KIC InnoEnergy Energy from Chemical Fuels€¦ · KIC InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from...

KIC InnoEnergy receives funding from the European Institute of Innovation and Technology

KIC InnoEnergy

Energy from Chemical FuelsStrategy and Roadmap

2015-2019v.

www.kic-innoenergy.com

KIC InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2 Page 1 of 45

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3

2. Market Challenges and Business Drivers ......................................................................................... 4

3. Technologies to Address Those Challenges ..................................................................................... 5

3.1 Conversion Technology Overview ............................................................................................ 5

3.2 Processes Discussed in this Document ..................................................................................... 7

4. Process Overview ...........................................................................................................................10

4.1 Details of technology ..............................................................................................................11

5 Thermochemical Conversion 1: Pre-Treatment .............................................................................12


5.2 Assessment on “impactability” ..............................................................................................13

Hydrothermal Carbonisation (HTC) ............................................................................................... 14

Torrefaction ................................................................................................................................... 14

Fast Pyrolysis ................................................................................................................................. 15

Hydrothermal Carbonisation ......................................................................................................... 16

Torrefaction ................................................................................................................................... 16

Fast Pyrolysis ................................................................................................................................. 17

5.3 Industry value chain necessary ..............................................................................................18

5.4 Actions needed to increase “impactability” (action plan) .....................................................19

6. Thermochemical Conversion 2: Gasification for Production of Chemicals or Heat and Power

Generation..............................................................................................................................................20





7. Electro-Chemical Conversion Processes - Electrolysis and Fuel Cells ............................................26




7.4 Actions needed to increase “impactability” (Action plan) .....................................................31

8. (Bio-)Chemical Conversion Processes (‘Syntheses’) .......................................................................32




KIC InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2

Page 2 of 45


9. Final Energy Utilization Processes: Combustion and Co-Combustion Based Heat and Power

Generation and Mobility ........................................................................................................................38





Annexes ..................................................................................................................................................44

A.1 List of contributors .......................................................................................................................44

A.2 References ....................................................................................................................................44


Page 3 of 45

1. Introduction

The thematic field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ is strongly focused on supporting the objectives of

the European SET plan (Strategic Energy Technologies). Europe needs joint efforts to establish a

sustainable, secure and competitive energy supply. The inter-related challenges of climate change,

security of energy supply and competitiveness are multifaceted and require a coordinated response.

In 2009 the EU has set ambitious climate and energy targets for 2020. These targets, known as the

"20-20-20" targets, set three key objectives for 2020: 20% less greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,

20% reduction in the use of primary energy by improving energy efficiency, and 20% share of

renewables in energy mix of total energy consumption [1].

In January 2014, the European Commission presented the ‘2030 Policy Framework for Climate and

Energy’, which sets even more ambitious targets [2]. The EU leaders decided on this framework on

October 23rd, 2014. A center piece of the framework is the target to reduce EU domestic greenhouse

gas emissions by 40% below the 1990 level by 2030. Renewable energy will play a key role and,

therefore, the Commission proposes an objective of increasing the share of renewable energy to at

least 27% of the EU's energy consumption by 2030. The improved energy efficiency continues to

make an essential contribution to all EU climate and energy policies. Progress towards the 2020

target of improving energy efficiency by 20% is being delivered by policy measures at the EU and

national levels.

The 2030 policy framework paper also takes into account the longer term perspectives set out by the

Commission in 2011 in the ‘Roadmap for Moving to a Competitive Low Carbon Economy in 2050’ [3],

the ‘Energy Roadmap 2050’ [4] and the ‘Transport White Paper’ [5]. These documents reflect the

EU's goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80-95% below 1990 levels by 2050 as part of the

effort needed from developed countries as a group.

The thematic field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ contributes to the low carbon strategy of the EU by

investing in the commercialization of conversion technologies from primary energy carriers to

‘chemical fuels’ and energy that possess the potential to significantly reduce greenhouse gas

emissions, to improve overall process chain efficiencies, or to increase the integration of renewable

energies.


Page 4 of 45

2. Market Challenges and Business Drivers

The political framework set by the European Commission has a significant impact on the energy

markets throughout Europe and beyond. This causes that companies operating in the thematic field

‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ face the following market challenges:

• Conventional resources, mainly fossil fuels, are still very dominating and competitive in terms

of economics.

• Renewable energy sources (RES) are generated locally and some of them, such as wind and

solar, are volatile.

• Reduction of CO2 emissions is encouraged by the EU Emissions Trading System.

• The regulatory framework in the context of renewable energy sources keeps changing over

time.

These market challenges create business drivers for companies, which basically are their reactions to

these external challenges, when trying to establish new, cost competitive technologies on the

market. The business drivers include, but are not limited to:

• Maintain competitive feedstock costs by

o increasing the use of novel low-cost biomass resources, such as residues and wastes

o increasing feedstock flexibility

o reducing the logistic costs of biogenic feedstocks (reduce transport costs,

improvement of storage capability and increase of energy density)

o recycling of nutrients from biomass based fuel conversion processes to generate

additional revenue

• Reduce CO2 emission of conversion technologies by

o substituting fossil resources with biomass feedstock

• Reduce plant and operating costs (CAPEX, OPEX) by

o establishing load and product flexible conversion systems (e.g. poly-generation

technologies)

o increasing process efficiency and establish more efficient conversion technologies

• Use surplus RES by

o establishing electrochemical conversion systems for production of energy carriers

and chemicals from RES surplus electric power (e.g. ‘Power-to-Gas’, ‘Power-to-

Liquid’)

o providing grid stabilization services and thereby allow an increased use of RES

o providing high density energy storage through energy carriers and chemicals that are

easy to handle and store

• Establish local, small-scale systems


Page 5 of 45

3. Technologies to Address Those Challenges

The thematic field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ mainly focuses on conversion processes and

complete conversion routes (‘process chains’) from fossil and biogenic resources to final energy

carriers and chemicals (‘chemical fuels’). Therefore, the focus of the thematic field includes

resources, conversion processes, transport/storage and utilization of energy carriers and allocation of

chemicals.

