Cashing In on Carbon 2016 Algae Summit Plenary Session October 25 th ABO Meeting October 2016

Transcription

1 Cashing In on Carbon 2016 Algae Summit Plenary Session October 25 th ABO Meeting October 2016

2 Algenol Corporate Highlights Advanced Industrial Biotechnology Company Leading Edge Capabilities Extensive algal laboratory facilities for advanced product R&D Outdoor 4.5 acres Process Development Unit to scale up for commercial production QC and Analytical chemistry capabilities as foundation for GMP compliance Started up in 2006 Headquartered in Fort Myers, Florida Over 140 employees (~100 in Florida and ~40 in Berlin, Germany) US DOE 2016 Algal Biomass Grant ($5 million) $285 million investment to date Multiple awards over the years Strong Investor Base and Collaborators 2

3 Offices and Labs Process Pavilion Process Development Unit (PDU) 2-Acre Array for Algal Production Headquarters and Development Campus Fort Myers, FL 3

4 Carbon Budget and Distribution Carbon Distribution Main Interacting Reservoirs (GtC) Atmosphere Ocean Soil Vegetation Fossil How can algae farming help? Algal products can help lower CO 2 emissions through fossil fuels displacement Algae can increase the carbon content of soil via land reclamation Source: Global Carbon Project, 2015 But, must avoid unintended consequences (land use change, water consumption) 4

5 CO 2 is a key input to algae based products Climate CO 2 and nutrients Embedded Energy Water, carbon and nutrient recycle Commodities and High value products Solar Irradiation Algae biomass production Harvesting and dewatering Processing and conversion Water Embedded energy and water Energy Byproducts and coproducts Land Source: National Algal Biofuels Technology Review, June 2016 (Modified). 5

6 CCU value depends on scale Facility type Product type CO 2 needs (tonne/yr) Flue gas CO 2 cost (% of rev.) (1) Captured CO 2 cost (% of rev.) (2) Food grade CO 2 cost (% of rev.) (3) CO 2 options Large Facility: 2,000 acres Biofuels 150, Flue gas or captured CO 2 Medium Facility: 200 acres Ag Commodities 15, Wide range of options based on location Small facility: 20 acres Niche, premium products 1, Commercial CO 2 easiest n n n n n Only large facilities (biofuels) can have a material impact on carbon emissions. These facilities need incentives such as a RINs, carbon tax and CCU incentives to be viable. Without incentives, flue gas economics dictate scarce co-location options with emitters. Medium-size facilities (Ag, feed) need more CCU access than CCU incentives. Small algae facility focused on premium products do not benefit as much from CCU. (1) Based on $15/tonne. (2) Based on $50/tonne. (3) Based on $175/tonne 6

7 Algenol DTE Technology re-uses CO 2 Algenol's Direct to Ethanol process has three key components: High Productivity Algal Platform VIPER Photobioreactors Energy Efficient Downstream Processing Proprietary cyanobacteria make ethanol and biomass from CO 2, water, nutrients, and sunlight. Ethanol productivity in Florida ranges from gal/acreyr (gepay) dependent on season, process conditions, reactor spacing Target is >7,000 gepay Cyanobacteria are grown in saltwater contained in PBRs with engineered supply of sun, CO 2 and nutrients. Designed for fluid dynamics consistent with required mixing for nutrients, CO 2, and cells. PBRs are manufactured at an Algenol facility in Florida Energy efficiency is critical for economics and for low carbon footprint Algenol has developed and patented its own technology for upgrading dilute ethanol streams Spent algae can be processed into a bio-crude that can be refined into diesel, gasoline, and jet fuel 7

8 CCU: Beneficial but not so easy Initial Case* 90% Heat Exchange Efficiency 1 wt % Ethanol Feed Algenol Process Pathway GHG: 16 g CO 2 /MJ Ethanol 83% GHG Reduction vs. Gasoline Coal Case CO 2 capture emission** +43 gco2/mj Ethanol Extend the boundary Natural Gas Case CO 2 capture emission** +13 gco2/mj Ethanol CO 2 Supply from Coal Power Plant Same Algenol Process Pathway Total GHG: 59 g CO 2 /MJ Ethanol 35% GHG Reduction vs. Gasoline CO 2 Supply from Natural Gas Power Plant Same Algenol Process Pathway Total GHG: 29 g CO 2 /MJ Ethanol 70% GHG Reduction vs. Gasoline * D Luo, et al, Env. Sci. & Tech. 44, 8670 (2010). Note; the paper had boundary at Algenol battery limits with pure CO 2 available at that point. ** R. Lively, et al, Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 9, 72 (2015) 8

