Final Report Summary - BIOREF-INTEG (Development of advanced BIOREFinery schemes to be INTEGrated into existing industrial fuel producing complexes)
BIOREF-INTEG is a Coordination and Support Action project within the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) (Theme Energy). The project is funded by the European Commission (EC) from June 2008 until May 2010.
The main objective of the project is to develop advanced biorefinery schemes to be integrated into existing industrial (fuel producing) complexes.
Conclusions:
- 366 existing industrial (fuel producing) complexes in partner-related countries have been identified, and 10 market-specific reference cases have been defined.
- Based on the results of work packages (WPs) 1, 2, and 3, 14 integrated biorefinery cases for 7 considered biomass processing sectors have been defined within WP4.
- Integral technical and economic system assessments of defined biorefinery schemes have been performed within WP4.
- In WP5, the consortium tried to analyse the different biorefinery cases according to both objective (profitability measurement) and subjective (technical and commercial feasibility; SWOT analysis) criteria.
- The technical and commercial feasibility, as well as the SWOT analysis were measured by a questionnaire filled in by experts within the consortium.
- Regarding technical feasibility, major deviation from the average are related to process development (proof-of-concept, scalability...). Application development (referencing new products in the market) are mostly considered as less critical.
- Concerning the commercial feasibility, not surprising, the tangible competitive advantages (cost, price, technical benefits) are key success factors. The other key determinant, the perception of the products, processes... by the consumers is generally speaking scoring rather high for all projects, a good point for 'bio-based economy' projects as studied in BIOREF-INTEG. But this makes the perception criteria less discriminative for the different projects.
- The objective criteria used are related to investment analysis. In WP5 we proposed a 'targeted investment analysis'. In a similar internal rate of return (IRR) calculation model as used in WP4, we computed the required sales price for the main product to reach an IRR = 20 %. This gives a better perspective to compare the different projects to each other.
- Another new parameter is the 'impact level': how deep will a biorefinery concept affect the reference process. We clustered the biorefinery projects in three groups: low, medium and high impact.
- Out of our study, there is a positive correlation between the technical feasibility and the economical value (measured as targeted sales price for IRR = 20 %). Low impact projects are also leading to a higher economical value.
- The commercial feasibility has no correlation with the economical value. It should be considered together with financial analysis to make an educated decision on biorefinery schemes.
- Projects involving thermal treatment of biomass (CHP, pyrolysis, gasification) are clearly still immature and not yet industrially feasible. This appears clearly in a low technical feasibility and a negative economic value.
- Power generation (electricity from biomass) projects also have a negative evaluation (subsidies were not taken into account!). This is of course in line with the comments on thermal treatment, as frequently the same technology is used. The message to electricity-from-biomass projects is: find a value application for heat and keep it simple or change focus and produce products from biomass.
- Biorefinery projects that have the potential to improve the economics of reference cases are low impact projects (no significant impact on the reference process), fermentation projects and co-product valorisation projects. These projects frequently also have an above average technical and commercial feasibility score.
- Finally, legislation is an important factor, driving the use of bio-based feedstock (see biofuel Directive) or supporting directly biorefineries by several subsidy incentives.
Project context and objectives:
1. Introduction
A biorefinery is a facility that integrates biomass conversion processes and equipment to produce fuels, power, materials and/or chemicals from biomass. By producing multiple products, a biorefinery can take advantage of the differences in biomass components and intermediates and maximise the value derived from the biomass feedstock, and optimise the cost effectiveness of its products.
A biorefinery might, for example, produce one or several low-volume, but high-value chemical products, and low-value, but high-volume, liquid transportation fuels; while generating power and process heat for its own use, and perhaps enough for external sale.
BIOREF-INTEG: Objective, consortium, and work packages
BIOREF-INTEG is a Coordination and Support Action project within the framework of FP7 (Theme Energy). The project is funded by the EC from June 2008 until May 2010.
The main objective of the project is to develop advanced biorefinery schemes to be integrated into existing industrial (fuel producing) complexes. Several biomass processing sectors have been considered within the BIOREF-INTEG project including sugar / starch (bioethanol), biodiesel, pulp and paper, conventional oil refineries, power production, the food industry and the agrosector. The identification of innovative biorefinery concepts within this project could be beneficial to the aforementioned sectors by significantly increasing the overall economic profitability, and decreasing the overall environmental impact of their conventional processes.