The main objective of all KIC investments is to reduce GHG emissions. For this reason, projects are

supported that deal with either co-feeding biogenic resources with fossil feedstock in existing

processes (e.g. co-firing, co-combustion), with replacing fossil resources altogether, or with reducing

the consumption of fossil and biogenic resources by increasing the efficiency of established

processes.

3.1 Conversion Technology Overview

The resources include biomass as well as conventional (i.e. fossil) resources. In addition, the thematic

field includes hydrogen as a feedstock produced from electrochemical conversion processes using

RES. The feedstock is converted in one or several conversion processes to energy carriers and

chemicals, which ultimately are utilized in various forms of energy (e.g. heat, electricity and mobility)

or as chemicals (Figure 3-1).

Figure 3-1: Overview over the fields of operation of KIC ECF

Figure 3-2 provides a simplified overview of the conversion routes from biogenic resources and

“renewable” hydrogen to energy carriers and chemicals. There exist numerous conversion routes,

and Figure 3-2 is by no means a comprehensive survey, rather than an overview.

Figure 3-3 gives a similar overview of the conversion routes starting from conventional resources,

such as natural gas, crude oil and coal. As stated for the biogenic conversion routes this is a simplified

overview of the huge number of conversion routes.

Conversion to

Energy Carrier

Intermediate

Products

biogenic resources

fossil fuels

Feedstock

upgrading

conversion

Upgrading

Conversion of

Biomass

intermediate

products

mobility

energy intensive

products

heat

electric power

chemicals

Energy Carriers and

Chemicals

energy carrier

energy intensive

products

chemicals

Final Energy UsageFinal energy

conversion

final

conversion

final energy

conversion


Page 6 of 45

Figure 3-2: Overview of the conversion routes from biogenic resources to energy carriers,

chemicals.

Figure 3-3: Overview of the conversion routes from fossil (= conventional) resources to energy

carriers, chemicals.

5

Final Conversion to

Energy Carriers and ChemicalsIntermediate Products

Energy Carriers and

Chemicals

crude oil

natural gas

FeedstockUpgrading Conversion to

Intermediate Products

cracking, reforming,

isomerisation, alkylation,

coking, blending

in oil refineries

PSA

butane

petrol

steam reforming synthesis gas

catalysis

Fischer-Tropsch

synthesis

hydrogen

methanol/DME

G-t-L

synfuels

liquefaction LNG

jet fuel/kerosene

fuel oil

diesel fuel

liq. petroleum gas

lignite/brown coal*

sub-bituminous coal*

anthracite*

bituminous coal*

gasification

carbonization

pyrolysis

coal tar

coke

fuels

coking

coal briquet

tar sands

shale oil

shale gas

gas hydrates

* detones topics mainly covered by the Thematic Field „Clean Coal Technologies“

distillation

in oil refineries

Intermediate refinery

products

extraction distillation


Page 7 of 45

In Figure 3-4 the transport, storage and final usage of energy carriers and chemicals is presented.

Figure 3-4: Overview of the conversion routes from energy carriers and chemicals to their final

utilization.

3.2 Processes Discussed in this Document

This ‘Strategy and Roadmap’ document surveys the most promising conversion processes and

conversion routes as depicted in Figure 3-2 through 3-4. For further discussion they will be grouped

according to the technology, on which they are based. These technologies comprise

• feedstock supply

o crop/biomass feedstock cultivation

o fossil fuel production

• conversion processes to generate intermediate products or final energy carriers and

chemicals

o physicochemical:

� extraction

� distillation

� biogas upgrading

o biochemical:

� aerobic and anaerobic digestion

� fermentation (+distillation)

� enzymatic hydrolysis + fermentation (+distillation)

o thermochemical:

� hydrothermal carbonization

� torrefaction

� pyrolysis

� gasification (+chemical synthesis)

� gasification (+CHP)

blending with

gasoline

compressed hydrogen in hydrogen

tanks

liquid hydrogen tanks

hydrogen station

online shop

natural gas grid/

CNG station

Transport, storage, and blending Distribution

alcohol-based fuels

Energy carriers and

chemicals

biodiesel (FAME)

Methane/SNG

methanol/DME/

MTBE

biodiesel/

biokerosene (HVO)

oil-based fuels

hydrogen

synthetic Fuels

butanol

ethanol/ETBE

hydrogen

BtL

bio oil

char

pipelines

Final energy

conversion

gas/coal-fired

power station

turbine

Final Energy

Usage

internal com-

bustion engine

Gas station

mobility

combustion

tanks

direct sales by

manufacturer

LNG

blending with

diesel

electricity

heat

chemical

industry

co-firing/co-

combustion

fuel cell

micro CHP


Page 8 of 45

o chemical (including the necessary pre-treatment steps where applicable):

