Transcript Diapositiva 1

A Focused Trip towards a Reduced
Carbon Footprint Economy
Guido Ghisolfi
25 November 2014
The Apparently Impossible Starting Point
Primary Fuels
t
Oil
Methane [1000 m3]
Coal
Wood
Straw
Energy Content CO2 Emissions Transportation
Bulk Density
TEP*
tCO2 / TOE
tdm / m3
1
0.82
0.72
0.45
0.45
3.02
2.33
4
0.02
0.02
0.90
0.74
0.80
0.30
0.15
1.20
1.01
1.08
0.98
0.64
0.25
2.90
2.64
3.10
3.20
0.02
4.20
0.79
0.52
0.90
0.90
0.79
0.40
Secondary
Gasoline
LPG
Diesel
Fuel Oil
Ethanol
Lignite
*1 TEP = 42 GJ = 11,666 kwh = 10 GCal
The Apparently Impossible Starting Point
Comparing 2.2 to 2.7 times the energy at 3 to 6 times the
density, i.e. a ratio 6.6 to 16, has discouraged serious thoughts
on handling wood and biomass.
Large availability of fossil sources at low procurement costs
have prevented LARGE and LONG TERM development
investments strategically focused on Sustainable Bioenergy
solutions in particular by those countries and companies that
counted to leverage on the spread between cost and relatively
high market prices of oil and gas.
What could lead to second thought is how the exploration,
prospection and extraction cost has evolved.
There is in fact little doubt that oil and gas are and will be
available. How much of the incremental will be below 80 $/b
procurement cost remains to be seen.
The Issues to solve to seriously consider Biomass
1. A very low “delivered” energy content;
2. Doubts on industrially proven technologies to free up most on
the already low energy content at profitable market
conditions;
3. Difficult to envisage a "REAL" Supply Chain between two
worlds, Energy & Oil and Agriculture, which never dealt nor
trusted each other;
4. An inherent uneasiness of the industrial and “non speculative”
community to depend on Government strategic decisions such
as step changes on consolidated policies on energy.
Lack of Strategic Investors
Although, globally, a certain amount of money has been
invested in the world, the 10-15 B$ that can be accounted for,
have been highly fragmented and rarely focused on a specific
target with a clear strategy in mind.
Many and large flops did not help confidence building:
D1 Oils
Choren
LS9
Range
Coskata
None reached industrial level and the few who did, as KiOR and
Ineos, are not replicated yet.
Why not the Large Agriculture?
The sector is very commingled: large land owners accustomed
to defend their position and highly fragmented farmers
accustomed to high subsidies.
The subsidies have quashed their productivity and their
strategic thinking, if they had ever had one.
All operator left their futures in the hands of Fertilizers and
Biotech Producers.
Farmers expect support and money. They do not even think
to invest money!
Why not the Life Science?
Only in the year 2000 fast sequencing a DNA was a 100
MMUS$ and 6 month job, while now is a 3000 $ and 6 hour
effort.
When ICI, Hoechst Bayer, DuPont made the strategic decision
to make of “Life Science” their core business, their thought was
not Biomass and Energy but Health and Quality of Life.
The big investments went to Drugs Developments that
promised high margin returns and, if any, to Agribusiness that
already had a developed market for Food and Feed.
Spending big dollars for an undefined market to be created in
Green Energy was considered too risky and of doubtful return.
Why not the Forestry and Pulp & Paper Industry?
In an age when Digital has reduced printed paper to a luxury
and Waste Management is recovering most of the paper, the
Commodity Pulp & Paper Industry had no money for high risk
investments and the Specialty one had no appetite for low teens
returns.
Besides, as Biochemtex could experience on its own skin, the
Pulp & Paper environment is one of the least innovative because
the very large investments discourage Innovation that, if
unsuccessful, could erode sure and stable returns on huge
investments.
Why not the Oil and Energy Sector?
In all honesty, most of the “real money” that has been
invested in the sector came from the Oil Industry, often for
political reasons to soothe local governments and sometimes to
diversify and hedge the risk of energy sources. Sometimes the
hedging part went at the expenses of the focus on one specific
technology.
One of the worst global crisis in History has reduced the
appetite for long term strategic alternative thinking.
In any case in the last decade the Oil Companies had not
invested large sums on Biotech per se, but selected the most
promising Developers, funding their programs often when still
at “Venture” level.
Why Biochemtex has arrived so far?
A large amount of money, 450 MM€, concentrated and
focused on an organic plan to develop Technology, Supply Chain
and Operations to extract Energy from Biomass.