The project is coordinated by the Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN). Other participants involved are:
- four small and medium-sized entreprises (SMEs): ETC (Sweden / forest-based biorefinery), Ten Kate (the Netherlands / high quality fats and proteins), VFT (Belgium / industrial marketing services with focus on renewable resource materials), and Fons Maes BVBA (Belgium / biodiesel);
- three industries: Abengoa Bioenergy New Technologies (Spain / bioethanol), Cehave (the Netherlands / high quality animal feed), and Repsol (Spain / conventional oil refinery);
- two universities: Aston University (United Kingdom), and University of Ghent (Belgium);
- three research and technological development (RTD) institutes: VTT (Finland), WUR Food and Biobased Research/A&F (the Netherlands), and Innventia (Sweden / pulp & paper).
The project is conducted by seven separate but strongly interrelated WPs:
- WP1: Identification of existing industrial (fuel producing) complexes in Europe;
- WP2: Definition of the most promising added value bioproducts;
- WP3: Knowledge import from outside the EC;
- WP4: Integral technical, economic, and ecological system assessments to select the most promising market specific integrated biorefineries;
- WP5: Technology deployment;
- WP6: Knowledge dissemination and training;
- WP7: Project management.
Methodology
WP 1
For each considered biomass processing sector, the existing industrial (fuel producing) complexes have been identified for the six partner-related countries (Belgium, Finland, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, and the Netherlands). Based on the performed survey, at least one reference case per sector has been defined as a realistic representative of that sector. The reference cases include different feedstocks, such as cereals, oilseed crops, wood, milk, sugar beet, and grass. The cases use different conversion technologies: fermentation, transesterification, anaerobic digestion, combustion, gasification, fluid catalytic cracking and hydrotreating. The reference cases are briefly described, including a block diagram with main overall mass and energy balances.
WP 2
A literature analysis has been conducted within the field of biomass-derived products in order to identify current and potential materials and chemicals. The analysis has been based on the composition of the raw materials of the selected reference cases within WP1, i.e. wheat, straw, potatoes, rapeseed, sugar beet, grass, wood, pulp and paper residues, food industry residues and agro residues. More than 300 chemicals have been identified that can be derived from a biorefinery and that are of interest. There is a relatively small number of 'key' chemicals that act as primary sources for families of chemicals and are, therefore, potentially of greater importance. These have a well established presence, well established infrastructure, and well established markets, which have been identified too. A literature and web analysis on current market prices and volumes of the materials and chemicals identified has been carried out. The longer-term potential market developments that directly affect the future market volume demand and market price of these products have also been roughly assessed.
WP 3
Work on biorefinery views and activities outside the EC have been conducted, comprising the analysis of conference proceedings, seminars, workshops, and websites on biorefinery-related information, including information from the IEA Task 42 on biorefinery. An internal workshop 'Knowledge import from outside EU on advanced biorefineries' was held in January 2009 in Osnabruck, Germany, with invited speakers from Japan, Brazil, and United States (US), sharing their views on the topic of biorefineries.
WP 4
Economic data, regarding the selected reference cases within WP 1, have been gathered by the project partners. These data, together with the data on mass and energy balances of the reference cases, have been used for a techno-economic assessment. In the next step, the results of WPs 1 to 3 have been used to define integrated biorefinery schemes for each selected biomass processing sector.
ECN developed a biorefinery cash flow model for modelling purposes within WP 4. Based on the mass, energy and economic data, the production costs of the main product of each selected sector for both the reference case, as well as for the integrated biorefinery schemes have been calculated. Also the IRR and the payback time of each case have been determined. The objective is to evaluate to what extent the co-production of the added value products could enhance the economic competitiveness of the main product in the reference cases.
WP 5
In WP 4, the consortium has described and evaluated different reference and biorefinery cases for the seven retained industrial sectors. The results obtained can be considered as 'objective', meaning that they are based on facts and figures gathered amongst sector specialists within and outside the consortium.