� acid hydrolysis

� biooil/pyrolysis oil upgrading

� transesterification

� hydrotreating and refining

� catalytic processes, such as Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, steam reforming etc.

o electrochemical conversion

� hydrogen via water electrolysis (electrochemical conversion)

� fuel cell

• final energy conversion

o combustion, co-firing/co-combustion

o steam/combined-cycle processes for electricity production

o (micro) CHP

o internal combustion engine, turbine

o fuel cell (see electrochemical conversion)

The status of technical implementation of these conversion processes ranges from commercially

proven solutions with a wide range of technology suppliers (e.g. mainly all technologies in ‘final

energy conversion’) via technologies that are currently being deployed at commercial scale (e.g.

biomass gasification, hydrothermal carbonization) to technologies that are at a very early stage of

development (e.g. hydrolysis + fermentation + distillation). Figure 3-6 and Figure 3-6 provide an

evaluation of the maturity of various conversion processes covered by the thematic field ‘Energy

from Chemical Fuels’. The estimated market potential is plotted on the ordinate in Figure 3-5 and the

estimated market readiness level is plotted in Figure 3-6. This figure is based on a diagram developed

by the EPRI in 2010 [6].

The conversion processes most promising for KIC Innovation are in the stage of early development to

late deployment and possess a significant market potential. For conversion technologies that have

already reached a higher TRL (i.e. ≥ 6) KIC will invest in technical aspects of these processes if the

developments lead to improvement in process efficiency or economics. The area most interesting for

KIC is highlighted with a red box in Figure 3-6.

Figure 3-5: Technical maturity of the various conversion technologies and their estimated market

potential addressed in the thematic field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’.


Page 9 of 45

Figure 3-6: Maturity of the various conversion technologies and their estimated customer

acceptance addressed in the thematic field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’.

The market potential is the estimated maximum total sales revenue of all suppliers of a product in a

market during a certain period. This is synonymous with the term TCM (total capturable market),

which is an estimate of how much a company would make in sales if there were no other

competitors.

Estimated customer acceptance means the expected interest of potential customers to buy the

offered innovation / product.

The technologies that appear most promising for KIC Innovation Projects possess a TRL in the range

of 5 to 7 and are located in the upper half of the MRL spectrum in Figure 3-6.

For all economic evaluations in this document an annuity of 10 % was assumed and the O&M costs

were estimated as an annual rate of 4 to 6 % of the investment, depending on the handled media

and the maturity of the process.

Research Development Demonstration Deployment Mature Technology

‚1/Time-to-Market‘ or TRL

Est

ima

ted

Cu

sto

me

r A

cce

pta

nce

pressurized biomass gasification

medium-rate co-firing

low-rate co-firing

MSW incineration

hydrolysis+ferment.+dist.

gasification+CHP

Small-scale FT synthesisSyngas fermentation

pyrolysis

hydr. carbonisation

torrefaction

bio hydrogen

transesterification

aerobic/anaerobic digestion

fermentation+distillation

biogas upgrading

5 6 7 9

Small-scale M-t-G

direct DME from biomass

Hydrotreating of bio-oil


Page 10 of 45

4. Process Overview

The thematic field ‘Energy from Chemicals Fuels’ will support the development and

commercialization of technologies that are ready for the market in the mid-term, which means that

they must have reached TRL of at least 5. In addition, activities will be supported that address

technical aspects (e.g. components, catalysts, sub-processes) of processes already being

commercialized.

Projects will be supported in close collaboration of the ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ KIC InnoEnergy

office with other KIC InnoEnergy offices, e.g. ‘Clean Coal Technologies’ and ‘Renewables’.

Based on the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) and the estimated market potential and market

readiness level (MRL) of the various conversion processes a process overview for the thematic field

‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ was derived (please refer to Figure 4-1). As mentioned in the previous

section, the main focus is on conversion processes. Most technologies in ‘final energy conversion’ are

already in the stage of commercialization (i.e. TRL = 9). Activities concerning ‘fuel characterization’

are required as supporting activity and, therefore, included.

Figure 4-1: Process overview ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’

2017 201820162015

thermochemical conversion

hydroth. carbonisation, torrefaction, pyrolysis, gasification+chemical synthesis,

gasification+CHP

chemical conversion

acid hydrolysis, transesterification, hydrotreating, refining, Catalysis

(e.g. Fischer-Tropsch, steam reforming)

biochemical conversion

digestion, fermentation+distillation, enzymatic hydrolysis+ferment.+dist.

final energy conversion

combustion, co-firing/co-combustion, gas and coal fired power plants, internal

combustion engine, turbine, fuel cell

physicochemical conversion

extraction, distillation, ad- / absorption

electro-chemical conversion

electrolysis, fuel cells


Page 11 of 45

4.1 Details of technology

The criteria for the assessment of the impactability are defined as follows:

1. TRL: Please note that a technology with TRL higher than 7 might not be suitable for a KIC

investment, because the technology is already too mature.

