IEA Bioenergy Task 39 Commercializing Conventional and ...€¦ · 1 IEA Bioenergy Task 39 Commercializing Conventional and Advanced Transport Biofuels from Biomass and Other Renewable

1

IEA Bioenergy Task 39

Commercializing Conventional and Advanced

Transport Biofuels from Biomass and Other

Renewable Feedstocks

Task Leader: Jim McMillan1

Co-Task Leader: Jack Saddler2

Task Coordinators: Susan van Dyk2, Mahmood Ebadian2

1National Renewable Energy Laboratory, USA2University of British Columbia, Canada

Operating Agent: Alex MacLeod (NRCan)

http://task39.ieabioenergy.com/


Transport Biofuels from Biomass


2

IEA Bioenergy Task 39 – objectives

▪ “To facilitate commercialization of conventional and advanced

transport biofuels”

▪ Collaboration between 16 countries

▪ Analyze policy, markets and sustainable biofuel implementation

▪ Focus on Technical and Policy issues

▪ Catalyze cooperative research and development

▪ Ensure information dissemination & outreach with stakeholders

POLICY, MARKETS, SUSTAINABILITY

& IMPLEMENTATIONTECHNOLOGY AND COMMERCIALIZATION

Catalyze Cooperative

Research

State of Technology &

Trends Analysis

Policy, Market and

Deployment Analysis

Biofuel Deployment

and Information Sharing



3

IEA Bioenergy Task 3916 member countries 2019-2021www.Task39.org

European Commission - Laura Lonza, Adrian Oconnell

Denmark - Henning Jorgensen, Michael Persson, Sune Tjalfe Thomsen

Germany - Franziska Mueller-Langer, Nicolaus Dahmen

The Netherlands - Paul Sinnige, Timo Gerlagh

South Korea - Jin Suk Lee, Kyu Young Kang, Seonghun Park

Canada - Jack Saddler

United States - Jim McMillan

Australia - Steve Rogers

Austria - Dina Bacovsky

Japan – Yuta Shibahara, Shiro Saka

India

Sweden – Tomas Ekbom

New Zealand – Paul Bennett

Brazil – Glaucia Mendes Souza

Ireland – Stephen Dooley

Norway – Duncan Akporiaye



http://www.task39.org/

4

Conventional and Advanced Biofuels▪ Conventional biofuels (ethanol, biodiesel) face three main criticisms:

▪ Insufficient (>20%) GHG emission reductions (on an LCA basis)

▪ “Food” is basic feedstock for fuel

▪ Blend walls and infrastructure incompatibility

➔ However, will continue to be the primary biofuels for the next 5-10 yrs!

▪ Ideally advanced biofuels address all three criticisms by:

▪ Substantially reducing GHG footprint (e.g., by utilizing less land, decreasing fossil fuel inputs, and minimizing changes to existing infrastructure)

▪ Using abundant non-food feedstocks (e.g., terrestrial biomasses or aquatic algae/plants)

▪ Producing infrastructure compatible petroleum-equivalent ‘drop-in’ fuels (i.e., containing less oxygen, being more stable, and having higher energy density than ethanol or FAME)



5

Recent reports from Task 39▪ Status and Potential for Algal Biofuels/Bioenergy Production (2017)

▪ Algae remain an attractive target for bioenergy applications;

▪ In the near-to mid-term algae-based fuel production not economically viable;

▪ The algae-based products industry is expanding rapidly, providing near term

opportunities (multi-product biorefinery) but also greater competition in algal

products markets and for suitable land;

▪ Recent technology developments facilitate the use of all algal biomass components;

no longer focused on just valorizing the lipid fraction

▪ Survey on Advanced Fuels for Advanced Engines (2018)

▪ Assess/summarize different biofuel qualities (current & advanced)

▪ Scope included most relevant advanced biofuels being used for road transport

▪ Assessed fuel properties and emission attributes of these biofuels

▪ Reviewed chemical reactions among advanced fuel components & additives

▪ Documented known health effects of these biofuels (fuel and fuel use emissions)



In 2014 Task 39 published the report, “The potential and challenges of drop-in biofuels”




6

Definition of “drop-in” biofuels

• Drop-in biofuels: are “liquid bio-hydrocarbons that are:

• functionally equivalent to petroleum fuels and

• fully compatible with existing petroleum infrastructure”

• In most cases blending of renewable component with petroleum fuel will be required to meet specifications



7

Technologies for drop-in biofuel production

Oleochemical

Thermochemical

Biochemical

Hybrid

Oils and fats

Lignocellulose

Sugar & starch

Light gases

Naphtha

Jet

Diesel

Single producte.g. farnesene,

ethanol, butanol

HEFA-SPK

FT-SPK/SKA

HDCJ, HTL-jet

SIP-SPK

ATJ-SPKCO2, CO

APR-SPK

Green diesel



8

Most commercial volumes of drop-in biofuel produced through the oleochemical platform in dedicated facilities