In WP 5, the consortium has analysed the more 'subjective' aspects of each biorefinery case. There are three steps in doing so:
1. Technical feasibility analysis: how feasible are the proposed processes?
2. Commercial feasibility analysis: are the commercial considerations (market prices, proposed volumes...) realistic?
3. SWOT analysis: what are the strong and weak points of each case? What are the underlying trends influencing potential success?
Next to the evaluation of the subjective aspects, this work package has also covered the cross-sector analysis. By aggregating all the results of different sectors, the consortium has also tried to draw general conclusions on the addition of biorefinery cases to existing reference processes, including some recommendations.
Project results:
For each of the considered biomass processing sectors one to two reference case(s), and up to three integrated biorefinery cases are defined. This has resulted in 10 reference cases and 14 integrated biorefinery cases, as presented below:
1. Bioethanol: The reference case is a conventional grain-to-ethanol plant, with the following two integrated cases:
1. lactic acid production from C6 sugars;
2. ethanol production from DDGS via AFEX pretreatment.
2. Biodiesel: A rapeseed-based transesterification process is the reference case, with two integrated cases to be:
1. production of 1,3-propanediol from glycerol;
2. production of epichlorohydrin from glycerol.
3. Pulp and paper: The reference case is a chemical pulp mill with three integrated cases:
1. lignin extraction from black liquor;
2. DME production via black liquor gasification (BLG);
3. Ethanol production from softwood pulp.
4. Conventional oil refinery: The reference cases consist of two sub processes of a conventional oil refinery: the fluid catalytic cracking process (FCC) and the hydrodesulfurisation process (HDS). The integrated cases are:
1. vegetable oil as partial feed of FCC unit;
2. vegetable oil as partial feed of HDS unit.
5. Power production: The medium-scale reference case is a conventional CHP power plant fuelled with peat or biomass. For large-scale power plant an IGCC fuelled with biomass is considered. The following integrated cases are defined:
1. pyrolysis integrated in CHP;
2. chemical recovery in gasification process.
6. Food industry: The reference case for food industry is taken from the dairy sector, more specifically from cheese manufacturing, and the considered integrated case is:
1. Lactic acid production from whey.
7. Agro sector: Finally, two reference cases are considered for the agro sector. The first reference case is a sugar beet refinery. The second reference case is a CHP system based on anaerobic co-digestion of grass and manure. The integrated cases for this sector are:
1. decentralised sugar beet biorefinery;
2. grass biorefinery.
Based on the technical versus commercial feasibility for all biorefinery schemes studied in BIOREF-INTEG, the following conclusions can be made per sector:
- Bioethanol: both retained cases are overall below average feasibility;
- Biodiesel: the two cases are in the top right quadrant of high feasibility;
- Pulp and paper: three cases from neutral to above average;
- Conventional oil refinery: both cases technically well feasible, but commercially borderline;
- Power generation: both cases are underperforming regarding both technical and commercial feasibility;
- Food: the retained biorefinery case is below average on both feasibilities;
- Agro: this is the only sector with a positive (decentralised beet plant) and negative (grass biorefinery) case.
In the next step, new target sales price for an IRR of 20 %, as well as the related percentage change versus market price are presented as objective criteria. For the refinery cases, the IRR analysis could not be done, as no extra investment was needed and the operating cost in all cases was higher than the reference case.
The required sales price for an IRR of 20 % can be considered as a target for sales teams or as a combination of the market price and possible subsidies (subsidies have been discarded in this project due to their regional specificity).
Looking at the projects from this perspective gives a slightly different view than the product cost analysis as done in WP 4.
Bioethanol:
Both bioethanol cases are an improvement compared to the reference case. This can give an edge to bioethanol producers, to preserve a sustainable profitability in case of fluctuations in feedstock price and crude oil benchmark.
Biodiesel:
For biodiesel, the cases are only dealing with a better -integrated- valorisation of glycerol. Depending on the case, this can improve the overall profitability of a biodiesel plant.
Pulp and paper:
Here, we have a first discrepancy between a simple cost calculation and a targeted investment analysis: the DME case reduces the pulp cost, but the profitability -with the current assumptions- is worse than the reference case.
Power generation:
None of the proposed biorefinery cases are improving the profitability of the reference cases. The targeted investment analysis revealed that even in the gasification / chemicals case, a lower product cost compared to reference case is not sufficient for a profitable process.