2. Impact on cost decrease: how large would be the impact of a KIC IE investment on the

reduction of the (production) cost of the conversion process – as compared to the state-of-

the-art of that particular conversion process

3. Impact on operability: how large would be the impact of a KIC IE investment on the

operability of the conversion process – as compared to the state-of-the-art of that particular

conversion process

4. Impact on GHG decrease: how large would be the impact of a KIC IE investment on the

decrease in GHG emissions of that particular conversion process – as compared to the fossil

state-of-the-art production process for the same product (i.e. energy carrier or chemical)

5. coverage of the value chain by KIC IE partners, i.e. partners from industry and R&D

organizations

6. interest of KIC IE industry partners

7. inverse(foreseeable regulatory impact): how strong is the product/market bound to

existing/future regulations; Is/Will the market of the product be regulated?

8. inverse(required investment): how large is the required KIC IE investment for that particular

conversion process to have a significant impact

9. cross impact of KIC IE investment on several ‘applications’ (i.e. other conversion processes –

on the ECF roadmap)

These criteria and will be used throughout this document.

The quantitative targets for each technology will be presented in the following sections.


Page 12 of 45

5 Thermochemical Conversion 1: Pre-Treatment The thermochemical processes comprise biomass pre-treatment processes as well as

thermochemical conversion processes to energy carriers and chemicals. The development of biomass

pre-treatment processes for increased fuel flexibility, utilization of a wide range of biogenic

resources, mobilization of scattered biomass resources, and reduction of fuel and fuel transportation

cost is one focus of the activities in the thematic field. According to IEA Bioenergy the largest

potential for feedstock prize reduction is generated by internationally transported biomass [7]. High

energy density, mechanical stability and minimum bio-degradability are achieved by e.g. thermal pre-

treatment technologies. In addition, pre-treated, standardized fuels will improve the performance of

final energy conversion technologies [8]. The other focus of the thematic field is on improving the

conversion processes with regards to CAPEX, OPEX, conversion efficiency, and reliability in

operations.

The contributions by Hans Hubschneider and Lars Waldheim to this section are gratefully

acknowledged [12].


Depending on the water content of the biomass there are different thermochemical conversion

processes options:

• Wet biomass: There are a few options for conversion processes including hydrothermal

carbonization (HTC) und hydrothermal gasification.

o Hydrothermal carbonization (HTC) converts wet biomass at moderate temperatures

and pressures in aqueous solution to biocoal powder. This process was first

described by Friederich Bergius in 1913.

o Hydrothermal gasification generates synthesis gas from wet biomass in near- and

super-critical water. This process is still in the phase of research and development,

and, therefore, not discussed any further in this document.

• Dry biomass: The simplest form of dry biomass processing is densification, e.g. pellet

production. Thermal processes like torrefaction and fast pyrolysis produce solid and liquid

fuels with high energy density which can easily be stored and transported. Gasification,

which is also a promising conversion process for dry biomass, will be discussed in section 6.

o Torrefaction of dry biomass followed by pulverization and densification to biocoal

pellets or briquettes increases the energy density from 10-11 to 18-20 GJ/m³ which

results in a 40-50% reduction in transportation costs [9, 10]. Torrefaction of biomass

improves the grindability and reduces the fuel handling cost of biomass. This leads to

more efficient co-firing in existing coal fired power stations or entrained-flow

gasification for the production of chemicals and transportation fuels. The efficiency

of the torrefaction conversion process (based on the LHV of feedstock and products)

for a dry feedstock is approximately 90 %, but can be as low as 75 % if a very wet

feedstock is used.

The statements and findings for torrefaction hold true for the most part for slow

pyrolysis as well. Therefore, the latter is subsumed under torrefaction in the

remainder of the document.


Page 13 of 45

o Fast pyrolysis (also called flash pyrolysis) takes place at 500-600 °C in such a way that

the vapours are removed from the pyrolysis reactor and quenched within less than 2

seconds. To achieve these conditions, the biomass must be very dry (< 10 %

moisture) and the particle size smaller than 3 mm. To drive the reactions, either the

pyrolysis gas or the char are used as a fuel for providing the heat of reaction for the

endothermic process. In almost all fast pyrolysis systems hot sand is used as an

energy carrier. The sand is removed with the char and is re-heated in a combustion

unit together with char prior to recycling, or is separated from the char and heated

by the gas formed by the pyrolysis reaction.

The main product of fast pyrolysis is a pyrolysis oil (70..80 wt.-%) which requires

further upgrading since it is prone to polymerization and is very acidic. This is done

via pyrolysis oil upgrading to arrive at a bio-oil. This is described in more detail in

section 8 of this document.

Unlike torrefaction, the fast pyrolysis process can be used to separate contaminants

from the biomass feedstock. The alkalis predominantly remain in the char, however

other contaminants such as nitrogen, sulphur and chloride are found mainly in the

pyrolysis oil.

5.2 Assessment on “impactability”

The following table provides an overview of the impact that KIC investments can achieve in the field

of the pre-treatment processes.