Company Location Feedstock Capacity

Neste Rotterdam Vegetable oil, UCO and animal fat 1.28 bn L/y

Neste Singapore Vegetable oil, UCO and animal fat 1.28 bn L/y

Neste Porvoo, Finland Vegetable oil, UCO and animal fat 385 m L/y

Neste Porvoo 2, Finland Vegetable oil, UCO and animal fat 385 m L/y

ENI Venice, Italy Vegetable oils 462 m L/y

Diamond Green Diesel Norco, Louisiana Vegetable oils, animal fats and UCO 1.04 bn L /y

UPM Lappeenranta, Finland Crude tall oil 120 m L/y

World Energy (AltAir) Paramount, California Non-edible oils and waste 150 m L/y

Renewable Energy Group Geismar, Louisiana High and low free fatty acid feedstocks 284 m L/y

Total LA MÈDE UCO and vegetable oils 641 mL/y

Neste Oil facility, Rotterdam



9

Main challenges of different technologies identified in 2014 report

• Oleochemical• Feedstock cost, availability, sustainability

• Pyrolysis• Hydrogen demand• Hydrotreating catalyst – cost and lifespan

• Gasification• Capital / scale• Syngas conditioning

• Biochemical• Low productivity • Valuable intermediates

• Coprocessing and refinery integration strategies could potentially overcome some of these challenges



10

THE POTENTIAL AND CHALLENGES OF ‘DROP-IN’ BIOFUELS: The key role that co-processing will play

in its production

Report commissioned by Task 39 and published in 2019

Susan van Dyk, James McMillan, Mahmood Ebadian, Jianping Su, and Jack Saddler

International Energy Agency Bioenergy Task 39 (Liquid biofuels)



11

‘DROP-IN’ BIOFUELS: The key

role that co-processing will

play in its production

Executive Summary and full report available from the Task 39 website



12

How do we expand drop-in biofuel production?

• Build stand-alone infrastructure

• Co-location (hydrogen)

• Repurpose existing infrastructure (e.g. WorldEnergy)

• Co-processing of biobased intermediates in existing refineries to produce fossil fuels with renewable content (lower carbon intensity)

Risk Capital



13

Co-processing as a key strategy to expand drop-

in biofuel production? Benefits of coprocessing

and refinery integration

▪Drop-in biofuel production uses similar processes to petroleum refining▪catalytic cracking, hydroprocessing

▪High hydrogen requirements for removal of oxygen▪Fractionation and blending into finished fuels▪Many of these processes require high investment cost and economics rely on large scale

▪Refinery coprocessing can:▪reduce investment cost of freestanding biorefineries▪Produce lower carbon intensity fuels▪Improve properties of final fuels e.g. lower sulfur



14

Potential refinery insertion points



15

Where and how you insert depends on (1) nature of feedstock & (2) Refinery configuration, and(3) risk to refinery operations

• Chemical characteristics of biobased feedstock• Oxygen

• Acidity/TAN (corrosion problems)

• Alkali metals (impact on catalyst)

• Miscibility with petroleum feeds

• Viscosity (liquid at ambient temperature)

• Defined STANDARDS for intermediates are critical

• Refinery configuration e.g. catalytic cracker, hydrotreater

• Risk to refinery• Catalyst inhibition

• Unplanned shutdowns and increased maintenance

• Reduced fuel quality



16

Potential impacts of co-processing on refinery and products

• Potential changes in product yields

• Potential changes in product characteristics, e.g. improved octane for gasoline or cetane for diesel

• Impact on product quality of high specification fuels such as jet fuel

• Potential increased hydrogen consumption

• Potential catalyst inhibition



17

Comparison FCC and hydrotreater insertion points

FCC Hydrotreater❑ Lower risk as catalyst

continuously regenerated❑ Good for feedstocks that

require cracking❑ Key product from FCC is

gasoline❑ No additional hydrogen

required

❑ Higher risk of catalyst deactivation which would be costly as regeneration takes place offsite every few years

❑ Additional hydrogen required

❑ Potential impact on desulfurization



18

Impact of refinery configuration and product demand – USA & Europe

02468

1012141618

mb

/d

Catalytic cracking Hydrocracking Hydrotreatment/desulfurization

Demand for gasoline in USA – Higher FCC capacity



19

Biobased feedstocks for coprocessing

• “Conventional” lower carbon intensity (CI) drop-in biofuels

Lipids will be the initial intermediate inserted into the refinery • Lipids easier to upgrade

• Vegetable oils readily available

• However, expensive feedstock and sustainability concerns

• Waste feedstocks, e.g. used cooking oil and tallow, limited availability

• “Advanced” lower carbon intensity (CI) drop-in biofuels

Bio-oils and biocrudes (based on pyrolysis, HTL, etc.)• Long-term choice for refinery insertion