The message for thermal treatment of biomass seems to be double:
- Next to electricity, it is recommended to have a valuable outlet for heat.
- Keep it simple! Making the downstream complex does not improve the profitability.
Food:
Simple case, in correlation with the cost analysis.
Agro:
Especially for the grass biorefinery, the recommendations of the power sector are valid: simplicity is the message. Alternatively, increasing the amount of products extracted from grass at the expense of electricity can also improve the picture.
Results show that in many cases there is some concordance between the impact level and the targeted investment analysis: a low impact project tends to be more profitable. There is also a reasonable correlation between the technical feasibility and the economical value. However, there is surprisingly no correlation between the commercial feasibility and the economical value: data may look attractive, but the challenges may be big. This tends to prove the added value to incorporate such a feasibility analysis to more conventional objective return on investment analysis.
Finally, some projects have been clustered and compared to each other. The project clusters are:
- co-product valorisation projects: biodiesel: PDO, biodiesel: ECH, pulp and paper: lignin, food: lactic;
- co-production projects: bioethanol: lactic, pulp and paper: ethanol, agro: decentralised beet;
- fermentation projects: bioethanol: lactic, bioethanol: AFEX 80, biodiesel: PDO, pulp and paper: ethanol, food: lactic, agro: decentralised beet;
- power generation projects: CHP / pyrolysis, gasification / chemicals, grass biorefinery;
- thermal treatment projects: pulp and paper: DME, power: reference CHP, power: CHP / pyrolysis, power: reference gasification, power: gasification / chemicals;
- legislation-driven projects: refinery: vegetable oil in FCC, refinery: vegetable oil in HDS.
The first three clusters of projects are mostly low impact projects, have average or higher technical and commercial feasibility, as well as a good economical value. On the other hand, the last three clusters of projects are mostly high impact projects, have lower to average technical and commercial feasibility, as well as a poor economical value. In case of legislation-driven projects, both selected projects have a high technical feasibility. Commercial feasibility however is below par, fully explained by the higher cost and the lack of technical benefits (as perceived by some respondents). This score has to be put into the right perspective: our model gives a lower weight to legislative support compared to price and technical benefits. Seen the directive character of the legislative support for these projects, this should be opposite.
For a much more detailed description of the project objecttives, methodology, results, and conclusions please see the final report (in 151 pages), available on the project website.
Potential impact:
BIOREF-INTEG public reports:
- Deliverable 1 (see http://www.bioref-integ.eu/publications/ online): Identification and mapping of existing fuel producing industrial complexes in Europe. Deliverable lead contractor: ECN, January 2009.
- Deliverable 2 (see http://www.bioref-integ.eu/publications/ online): Identification and market analysis of most promising added-value products to be co-produced with the fuels. Deliverable lead contractor: Aston University, May 2010.
- Deliverable 3 (see http://www.bioref-integ.eu/publications/ online): Biorefinery-based knowledge import from outside the EC. Deliverable lead contractor: WUR Food and Biobased Research (A&F), December 2009.
- Deliverable 5 (see http://www.bioref-integ.eu/publications/ online): Technology deployment plan. Deliverable lead contractor: VFT, April 2010.
- Final report (see http://www.bioref-integ.eu/publications/ online): Development of advanced biorefinery schemes to be integrated into existing industrial (fuel producing) complexes. Deliverable lead contractor: ECN, May 2010.
BIOREF-INTEG workshops and related presentations:
- Internal workshop (presentations available at http://www.bioref-integ.eu/publications/ online): Knowledge import from outside EU on advanced biorefineries, 29 January 2009, Osnabruck, Germany.
- Public workshop (presentations available on http://www.bioref-integ.eu/publications/ online): Preliminary results assessments and innovative biorefinery concept. 2 December 2009, Solihull, United Kigndom.
- BIOREF-INTEG seminar on final project results (presentations available at http://www.bioref-integ.eu/publications/ online). 9 June 2010, Düsseldorf, Germany.