Table 5-1: KIC impactability of pre-treatment processes within „Energy from Chemical Fuels“

Topic Economic and social impact comments

cost

de

cre

ase

op

era

bili

ty

GH

G d

ecr

ea

se

HTC 7 7 7 9 9 9 5 8 7

torrefaction 8 7 7 9 6 9 5 8 7

fast pyrolysis 7 4 4 9 1 4 5 5 7

Impact in

TR

L Le

ve

l

cov

era

ge

of

vlu

e c

hin

by

KIC

pa

rtn

ers

KIC

ind

ust

ry in

tere

st

Inv

(fo

rese

ea

ble

re

gu

lato

ry im

pa

ct)

Inv

(re

qu

ire

d in

ve

stm

en

t)

cors

s im

pa

ct in

se

ve

ral a

pp

lica

tio

ns

improvement of fuel flexibility; utilization of a wide range of biogenic resources;

mobilization scattered biomass resources and reduction of fuel costs;

enhancement of feedstock flexibility (low cost biogenic resources), reduction of

fuel costs; reduction of transport costs; process integration (pre-treatment and

power generation)


Page 14 of 45

Hydrothermal Carbonisation (HTC)

The Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of HTC is in the range of 6 to 7. Yet, it is still of interest for KIC

InnoEnergy investments, because the development on the market did not progress as quickly as

anticipated two years ago (e.g. see version 1 of the roadmap). There are not enough players in the

market. Due to profitability the focus has shifted from producing biocoal for energy production to

disposal of waste streams (e.g. sewage sludge). [11]

Torrefaction

The technical implementation of the torrefaction process is at TRL 6..8, the span relating to the

individual developers. There are few installations that have a capacity above 100 000 tons per year

(tpy) in operation, which supply feedstock for a 30..35 MWel power plant. However, most plants have

capacities in the 10 to 30 000 tpy range. This is some 1..4 tons/hr, therefore, more on the pilot plant

or demonstration scale.

Therefore, it is quite obvious that – in relation to wood pellets – this is a technology that is currently

in the stage of being introduced on the market. However, there is a hen-and-egg problem, as power

companies are not inclined to commit to buy torrefied pellet feedstock until they are convinced that

such materials are being produced at a sufficient scale. And for pellet producers on the other hand, it

is often not possible to finance the investment in a large installation, unless sufficient off-take

agreements are available.

It was stated that torrefied pellets are more costly, since a torrefaction plant, in comparison to a wet

feedstock wood pellets plant, uses slightly more feedstock per GJ required (typically 2..5 %), and it

possesses higher CAPEX (typically 25..30 %), which is partly compensated by lower OPEX. The net

overall production cost is 5..10 % higher compared to conventional wood pellets plants.

0

2

4

6

8

10TRL-Level (1-9)

Cost decrease

Operability

GHG decrease

Coverage of value chain

by KIC partnersKIC industry interest

Inv(Foreseeable

regulatory impact)

Inv(Required

Investment)

Cross Impact in several

application

Hydrothermal Carbonisation


Page 15 of 45

Fast Pyrolysis

The main intended use for bio-oils from fast pyrolysis oil upgrading has been as a substitute for heavy

and light fuel oil in boiler and heating boiler applications. However, since the bio-oil is very different

from petroleum oil (far lower LHV, different ash content, higher acidity etc.) its use requires some

changes to the piping, pumping and storage systems.

Yet another area where bio-oil has attracted interest is as an intermediate for producing

hydrocarbon-type biofuels by cracking or hydrocracking the bio-oils thermally or in refinery-like

catalytic processes. As the oxygen content of bio-oil is quite high, the hydrogen requirement is also

high, or the carbon loss is high, if oxygen is expelled as CO2. To improve this property, there have

been and still are developments for catalytic pyrolysis systems, hydropyrolysis systems and also

downstream vapor phase catalysis to achieve a more stable oil for use as hydrocracker feed

containing less oxygen. The resulting product is a mixture of gasoline, aviation fuel and diesel.

The market for bio-oils in excess of sample batch quantities of a few tons has not existed in the past.

It is only in the last year that larger units, such as the Valmet/UPM/Fortum unit, have begun

operation, with a few other plants under construction or in more advanced planning state.

Therefore, it is not clear how the market will develop. The strong driver today appears to be the

upgrading of the bio-oil to hydrocarbon biofuels, and in particular to aviation fuels, where prices are

significantly higher than for diesel fuel, for instance.

In late 2013, a consortium of the most prominent developers also successfully filed a REACH

registration of bio-oil as a product, i.e. enabling this material to be sold on the EU market.

The fast pyrolysis technology is at TRL 5 to 8, the span relating to the individual developers, but also

the fact that very few developers have a prototype in operation. The downstream pyrolysis oil

0

2

4

6

8

10TRL-Level (1-9)

Cost decrease

Operability

GHG decrease



Inv(Foreseeable

regulatory impact)

Inv(Required

Investment)


application

Torrefaction


Page 16 of 45

upgrading is in the order of TRL = 3..5. Unlike the torrefaction technology, where expectations were

high a few years ago but where development has slowed down, the fast pyrolysis technology appears

to have gained from the interest for biofuels, and in particular for drop-in fuels.

Hydrothermal Carbonisation

As stated above, the commercialization of the HTC technology did not progress on the market as

quickly as anticipated two years ago (e.g. see version 1 of the roadmap). Due to low profitability

when producing biocoal for energy production the focus has shifted from to disposal of waste

streams (e.g. sewage sludge).