• Lower cost than lipids although more complex

• Biggest challenge – availability

• Sufficient volumes will be challenging for several years



20

Ensuring the lower carbon intensity (CI) of the fuels(Tracking the “green molecules”)

• To be beneficial, real emission reductions must be achieved through coprocessing

• Policy incentives linked to renewable content in liquid products (Low carbon fuel standards)

• Various methods for determining renewable content• C14 isotopic method• Mass balance approaches

• Total mass balance method• Mass balance based on observed yields• Carbon mass balance method



21

Key challenges of coprocessing

• Limited refinery level DATA on co-processing

• Understanding interactions of co-processing different feedstocks

• Understanding impact on products and quality

• Ideal blend % for different feedstocks

• Specific impact on refinery, cost and managing of risk

• Defining standards for biobased intermediates

• Method for determining renewable content



22

Advantages of coprocessing

• Lower cost production of low CI fuels

• Faster expansion of biofuel production

• Creating a market for biobased intermediates such as bio-oils/biocrudes

• Petroleum refineries become key allies in biofuel production

• Improved fuel qualities possible – e.g. higher octane gasoline; higher cetane diesel; lower sulfur content



23

Oil refinery vs co-processing refinery

Synergy around multiple products

produced simultaneously



24

Key role of the customer(aviation sector in particular)

• The aviation sector has been a champion in the development of lower carbon intensity drop-in/biojet fuels (Sustainable Aviation Fuels, SAF)

• Co-processing could play a key role in providing increased volumes of lower carbon intensity jet fuels

• Recent approval of lipid coprocessing for production of biojet fuels under ASTM D1655



25

Forest Products Biotechnology/Bioenergy at UBC

Susan van Dyk & Jack Saddler

Biofuels for Aviation.

An IRENA Technology brief

http://www.irena.org/

26

The future: Biobased feedstocks for coprocessing

• Initial supply chain will be established by “Conventional” lower carbon intensity (CI) drop-in biofuels using oleochemical/lipids as the feedstock. However, • Expensive and sustainability (Palm oil) concerns

• Waste feedstocks, e.g. used cooking oil and tallow, limited availability

• In the mid-to-longer term “Advanced” lower carbon intensity (CI) drop-in biofuels will be derived from Bio-oils and biocrudes (based on pyrolysis, HTL, etc.)• Long-term choice for refinery insertion (availability/volumes)

• Likely lower cost than lipids although more complex



27

Forest Products Biotechnology/Bioenergy (FPB/B)

Assessment of likely Technology Maturation

pathways used to produce biojet from forest

residues

(The ATM project) (2016-2018)

(S&T)2

28


ATM Project

▪ Source bio-oil from different technology providers (3)

▪ Upgrading of bio-oil; characterization of biojet & other

fractions

▪ Feedstock supply chain logistics and feasibility;

▪ Life cycle assessment;

▪ Bio-oil production process performance and techno-

economics;

▪ Demonstration plant concept and design

29


Sources of biocrudes

▪ Fast pyrolysis bio-oil/biocrude

▪ BTG, Netherlands

▪ Catalytic pyrolysis biocrude

▪ VTT, Finland

▪ Hydrothermal liquefaction biocrude

▪ Aarhus University, Denmark

5

30


ATM Project – simplified process diagram

31


ATM Project - Conclusions

▪ Biocrudes produced through thermochemical liquefaction technologies,

including fast pyrolysis, catalytic pyrolysis and hydrothermal liquefaction

can be successfully used to produce a significant volume of biojet fuel.

▪ The ATM Project represents a significant achievement in advancing the

knowledge and identifying key challenges of producing biojet fuels

through thermochemical liquefaction technologies.

▪ This integrated study successfully compared the technical, life cycle and

techno-economic parameters of upgrading “biocrudes” into finished fuels.

▪ It is likely that a co-processing approach will provide the lower carbon

intensity (CI) fuels needed by aviation and other long-distance transport

sector (Shipping, trucking, etc.) players

32

Final conclusions• Co-processing uses existing refinery infrastructure to

produce lower CI fuels at lower cost

• Significant interest in coprocessing from many refineries – partially driven by policy (California and British Columbia)

• Co-processing and other types of refinery integration can increase the production of drop-in biofuels

• Key role that the cost, availability and sustainability of the feedstocks/intermediates will play in co-processing “conventional” (oleochemical/lipids) in the short-to-mid term, “advanced” (biocrudes/bio-oils) longer term



33

Questions?



34

Documents

IEA Bioenergy Task 39 Commercializing Conventional and ...€¦ · 1 IEA Bioenergy Task 39 Commercializing Conventional and Advanced Transport Biofuels from Biomass and Other Renewable