drolysis; enzymatic cellulose hy-drolysis with increased specific en-zyme activity, improved thermalenzyme stability and improved en-zyme utilization.
Example: Comparison of Single-stage and Two-stage Dilute Acid Hy-drolysis of Softwood Forest Thin-nings to Sugar
Hydrolysistype
SingleStageSugarYield(%)
TwoStageSugarYield(%)
Dilute Acid 44 65
Dilute Acidplus Enzyme
75 82
Stage Gate Process for ManagingTechnology Development
Goals of “Stage Gate” Process
• Better home work up-front i.e.,focus on early stages of devel-opment to select the most viabletechnologies.
• Strong customer/competitivetechnology orientation
• Quality of decision and execu-tion will result from better pri-oritization, completeness and
standard metrics.
NEWSLETTER 15
The Valley of Death for New Technology
• Fast-paced, parallel and multi-functional activities such astechnical, economic, environ-mental, legal, etc.
Function of Gates:
Evaluate accomplishments using es-tablished criteria
Make informed decisions on futureactions of projects
_____________________________
USACharles WymanDartmouth Collegemailto:charles.e.wyman@dartmouth. edu
Changing Research Needs to Build aMajor Bioethanol I n dustry
Although we have come a consider-able distance in moving the conceptof converting lignocellulosic feed-stocks to ethanol into a technical re-ality, the barriers of demonstrationand commercialization are signifi-cantly different and in many waysmore challenging. This presentationoutlines some of those challengesand suggests ways to reduce or over-come them.
Some considerations in financing anew project include:
• Financing considerations
• Feedstock cost and availability
• Product and market
• Technical position, competitive-ness, and demonstrated perform-ance
• Costs and construction contract
• The site
• The team
• Risk
• Scrutiny
An example of one of these consid-erations is the impact of feedstockcomposition variations on cost. Asthe percentage of carbohydrate poly-mers in the feedstock increase from50 to 70 the cost of the ethanol dropsalmost linearly from roughly 1.75$US/gal to roughly 1.25.
One favored method for reducing riskis to use successive scale-up of aprocess. However, scale--up presentsits own set of challenges:
• many financiers are reluctant toscale up by more than a factor often
• scaling is very expensive in capi-tal and operating costs
• takes a long time to complete
• difficult to impossible to financebecause of risk, time requiredand cost
One method used to assure or guaran-tee to financiers that the costs andrisks associated with technologyscale-up are addressed is through asuccessive layering of contingencies.A normal contingency is applied tothe core technology. Then in succes-sive layers a performance margin, fol-lowed by extra equipment and extracontingency are applied.
There is generally a pattern (see Fig-ure) of cost, risk and type of fundingassociated with the research, devel-
opment and commercialization of anynew technology. In the early stagesthe costs are relatively low, risk highand the funding comes from govern-ment sources. As development pro-ceeds the costs begin to rise, the per-ceived risk is greater and oftenprivate sources of funding begin totake over. Once the technology iscommercialized the return on invest-ment is returned as the risk is rela-tively low and the return is known.The relative commercial costs are as-ymptotically reduced with timethrough the learning curve.
The presentation was concluded withthe following thoughts:
• Bioethanol technology is poisedfor commercialization
• The road to commercial use isdifficult
• Commercial use will feed incre-mental advances
• There is a need to significantlyadvance the technology to have agreater impact
• There is a need to develop asolid basis to support improve-ments and their applications
• It is important to work togetherto realize this important oppor-tunity. ♣
NEWSLETTER 16
FUTUREWORKSHOPS/SYMPOSIA(Mark these in your diary!)
July, 2000
ISAF XIIIInternational Symposium on AlcoholFuels“Implementing the Transition to aSustainable Transport System”Stockholm, SwedenJuly 3-6, 2000
Local Organiser:Lars Vallander,Swedish National Energy Admini-stratione-mail:[email protected]: http://www.stem.se
December, 2000
IEA Symposium on Biomass-to-ethanol
Held within PACIFICHEMChemical Society SymposiumHonolulu, HawaiiU.S.A.
Local organiser:Jack Saddlerfax: 604 222 3267mailto:[email protected]
We encourage participants to contactus about hosting a meeting and sug-gesting a theme for workshops in2000. ♣
NEWSLETTER 17
IEA MEMBERSHIPCountry/Org. Membership
Australia IEA BioenergyAustria IEA BioenergyBelgium IEA BioenergyBrazil IEA BioenergyCanada Task 26Denmark Task 26EU IEA BioenergyFinland Task 26France IEA BioenergyGermany IEAGreece IEAHungary IEAIreland IEAItaly IEA BioenergyLuxembourg IEAJapan IEA BioenergyNetherlands Task 26New Zealand IEA BioenergyNorway IEA BioenergyPortugal IEASpain IEASweden Task 26Switzerland IEA BioenergyTurkey IEAUK IEA BioenergyUSA IEA Bioenergy
IEA TASK 26 COUNTRYREPRESENTATIVES
Country IEA Task 26
Country Representative
Canada Jack Saddler
mailto:[email protected]
Denmark Birgitte Ahring
mailto:[email protected]
Finland Liisa Viikari
mailto:[email protected]
Netherlands J.J. den Ridder
mailto:[email protected]
Sweden Bärbel Hahn-Hägerdal
mailto:barbel.hahn-
IEA BIOENERGYEXECUTIVE COMMITTEE(EXCO) MEMBERS
Country IEA Bioenergy
Country Representative
Australia Dr. Stephen Schuck
Austria Dr. Josef Spitzer
Belgium Mr. Jean Renault
Brazil Mr. Eugenio Miguel Mancini
Scheleder
Canada Dr. Peter Hall
Croatia Ms Branka Jelavic
Denmark Mr. Klaus Mandrup
Finland Professor Kai Sipila
Country IEA Bioenergy
Country Representative
France Mr. Pierre Ballaire
Italy Dr. Vito Pignatelli
Japan Mr. Yoshitaka Tokushita
Netherlands Dr. Gerard Smakman
New Zealand Dr. George Hooper
nz
Norway Dr. Olav Gislerud
Sweden Dr. Lars Tegner
Switzerland Mr. Martin Hinderling
UK Mr. Richard Kettle
US Dr. Raymond Costello
EU Mr. Kyriakos Maniatis
kyri-
CHAIR OF FOREST PRODUCTS BIOTECHNOLOGYFACULTY OF FORESTRY
UNIVERSITY OF British Columbia#4041 - 2424 MAIN MALL
VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA
V6T 1Z4