A consolidated R&D and Engineering Group, Twice Technology
World Leader.
Under a Single Investor and focused Management Group,
substantial results were achieved but, when required, important
corrections and radical changes of direction have been made.
Biochemtex developed at industrial scale all parts of the SC.
Every investment has been made and tested at Industrial
Level with engineering developed to the detail and installed on
the Field.
Some equipment is already at the Third Evolution.
Biochemtex Path: 2003-2005 Analysis
What was available? Several access routes to bioenergy were
thought viable:
•
•
•
•
Gasification;
Pyrogasification;
Pyrolysis;
Enzymatic fermentation.
Few proved to be affordable.
Biochemtex Vision: The Analysis
The more commingled is the Biomass available, the easiest the
Procurement, the most difficult and energy intensive the
Process.
Gasification
Cost of final product
per ton of biomass
Pyrogasification
Pyrolysis
Fermentation
SSFH
Biomass ready availability
Biochemtex Path 2005: The Choice
Enzymatic Hydrolysis
A relative low cost choice
Simultaneous Fermentation and Hydrolysis
A lower Capex cost
Neutral Simultaneous Fermentation and Hydrolysis
A much lower Capex AND an easier way to Biorefinery
The choice of Novozymes.
The Lignin Energy Content: How to extract it
2013-2014: Crescentino Operation
A large effort in Energy Generation Engineering, coupled with
the unique development of data on the only industrial quantity
of Lignin Cake available worldwide, led to a major energy
recovery and a VERY LARGE competitive advantage based on
how to handle and how to burn a 60% wet lignin.
Work has been done on Construction materials (Astelloy,
Duplex, 316, 304, Carbon Steel), Boiler types (Moving Grids,
Boiling FB CFBs), Lignin Cake separation techniques (Filters,
Centrifuges, Polyelectrolytes) and Handling to minimize Energy
Consumption and improve Operating Conditions.
CRESCENTINO IS NOW IN FULL OPERATION and has proven
throughput and yields.
PROESA® Step 3: The Lignin Energy Content Extraction
2013-2014: Crescentino Operation
Hardware Modification;
Plant Testing.
100%
Italian Bio Product
S.p.A.
(Italy)
100%
IBP Energia S.r.l.
(Italy)
Industrial Testing on
Lignin Combustion.
Beta Renewables S.p.A.
(Italy)
Patent Filing;
Technology Marketing;
License Sale.
100%
Biochemtex S.p.A.
(Italy)
67.5% Biochemtex
22.5% TPG
10% Novozymes
Process Modification;
Design of New Equipment;
Strong Effort in Bioenergy Generation,
Steam and Energy Bloc Design.
PROESA® Step 3: The Lignin Energy Content Extraction
2013-2014: Crescentino Operation
Balance for 1 ton of EtOH
5 t of dry biomass + 350 $/t cash cost  1 t of EtOH + 3.5 Mwhe
Cost of Ethanol: 5 tb + 350 + CAPEX/10 - 3.5 MWhe
Energy balance per ton of biomass
5 t of biomass [2.25 TEP] + 350 US$
Utilities
1 MWhe
6 tsteam
= 9 GJ
= 15 GJ
24 GJ [0.55 TEP]
0.35 Waste
0.9 CO2
1 EtOH [0.128 TEP] = 5.37 GJ
2.7 t lignin cake [1.40 TEP] = 59 GJ
utilities [0.11 TEP]
24 GJ
35 GJ = [0.85 TEP]
excess energy per ton of biomass
Energy balance per ton of EtOH
2.25 TEP + 350 $
 0.64 TEP + 0.85 TEP [(0.281 – 0.11) x 5]
2.25 TEP + 350 $  1.49 TEP
Energy Yield 66%
PROESA® Step 3: The Lignin Energy Content Extraction
2013-2014: Crescentino Operation
Balance for 1 ton of Biomass
1 t of dry biomass + 70 $/t cash cost  0.2 t of EtOH + 0.70
MWhe
Balance per ton of biomass
1 t of biomass [0.45 TEP] + 70 US$
Utilities
0.2 MWhe
1.2 tsteam
= 1.8 GJ
= 3 GJ
4.8 GJ [0.11 TEP]
0.07 Waste
0.19 CO2
