BREW Generic Approach by Martin Patel (Un. Utrecht) Tim Nisbet (Shell) Peter Nossin (DSM) BREW plenary meeting - September 9, 2003

Content Problem Definition Generic Approach Structuring the work

Problem Definition -1 Objective BREW Project: To prepare a study about the opportunities and risks of applying biotechnology to produce bulk chemicals and chemical intermediates from renewable raw materials. Time horizon: Medium (10-20 yrs) to long-term (until 2050) development Deliverables: Overview of: Technical options Sustainability PIs (3Ps) Economics Ecology Society

Problem Definition -2 Stage gate process (Cooper): 1.Discovery stage 2.Scoping 3.Built business case 4.Development 5.Testing and validation 6.Launch  Majority of projects are in stage 1-2 Level of uncertainty: HIGH  Generic approach - based on current insights (proven technology) - translation to future prospects (expert insights)  Reference to current commercial technology (chemical, fossil based)

Purpose of the meeting 1.Gain consensus on selection of products and processes to apply for a generic approach. 2. Agree on structuring of the work

Generic Approach Existing chemicals: Cradle to gate New chemicals: Cradle to grave Harvesting Transport Storage Processing Conversion to chemical Biomass Chemical Ferm. sugar Vegetable oil Conversion to end product End product Energy Water Emissions By-products  Consistent energy and mass balance required

Biomass-Water-Energy  Future feedstocks: Ligno-cellulosics: Agricultural residues Energy crops  Current feedstocks: Starchy crops: Corn Wheat Rice Cassava Sugar crops: Sugar cane Sugar beets Molasses  Water: Water management issues? - modeling?  Energy: Fixed energy mix (EU) – no modeling Include other C-sources such as glycerol or natural oil/fats? Design of representative EU-scenarios

Harvesting, transport, storage Location: EU 15 EU 30 (incl. Ukrain) Way of collecting/harvesting/transporting Yield per ha average or per individual country Net available biomass potential price-availability relation other uses may be: Hidden use Fuel Fodder Percentage of arable land Plant capacity  Land Surface Design 3-4 reference cases

Processing Design 2 reference cases Current case:Starch  glucose (enzymatic hydrolysis) Sugar cane  sucrose (extraction) Crop  vegetable oil (extraction) Future case: Ligno-cellulosics  fermentable sugars (chemical/enzymatic hydrolysis)

Conversion to chemical Conversion: Fermentation  aerobic/anaerobic  fed batch/(semi-)continue  bacteria/yeast/fungi Followed by a conventional chemical or enzymatic step  f.e. hydrogenation  free/immobilized enzyme Make assumption on:  Fermentation selectivity  Fermentation yield  % Cell mass  Cycle time/residence time  Product concentration  Productivity micro-organism  Number of metabolic steps Down stream processing: Biomass separation Biomass processing  anaerobic digestion  incineration  food  landfill Protein separation  ultra/nanofiltration Recovery  evaporation in effect  distillation  crystallization  membrane separation  extraction Packaging  liquid/solid

Emissions  To water BOD …….  To air GHG Toxic …….  To soil solid waste …….. Case based on - input parameters up/down stream process - guestimate on input parameters conversion to chemical

By-products  Lignine  energy (steam/electricity) saving of depletable energy sources reference year (realized) (projection)  Lignine  upgrading to higher added value chemical saving of depletable carbon sources reference: oil (hydrocarbons), natural gas (ammonia, H 2 )  Other by-products 4 scenarios ?

Cradle-to-grave Only for new end products (not commercial yet) Recycling  material recycling  back-to-monomers  back-to-feedstock  thermal recycling (incineration = energy recovery) 4 recycling scenarios ?

Consensus  Location Focus Europe  Current technology 2 model products (citric acid, ethanol)  Future Technology year 2020 and 2050  Products and processes