BIOREF-INTEG newsletters:
- Biorefinery researcher, Issue 01, December 2008
- Biorefinery researcher, Issue 02, June 2009
- Biorefinery researcher, Issue 03, November 2009
- Biorefinery researcher, Issue 04, May 2010
Website address: http://www.bioref-integ.eu
The main objective of the project is to develop advanced biorefinery schemes to be integrated into existing industrial (fuel producing) complexes.
Conclusions:
- 366 existing industrial (fuel producing) complexes in partner-related countries have been identified, and 10 market-specific reference cases have been defined.
- Based on the results of work packages (WPs) 1, 2, and 3, 14 integrated biorefinery cases for 7 considered biomass processing sectors have been defined within WP4.
- Integral technical and economic system assessments of defined biorefinery schemes have been performed within WP4.
- In WP5, the consortium tried to analyse the different biorefinery cases according to both objective (profitability measurement) and subjective (technical and commercial feasibility; SWOT analysis) criteria.
- The technical and commercial feasibility, as well as the SWOT analysis were measured by a questionnaire filled in by experts within the consortium.
- Regarding technical feasibility, major deviation from the average are related to process development (proof-of-concept, scalability...). Application development (referencing new products in the market) are mostly considered as less critical.
- Concerning the commercial feasibility, not surprising, the tangible competitive advantages (cost, price, technical benefits) are key success factors. The other key determinant, the perception of the products, processes... by the consumers is generally speaking scoring rather high for all projects, a good point for 'bio-based economy' projects as studied in BIOREF-INTEG. But this makes the perception criteria less discriminative for the different projects.
- The objective criteria used are related to investment analysis. In WP5 we proposed a 'targeted investment analysis'. In a similar internal rate of return (IRR) calculation model as used in WP4, we computed the required sales price for the main product to reach an IRR = 20 %. This gives a better perspective to compare the different projects to each other.
- Another new parameter is the 'impact level': how deep will a biorefinery concept affect the reference process. We clustered the biorefinery projects in three groups: low, medium and high impact.
- Out of our study, there is a positive correlation between the technical feasibility and the economical value (measured as targeted sales price for IRR = 20 %). Low impact projects are also leading to a higher economical value.
- The commercial feasibility has no correlation with the economical value. It should be considered together with financial analysis to make an educated decision on biorefinery schemes.
- Projects involving thermal treatment of biomass (CHP, pyrolysis, gasification) are clearly still immature and not yet industrially feasible. This appears clearly in a low technical feasibility and a negative economic value.
- Power generation (electricity from biomass) projects also have a negative evaluation (subsidies were not taken into account!). This is of course in line with the comments on thermal treatment, as frequently the same technology is used. The message to electricity-from-biomass projects is: find a value application for heat and keep it simple or change focus and produce products from biomass.
- Biorefinery projects that have the potential to improve the economics of reference cases are low impact projects (no significant impact on the reference process), fermentation projects and co-product valorisation projects. These projects frequently also have an above average technical and commercial feasibility score.
- Finally, legislation is an important factor, driving the use of bio-based feedstock (see biofuel Directive) or supporting directly biorefineries by several subsidy incentives.
Project context and objectives:
1. Introduction
A biorefinery is a facility that integrates biomass conversion processes and equipment to produce fuels, power, materials and/or chemicals from biomass. By producing multiple products, a biorefinery can take advantage of the differences in biomass components and intermediates and maximise the value derived from the biomass feedstock, and optimise the cost effectiveness of its products.
A biorefinery might, for example, produce one or several low-volume, but high-value chemical products, and low-value, but high-volume, liquid transportation fuels; while generating power and process heat for its own use, and perhaps enough for external sale.
BIOREF-INTEG: Objective, consortium, and work packages
BIOREF-INTEG is a Coordination and Support Action project within the framework of FP7 (Theme Energy). The project is funded by the EC from June 2008 until May 2010.
The main objective of the project is to develop advanced biorefinery schemes to be integrated into existing industrial (fuel producing) complexes. Several biomass processing sectors have been considered within the BIOREF-INTEG project including sugar / starch (bioethanol), biodiesel, pulp and paper, conventional oil refineries, power production, the food industry and the agrosector. The identification of innovative biorefinery concepts within this project could be beneficial to the aforementioned sectors by significantly increasing the overall economic profitability, and decreasing the overall environmental impact of their conventional processes.