Qualitative Targets:

• widening of feedstock spectrum to include sewage sludge

• reduce CAPEX and OPEX for HTC plants

Quantitative Targets:

• develop a process that would be accepted as a “end-of-waste-process”

• develop a process with investment < 800 €/kWLHV,biocoal at a scale where agrowaste biomass

or sewage sludge can be used as feedstock

• find combinations of feedstock and processes that can produce bio-coal below 28 €/MWh

• increase the operational availability to 8000 h/a

Torrefaction

Considering the number of developments that are already underway, the relatively simple

torrefaction technology, and also the fact that large-scale industrial companies are already involved,

0

2

4

6

8

10TRL-Level (1-9)

Cost decrease

Operability

GHG decrease



Inv(Foreseeable

regulatory impact)

Inv(Required

Investment)


application

Fast Pyrolysis


Page 17 of 45

it can be questioned if torrefaction is an area suitable for development projects within the KIC

InnoEnergy framework. However, KIC InnoEnergy could support developments of process aspects,

such as the improvement of components and sub-processes (e.g. related to widening the feedstock

base) which can be integrated with processes already being commercialized.


• widening of feed quality spectrum to also include agrowaste for torrefaction

• improvement of logistic chain

• study economy of scale for logistic vs. processing costs


• develop a process with investment < 450 €/kWLHV,torrpellet at a scale where agrowaste biomass

can be used as feedstock

• find combinations of feedstock and processes that can produce torrefied-pellets below 21

€/MWh

• increase the conversion efficiency to > 88 %


Fast Pyrolysis

There are still a number of technical challenges with the pyrolysis technology. The high cost and

requirements for the feedstock is one challenge. Another challenge is the feeding system itself as a

uniform feed rate is essential. There is also an issue with scale-up related to the feeding system, as in

a small unit, mixing of fuel and sand can be easily accomplished – as supposed to larger systems. On

the product side, the contamination of ash and other fuel constituents needs to be minimized, while

increasing the product stability is necessary to ensure a secure supply-chain for the customers.

Therefore, fast pyrolysis appears to be an area suited for KIC InnoEnergy, as developments do not

need to address the process in all aspects. There are components, such as the feeding system,

catalysts and sub-processes that can be integrated with the processes already being commercialized.


• widening of feedstock quality spectrum to also include agrowastes

• develop processes for upgrading of pyrolysis oil to deliver improvement of bio-oil purity

• explore catalytic upgrading to biofuel intermediates

• explore synergies with other activities to valorize heat sales over the whole year


Page 18 of 45


• reduce S, N and ash content in bio-oil to low levels requiring no post-combustion clean-up to

meet Medium Combustion Plant Directive (MCP directive), i.e. > 90 % for N and > 95 % for

PM

• develop a process with investment < 1000 €/kWLHV,PyrOil at a scale where agrowaste biomass

can be used as feedstock

• find combinations of fuels and processes that can produce bio-oil below 28 €/MWh


• increase the value and energetic output of the co-products to reduce the GHG burden of the

bio-oil

• reduce the GHG burden to below 90 % of the GHG allocation without reducing the efficiency

5.3 Industry value chain necessary

Figure 5-1 and Figure 5-2 show the research centers/universities and industry along the value chain

from wet/dry biomass to bio-coal and bio-oil. It highlights some of the major players, however is by

no means comprehensive.

Figure 5-1: Overview of some of the major players in the field of hydrothermal carbonization.

Figure 5-2: Overview of some of the major players in the field of torrefaction and fast pyrolysis.


Page 19 of 45

5.4 Actions needed to increase “impactability” (action plan)

• HTC1: Combustion of HTC coal is still an issue, especially when increasingly using bio waste as

feedstock. In Europe HTC should be accepted as end-of-waste process to allow for “easier”

combustion.

• HTC2: Optimization of HTC coal for combustion. On one hand this relates to modifications of

the pretreatment processes, such as drying and pelletization of the bio-coal, and to adaption

of the burner technology on the other hand.

• Torrefaction1: For torrefaction one of the critical R&D issues is the feedstock flexibility of the

process, because this will significantly enhance the feedstock base and the role of

torrefaction in mobilizing scattered biomass resources such as agricultural residues [10].

• Fast Pyrolysis1: The energy content of the gas and char (by-products of fast pyrolysis) has to

be utilized, such that a pyrolysis plant can export power and/or heat.

• Pyrolysis Oil Upgrading: please refer to section 8


Page 20 of 45

6. Thermochemical Conversion 2: Gasification for Production of

Chemicals or Heat and Power Generation Currently the production of power and heat from biomass is mostly based on conventional

combustion systems with boiler/steam turbine configuration which are operated at low energy

efficiency (~20% electric). Gasification and downstream use of the produced syngas via gas engines

or gas turbines possesses a large potential to increase efficiency and widen the feedstock base

(biogenic residues/wastes). The efficiency and reliability of such plants still needs to be fully

established [13]. Biomass gasification is still in the demonstration phase and faces technical and

economic challenges [14].

The contributions by Lars Waldheim to this section are gratefully acknowledged [12].


The process chain (feedstock/gasifier/final energy conversion) has to be designed and optimized for

decentralized small scale units (1..15 MW fuel input) as well as for central large scale units (>50 MW

fuel input). Small scale gasifiers, predominantly moving bed and fluidized bed type, are coupled with

internal combustion engines (ICE), whereas large scale gasification-based systems use combined

cycle (gas and steam turbine) systems (BIGCC Biomass Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle

System). Table 6-1 shows electrical efficiencies for different biomass based power generation

technologies, with the standard combustion system at 20..31% and a maximum for BIGCC at 42%.

The power generation routes via gasification provide high efficiencies with high fuel flexibility.

Additionally, for large scale units, gasification based processes offer high load and product (power,

heat, SNG, H2, etc.) flexibility.