9 Algenol studied 13 scenarios Case # CO 2 Delivery System Description GHG reduction (fossil fuel reference)* Equivalent CO 2 Cost $/tonne CO 2 ** 1 Coal Flue Gas Transport and no Power Generation 23% 45 2 Coal Flue Gas Transport with Power Generation 85% 50 Example 3 Coal Flue Gas with CC and no Power Generation 27% 60 4 NGCC Flue Gas with CC and No Power Generation 73% 70 5 CHP unit for CO 2 no Refrigeration 62% 96 6 CHP unit for CO 2 with Refrigeration 84% 50 7 NGCC Flue Gas with CC and Power Generation 89% 70 8 CHP System with CC and refrigeration vent absorber exhaust 81% 35 9 Pure CO 2 (no burden) + NG Power generation** 81% 0 10 Pure CO 2 (from Coal plant CC) + NG Power generation 30% 55 Reference** 11 Pure CO 2 (from NG plant CC) + NG Power generation 65% Biomass (wood chips) CHP System and CO 2 capture 116% Biomass (wood chips) CHP System flue gas 113% 38 * GHG reduction includes total energy produced with a 1 MJ reference to fossil fuel (gasoline plus surplus electricity supplied to natural gas power plant). ** Techno-Economic Analyses (TEA) quoted as effective cost of CO 2 with respect to a reference Algenol plant with a 10% IRR and zero CO 2 cost (Case 9). Note: For all these cases, spent biomass injected (sequestered). 9

10 Favorable: Coal Flue Gas with Power Generation Flue Gas transported from coal power plant to Algenol Facility (one of 13 CO 2 delivery scenarios studied in detail) Daytime Operation Coal FG Nighttime Operation Grid Electricity 2 miles from Power Plant to Algenol CO 2 from NG NG for Turbine and HRSG CO 2 from NG (emitted) NG for Turbine and HRSG 10 HRSG = Heat recovery steam generation

11 Life Cycle Benefits Coal Flue Gas Transport with Power Generation This scenario yields a GHG emissions of 85% compared to fossil fuel Total GHG Emissions (gco 2 eq/mj) Petroleum production refining Fossil fuel combustion Total fossil fuel LCA CO 2 uptake EtOH -85% Offsite Emission Total 14.4 ALGENOL Ethanol LCA Biomass Fuel combustion Plant Emission Fossil Fuel Algenol DIRECT TO ETHANOL 11

12 Algenol Recommendations RESEARCH AND PROGRAMS Cost reduction of carbon capture, concentration, transport and short-term (industrialscale) storage. Detailed engineering designs for integration of CO 2 sources with algae production facilities. Demonstration of system integration for CO 2 sourcing and algae production, including "stand-alone" systems. Interagency support for promising, innovative algae systems and products, e.g. regulatory and funding agencies. ST/LT POLICY INCENTIVES Regional carbon pricing schemes through EPA Clean Power Plan (CPP). Expand CCS production tax incentives to CCU. Investment incentives for emitters to deploy carbon capture facilities. Incentives for CO 2 pipelines linking carbon sources to optimal algae siting regions. 12

13 Conclusions Cashing in on Carbon is a real economic and environmental opportunity for algae based production, but Economics of large scale production remain challenging Algal-based fuels face the toughest economic hurdles and additional technical challenges Carbon Capture and Utilization (CCU) in an algae operation is capable of yielding low carbon footprints with innovative use of known engineering systems The deployment economics and environmental incentives for CCU are best targeted toward biofuels and other large scale production, but policy-makers should keep in mind that smaller facilities are a stepping stone to validate larger commodity production systems in the future. For higher value products (than fuels) to have an impact, policy should support broad applications to the largest amount of products that are economically viable 13

14 Acknowledgements Key Algenol Collaborators (CO 2 and Modeling work) Yanhui Yuan Sathvik Varma Ron Chance Teresa Fishbeck Howard Hendrix Georgia Tech Matthew Realff (ChBE) Valerie Thomas (ISyE) Ryan Lively (ChBE) Reliance Industries Limited Makarand Phadke Nikhlesh Saxena Roshni Bahekar Avnish Kumar Accelergy Corp Rocco Fiato John Rockwell University of Toronto Professor John Coleman National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) Phil Pienkos Jianping Yu 14