The project is coordinated by the Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN). Other participants involved are:
- four small and medium-sized entreprises (SMEs): ETC (Sweden / forest-based biorefinery), Ten Kate (the Netherlands / high quality fats and proteins), VFT (Belgium / industrial marketing services with focus on renewable resource materials), and Fons Maes BVBA (Belgium / biodiesel);
- three industries: Abengoa Bioenergy New Technologies (Spain / bioethanol), Cehave (the Netherlands / high quality animal feed), and Repsol (Spain / conventional oil refinery);
- two universities: Aston University (United Kingdom), and University of Ghent (Belgium);
- three research and technological development (RTD) institutes: VTT (Finland), WUR Food and Biobased Research/A&F (the Netherlands), and Innventia (Sweden / pulp & paper).
The project is conducted by seven separate but strongly interrelated WPs:
- WP1: Identification of existing industrial (fuel producing) complexes in Europe;
- WP2: Definition of the most promising added value bioproducts;
- WP3: Knowledge import from outside the EC;
- WP4: Integral technical, economic, and ecological system assessments to select the most promising market specific integrated biorefineries;
- WP5: Technology deployment;
- WP6: Knowledge dissemination and training;
- WP7: Project management.
Methodology
WP 1
For each considered biomass processing sector, the existing industrial (fuel producing) complexes have been identified for the six partner-related countries (Belgium, Finland, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, and the Netherlands). Based on the performed survey, at least one reference case per sector has been defined as a realistic representative of that sector. The reference cases include different feedstocks, such as cereals, oilseed crops, wood, milk, sugar beet, and grass. The cases use different conversion technologies: fermentation, transesterification, anaerobic digestion, combustion, gasification, fluid catalytic cracking and hydrotreating. The reference cases are briefly described, including a block diagram with main overall mass and energy balances.
WP 2
A literature analysis has been conducted within the field of biomass-derived products in order to identify current and potential materials and chemicals. The analysis has been based on the composition of the raw materials of the selected reference cases within WP1, i.e. wheat, straw, potatoes, rapeseed, sugar beet, grass, wood, pulp and paper residues, food industry residues and agro residues. More than 300 chemicals have been identified that can be derived from a biorefinery and that are of interest. There is a relatively small number of 'key' chemicals that act as primary sources for families of chemicals and are, therefore, potentially of greater importance. These have a well established presence, well established infrastructure, and well established markets, which have been identified too. A literature and web analysis on current market prices and volumes of the materials and chemicals identified has been carried out. The longer-term potential market developments that directly affect the future market volume demand and market price of these products have also been roughly assessed.
WP 3
Work on biorefinery views and activities outside the EC have been conducted, comprising the analysis of conference proceedings, seminars, workshops, and websites on biorefinery-related information, including information from the IEA Task 42 on biorefinery. An internal workshop 'Knowledge import from outside EU on advanced biorefineries' was held in January 2009 in Osnabruck, Germany, with invited speakers from Japan, Brazil, and United States (US), sharing their views on the topic of biorefineries.
WP 4
Economic data, regarding the selected reference cases within WP 1, have been gathered by the project partners. These data, together with the data on mass and energy balances of the reference cases, have been used for a techno-economic assessment. In the next step, the results of WPs 1 to 3 have been used to define integrated biorefinery schemes for each selected biomass processing sector.
ECN developed a biorefinery cash flow model for modelling purposes within WP 4. Based on the mass, energy and economic data, the production costs of the main product of each selected sector for both the reference case, as well as for the integrated biorefinery schemes have been calculated. Also the IRR and the payback time of each case have been determined. The objective is to evaluate to what extent the co-production of the added value products could enhance the economic competitiveness of the main product in the reference cases.
WP 5
In WP 4, the consortium has described and evaluated different reference and biorefinery cases for the seven retained industrial sectors. The results obtained can be considered as 'objective', meaning that they are based on facts and figures gathered amongst sector specialists within and outside the consortium.
In WP 5, the consortium has analysed the more 'subjective' aspects of each biorefinery case. There are three steps in doing so:
1. Technical feasibility analysis: how feasible are the proposed processes?
2. Commercial feasibility analysis: are the commercial considerations (market prices, proposed volumes...) realistic?
3. SWOT analysis: what are the strong and weak points of each case? What are the underlying trends influencing potential success?