0.20 EtOH [0.128 TEP] = 5.37 GJ
0.54 t lignin cake [0.281 TEP] = 11.8 GJ
utilities [0.11 TEP]
- 4.8 GJ
7 GJ = [0.17 TEP]
excess energy per ton of biomass
Energy balance per ton of biomass
0.45 TEP + 70 $
 0.128 TEP + 0.17 TEP [(0.281 – 0.11) x 5]
0.45 + 70 $  0.298 TEP
The Apparently Impossible Starting Point
NOW LIGNIN IS ON THE MAP
Primary Fuels
t
Oil
Methane [1000 m3]
Coal
Wood
Straw
Energy Content CO2 Emissions Transportation
Bulk Density
TEP*
tCO2 / TOE
tdm / m3
1
0.82
0.72
0.45
0.45
3.02
2.33
4
0.02
0.02
0.90
0.74
0.80
0.30
0.15
1.20
1.01
1.08
0.98
0.64
0.52
0.25
2.90
2.64
3.10
3.20
0.02
0.02
4.20
0.79
0.52
0.90
0.90
0.79
0.40
0.40
Secondary
Gasoline
LPG
Diesel
Fuel Oil
Ethanol
Lignin Cake
Lignite
*1 TEP = 42 GJ = 11,666 kwh = 10 GCal
Cost of Ethanol (all prices in US$)
5 tb + 350 + CAPEX/10 - 3.5 MWhe Price
Country
Biomass
Ethanol Full Cost
Brazil
30
3000
275
China
40
1500
262
USA (NC)
50
3500
775 (2.3 $/gal)
USA (CA)
90
4500
900 (2.7 $/gal)
Italy
100
4500
600
MWh Price
150
125
50
100
200
CAPEX
2014-2018: The Second Generation Biorefinery
For a period of 5 maybe 10 years, Green Electricity (baseload
vs. unsteady photovoltaic or aeolic) will support the system in
most countries (Europe, South America, China).
By then, the 0.85 TEP of Lignin Cake Excess Energy Content,
which can and must be increased, will be industrially converted
into more remunerative products.
MOGHI will be one of the solutions
with 700 US$ of Phenol Oil.
GREG will be an addition to the “Green Barrel”
with 1000 US$ of Glycols.
BUTANOL, BDO, FARNASENE AND…OTHER CHEMICALS are the future.
The future is in Biorefineries and Ethanol is just one of the products.
Cost of Cellulosic Sugars
(1 ton of EtOH = 2.32 tons of Sugars)
Enzyme
Yeast = 152 $
Others
0.43 MWhe
1.7 t Water vented
3 t Steam
2.17 t Biomass
1.5 MWhe
C5-C6 Sugars
Plant
@100 $/t = 217 $
Energy Bloc
2.28 $
1.17 t Dry lignin
1.7 t Water
0.33 t CO2
@ 150 $/MWh
1 ton of Sugars @ 141 $/t Cash Cost
Cost of Sugars (all prices in US$)
2.17 tb + 150 + CAPEX/10 - 1.5 MWhe Price
Country
CAPEX
Brazil
Biomass
Sugar Cost
2000
China
1000
USA (NC)
2000
USA (CA)
2500
Italy
2000
30
190
40
150
50
383
90
445
100
267
MWh Price
150
125
50
100
200
What's Next? Biochemtex Group 2015-2018
All efforts are towards reducing cost of Sugars for when Green
Electricity does not support anymore;
Improve the quality of the biomass introduced into the plants;
Increase the density to the Biomass for Long Distance Supply
Chains;
Further Increase of the Energy Extraction: Work on Energy Bloc;
Develop and build large scale and/or Stategically Positioned
Projects to be converted to Biorefineries: Brazil, NC, Italy,
Sarawak;
Work on In-House (MOGHI & GREG) and Third Parties
Technologies to produce Biochemicals (Bio-Naphtha, Glycols,
Farnasene, BDO, Butadiene, Lipid, Rubbers).
Biochemtex Developments
Several Biotech Companies have worked with Biochemtex to
develop biochemicals using their Methabolic Paths and
Technologies and PROESA® Sugars.
Some of these companies have funded pilot plants investments
and Biochemtex Engineering works to develop Second
Generation Technology to produce their proprietary products.
Successful Tests have been carried on on Fatty Alcohols, Lipids
and C4s based products.
Biochemtex Group on December 31, 2014
Biochemtex S.p.A.
(Italy)
C5-6 S.r.l.
(Italy)
Beta Renewables S.p.A.*
(Italy)
Biochemtex Agro S.r.l.
(Italy)
Italian Bio Product
S.p.A.
(Italy)
*Beta Renewables: 67,5% Biochemtex – 22,5% TPG – 10% Novozymes