Table 6-1 : Fuel conversion efficiency for biogenic feedstock

power generation

technology for biomass

electrical

efficiency

combustion (stoker) 20..31% de-central

co-firing (pf power plant) 36..40% central

gasification + ICE 20..37% de-central

gasification + CC (BIGCC) 38..42% central

Alternatively, gasification can also be coupled with an effective gas cleaning system that provides a

clean synthesis gas suitable for catalytic synthesis processes, e.g. Fischer-Tropsch synthesis.

A reduction of power generation costs of gasification based technologies by improvement of fuel

conversion efficiency, enhancement of feedstock flexibility (low cost biogenic resources), reduction

of investment costs by standardization of plant design and production (‘off the shelf’ plants) and

process integration (pre-treatment and power generation) are main targets for technology

developments.


Page 21 of 45


Although gasification technologies have been developed for decades, their deployment for biomass

and waste has lagged behind the parallel developments on the coal side, where both, for power

generation and for production of chemicals, are commercially used already.

The technology for firing gas into boilers and furnaces is at TRL 9, whereas any development

involving gas cleaning for the purpose of using the gas in prime movers or for chemical synthesis is at

TRL 6-8, depending on the developer.

However, and relative to conventional biomass and waste combustion technologies, gasification for

power generation can be shown to have a considerable improvement potential over the

conventional systems and also be used in smaller capacity units. However, there are a number of

technical and commercial challenges that up to now have prevented the realization of this potential,

that are related to fuel flexibility and to gas cleaning. This involves development of new processes,

sub-processes and components.

If the gas cleaning system achieves high purities a combination with a catalytic synthesis process like

Fischer-Tropsch would provide improved conversion efficiencies and valuable fuels for mobility.

Some of these gas cleaning issues are specific for the gasification technology and some have common

aspects with gas cleaning for conventional systems. Development of such units and systems, and

initially focusing on the lower capacity range, appears to be suitable for KIC InnoEnergy, considering

the scale of the activities and associated cost to develop and bring such systems to a demonstration.

Furthermore it seems advantageous to couple the development of gas cleaning technologies with the

development of improved gasification technologies to achieve KIC´s targets in an efficient way.

Table 6-2: KIC impactability of gasification processes within „Energy from Chemical Fuels“


cost

de

cre

ase

op

era

bili

ty

GH

G d

ecr

ea

se

gasification + ICE 7 7 7 9 9 9 5 8 7 small scale CHP: customer for heat required; high total efficiency; improvement

of fuel flexibility; reduction of CO2 emissions; reduction of power generation

costs; reduction of CAPEX by standardization of plant design ("off the shelf

plants"); implementation of nutrient recycling technologies

BIGCC 8 7 7 9 6 9 5 8 7 large scale power generation: application of combined cycle technology; high

electrical efficiency; improvement of fuel flexibility; reduction of CO2 emissions;

reduction of power generation costs; reduction of CAPEX by standardization of

plant design ("off the shelf plants"); implementation of nutrient recycling

technologies

gas cleaning/

waste gasification

6 7 8 9 8 9 6 7 9 small scale CHP: improvement of fuel flexibility; customer for heat required;

high total efficiency; reduction of CO2 emissions; reduction of power

generation costs; reduction of CAPEX by standardization of plant design ("off

the shelf plants"); implementation of nutrient recycling technologies

Inv

(re

qu

ire

d in

ve

stm

en

t)

cro

ss im

pa

ct in

se

ve

ral a

pp

lica

tio

ns

impact on

TR

L Le

ve

l

cov

era

ge

of

va

lue

ch

ain

by

KIC

pa

rtn

ers

KIC

ind

ust

ry in

tere

st

Inv

(fo

rese

ea

ble

re

gu

lato

ry im

pa

ct)


Page 22 of 45


• widen feedstock spectrum to also include agrowastes

• improve gas cleaning technology for tar and S, N, Cl contaminants etc. to allow downstream

chemical syntheses


• develop gas cleaning systems (in combination with improved gasification technologies) for 5

MW electric output CHP plant (BIG-ICE) with 35+ % total electric efficiency at total fixed

investment of 3 000 €/kWel and an annual operating time of 7 000+ h/a.

• develop gas cleaning systems (in combination with improved gasification technologies) for 5

MW electric output CHP-Plant (BIG-GT) with 40+ % total electric efficiency at a total

investment cost of 2 500 €/kWel and an annual operating time of 6 000+ h/a.

• develop a waste to energy gasification CHP gas cleaning system (in combination with

improved gasification technologies) for a 20 MW electric output CHP plant with 35+ % total

electric efficiency at a total investment cost of 3 000 €/kWel and an annual operating time of

6 000+ h/a.

• develop a waste to liquids (Fischer-Tropsch) gasification gas cleaning system (in combination

with improved gasification technologies) for a 25 MW FT-Plant with 40+ % total conversion

efficiency at a total investment cost of 3 500 €/kWchem and an annual operating time of

7 000+ h/a.


Page 23 of 45

0

2

4

6

8

10TRL-Level (1-9)

Cost decrease

Operability

GHG decrease



Inv(Foreseeable

regulatory impact)

Inv(Required

Investment)


application

Gasification + ICE

0

2

4

6

8

10TRL-Level (1-9)

Cost decrease

Operability

GHG decrease



Inv(Foreseeable

regulatory impact)

Inv(Required

Investment)


application

BIGCC


Page 24 of 45


Figure 6-1 shows the research centers/universities and industries along the value chain from dry

biomass/waste to electric power. It highlights some of the major players, however is by no means

comprehensive.