Next to the evaluation of the subjective aspects, this work package has also covered the cross-sector analysis. By aggregating all the results of different sectors, the consortium has also tried to draw general conclusions on the addition of biorefinery cases to existing reference processes, including some recommendations.
Project results:
For each of the considered biomass processing sectors one to two reference case(s), and up to three integrated biorefinery cases are defined. This has resulted in 10 reference cases and 14 integrated biorefinery cases, as presented below:
1. Bioethanol: The reference case is a conventional grain-to-ethanol plant, with the following two integrated cases:
1. lactic acid production from C6 sugars;
2. ethanol production from DDGS via AFEX pretreatment.
2. Biodiesel: A rapeseed-based transesterification process is the reference case, with two integrated cases to be:
1. production of 1,3-propanediol from glycerol;
2. production of epichlorohydrin from glycerol.
3. Pulp and paper: The reference case is a chemical pulp mill with three integrated cases:
1. lignin extraction from black liquor;
2. DME production via black liquor gasification (BLG);
3. Ethanol production from softwood pulp.
4. Conventional oil refinery: The reference cases consist of two sub processes of a conventional oil refinery: the fluid catalytic cracking process (FCC) and the hydrodesulfurisation process (HDS). The integrated cases are:
1. vegetable oil as partial feed of FCC unit;
2. vegetable oil as partial feed of HDS unit.
5. Power production: The medium-scale reference case is a conventional CHP power plant fuelled with peat or biomass. For large-scale power plant an IGCC fuelled with biomass is considered. The following integrated cases are defined:
1. pyrolysis integrated in CHP;
2. chemical recovery in gasification process.
6. Food industry: The reference case for food industry is taken from the dairy sector, more specifically from cheese manufacturing, and the considered integrated case is:
1. Lactic acid production from whey.
7. Agro sector: Finally, two reference cases are considered for the agro sector. The first reference case is a sugar beet refinery. The second reference case is a CHP system based on anaerobic co-digestion of grass and manure. The integrated cases for this sector are:
1. decentralised sugar beet biorefinery;
2. grass biorefinery.
Based on the technical versus commercial feasibility for all biorefinery schemes studied in BIOREF-INTEG, the following conclusions can be made per sector:
- Bioethanol: both retained cases are overall below average feasibility;
- Biodiesel: the two cases are in the top right quadrant of high feasibility;
- Pulp and paper: three cases from neutral to above average;
- Conventional oil refinery: both cases technically well feasible, but commercially borderline;
- Power generation: both cases are underperforming regarding both technical and commercial feasibility;
- Food: the retained biorefinery case is below average on both feasibilities;
- Agro: this is the only sector with a positive (decentralised beet plant) and negative (grass biorefinery) case.
In the next step, new target sales price for an IRR of 20 %, as well as the related percentage change versus market price are presented as objective criteria. For the refinery cases, the IRR analysis could not be done, as no extra investment was needed and the operating cost in all cases was higher than the reference case.
The required sales price for an IRR of 20 % can be considered as a target for sales teams or as a combination of the market price and possible subsidies (subsidies have been discarded in this project due to their regional specificity).
Looking at the projects from this perspective gives a slightly different view than the product cost analysis as done in WP 4.
Bioethanol:
Both bioethanol cases are an improvement compared to the reference case. This can give an edge to bioethanol producers, to preserve a sustainable profitability in case of fluctuations in feedstock price and crude oil benchmark.
Biodiesel:
For biodiesel, the cases are only dealing with a better -integrated- valorisation of glycerol. Depending on the case, this can improve the overall profitability of a biodiesel plant.
Pulp and paper:
Here, we have a first discrepancy between a simple cost calculation and a targeted investment analysis: the DME case reduces the pulp cost, but the profitability -with the current assumptions- is worse than the reference case.
Power generation:
None of the proposed biorefinery cases are improving the profitability of the reference cases. The targeted investment analysis revealed that even in the gasification / chemicals case, a lower product cost compared to reference case is not sufficient for a profitable process.
The message for thermal treatment of biomass seems to be double:
- Next to electricity, it is recommended to have a valuable outlet for heat.
- Keep it simple! Making the downstream complex does not improve the profitability.
Food:
Simple case, in correlation with the cost analysis.
Agro:
Especially for the grass biorefinery, the recommendations of the power sector are valid: simplicity is the message. Alternatively, increasing the amount of products extracted from grass at the expense of electricity can also improve the picture.
Results show that in many cases there is some concordance between the impact level and the targeted investment analysis: a low impact project tends to be more profitable. There is also a reasonable correlation between the technical feasibility and the economical value. However, there is surprisingly no correlation between the commercial feasibility and the economical value: data may look attractive, but the challenges may be big. This tends to prove the added value to incorporate such a feasibility analysis to more conventional objective return on investment analysis.
Finally, some projects have been clustered and compared to each other. The project clusters are:
- co-product valorisation projects: biodiesel: PDO, biodiesel: ECH, pulp and paper: lignin, food: lactic;
- co-production projects: bioethanol: lactic, pulp and paper: ethanol, agro: decentralised beet;
- fermentation projects: bioethanol: lactic, bioethanol: AFEX 80, biodiesel: PDO, pulp and paper: ethanol, food: lactic, agro: decentralised beet;
- power generation projects: CHP / pyrolysis, gasification / chemicals, grass biorefinery;
- thermal treatment projects: pulp and paper: DME, power: reference CHP, power: CHP / pyrolysis, power: reference gasification, power: gasification / chemicals;
- legislation-driven projects: refinery: vegetable oil in FCC, refinery: vegetable oil in HDS.
The first three clusters of projects are mostly low impact projects, have average or higher technical and commercial feasibility, as well as a good economical value. On the other hand, the last three clusters of projects are mostly high impact projects, have lower to average technical and commercial feasibility, as well as a poor economical value. In case of legislation-driven projects, both selected projects have a high technical feasibility. Commercial feasibility however is below par, fully explained by the higher cost and the lack of technical benefits (as perceived by some respondents). This score has to be put into the right perspective: our model gives a lower weight to legislative support compared to price and technical benefits. Seen the directive character of the legislative support for these projects, this should be opposite.
For a much more detailed description of the project objecttives, methodology, results, and conclusions please see the final report (in 151 pages), available on the project website.
Potential impact:
BIOREF-INTEG public reports:
- Deliverable 1 (see http://www.bioref-integ.eu/publications/ online): Identification and mapping of existing fuel producing industrial complexes in Europe. Deliverable lead contractor: ECN, January 2009.
- Deliverable 2 (see http://www.bioref-integ.eu/publications/ online): Identification and market analysis of most promising added-value products to be co-produced with the fuels. Deliverable lead contractor: Aston University, May 2010.
- Deliverable 3 (see http://www.bioref-integ.eu/publications/ online): Biorefinery-based knowledge import from outside the EC. Deliverable lead contractor: WUR Food and Biobased Research (A&F), December 2009.
- Deliverable 5 (see http://www.bioref-integ.eu/publications/ online): Technology deployment plan. Deliverable lead contractor: VFT, April 2010.
- Final report (see http://www.bioref-integ.eu/publications/ online): Development of advanced biorefinery schemes to be integrated into existing industrial (fuel producing) complexes. Deliverable lead contractor: ECN, May 2010.
BIOREF-INTEG workshops and related presentations:
- Internal workshop (presentations available at http://www.bioref-integ.eu/publications/ online): Knowledge import from outside EU on advanced biorefineries, 29 January 2009, Osnabruck, Germany.
- Public workshop (presentations available on http://www.bioref-integ.eu/publications/ online): Preliminary results assessments and innovative biorefinery concept. 2 December 2009, Solihull, United Kigndom.
- BIOREF-INTEG seminar on final project results (presentations available at http://www.bioref-integ.eu/publications/ online). 9 June 2010, Düsseldorf, Germany.
BIOREF-INTEG newsletters:
- Biorefinery researcher, Issue 01, December 2008
- Biorefinery researcher, Issue 02, June 2009
- Biorefinery researcher, Issue 03, November 2009
- Biorefinery researcher, Issue 04, May 2010
Website address: http://www.bioref-integ.eu