Figure 6-1: Value chain from dry biomass/waste to electric power and district heat

0

2

4

6

8

10TRL-Level (1-9)

Cost decrease

Operability

GHG decrease



Inv(Foreseeable

regulatory impact)

Inv(Required

Investment)


applications

biomass/waste gasification and syngas

cleaning


Page 25 of 45

Figure 6-2: Value chain from dry biomass/waste to liquid fuels


• Contact research institutes, universities and key players of the catalytic gas cleaning market

and the gasification technologies market

• Propose the added value of adapted gas cleaning systems for different applications

• Propose the added value of adapted gasification technologies for the gas cleaning

requirements

• Define common targets:

o Gas cleaning system for BIG-ICE CHP: benzene has to be removed sufficiently to meet

emission targets, siloxanes have to be removed to improve process reliability,

process reliability has to be improved to meet the annual operating time targets

o Gas cleaning system for BIG-GT CHP: same challenges

o Gas cleaning system for waste-to-energy gasification with CHP: same challenges,

more severe conditions regarding S, N, halogen contaminants

o Optimized heat integration in gas cleaning and gasification will increase overall

efficiency


Page 26 of 45

7. Electro-Chemical Conversion Processes - Electrolysis and Fuel Cells The development of electro-chemical conversion technologies is driven by the increasing need for

storage capacities in electric power supply. Batteries can provide high efficiencies but due to high

specific investment costs and low specific storage densities water electrolysis provides higher

potential for large scale storage applications [15]. In times when the electrical power demand

exceeds the power supply the reverse process of electrolysis, the fuel cell process could provide

electric power at high conversion efficiencies.

The contributions by Dominic Buchholz to this section are gratefully acknowledged [24].


For water electrolysis three technologies are under development. The technologies can be

differentiated by the electrolyte used. The technology with the highest maturity uses a liquid alkaline

electrolyte. More recent developments are based on fuel cell technologies. The low temperature

technology is the polymeric proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolysis, the high temperature

technology uses a solid oxide membrane, the so called solid oxide electrolysis cell (SOEC).

The most promising technologies are the PEM electrolysis due to its operability in a wide load range

and its better dynamic operation abilities. Its drawback is to today’s higher specific investment costs

which are in focus of recent development projects.

The second interesting technology is the high temperature steam electrolysis, the so called solid

oxide electrolysis (SOEC). Though it is still in its early stages of development, is shows the charming

potential to provide two operation modes alternatively. First, in times of surplus electric power, the

electrolysis operation, to store electric energy in the form of chemical energy in hydrogen. And

second, in times of electric power demand, the fuel cell operation, to produce electric energy from

hydrogen rich synthesis gas, e.g. stemming from biomass gasification [16].


The liquid alkaline electrolysis (AEC) is TRL 9 and commercially available since several decades. It is

used at remote sources of electric power as the Aswan high dam to convert it into a chemical energy

carrier. This solution was more economic in comparison to build a long distance power line. It is

optimized for efficiency in static operation.

For dynamic operation the polymeric proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolysis shows

advantages. The TRL is 6 to 8 depending on the developer and the design production capacities of

the prototypes are still one order of magnitude lower, than the expected demand in the future.

Furthermore the specific investment costs are quite high in comparison to the liquid alkaline

electrolysis [17].

The high temperature steam electrolysis is at TRL 5 and would be beneficial at places where heat

would be available additionally to surplus electric power. By developing a demonstration unit that


Page 27 of 45

could be operated in both operation modes, electrolysis and fuel cell could increase the impactability

drastically [18].

The impact a KIC InnoEnergy investment in electro-chemical conversion processes is summarized in

the following table.

Table 7-1: KIC impactability of electro-chemical conversion processes within „Energy from Chemical

Fuels“


• Reduce the specific investment costs drastically.

• Improve dynamic operability.

• Increase energy efficiency.

• system integration and modularization


• Develop a 5 MW liquid alkaline electrolysis with 65+ % conversion efficiency at investment

costs of 600 €/kWel.

• Develop a 5 MW polymeric proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolysis with 70+ %

conversion efficiency at investment costs of 800 €/kWel.

• Develop a 5 MW two mode demonstrator for solid oxide electrolysis (SOEC) with 85+ %

conversion efficiency and solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) with 60 %+ conversion efficiency at a

total investment cost of 1 000 €/kWel.


cost

de

cre

ase

op

era

bili

ty

GH

G d

ecr

ea

se

electrolysis Conversion of surplus electric energy into chemical energy carrier will be a key

technology for the „Energiewende“. Crucial are high efficiencies, high dynamic

load changes, partial load operability, and lowered specific investment costs. In

combination with storage technologies less surplus installation capacity of wind

and photovoltaic plants would be needed for a secure energy supply.

alkaline (AEC) 8 4 3 8 8 5 9 2 8

PEM (PEMEC) 7 5 8 9 8 9 9 5 8

solide oxide

(SOEC)

5 10 9 9 5 9 9 8 9

fuel cells The reverse process of electrolysis, the so called fuel cell process, will be

essential in times when wind and solar power plants cannot provide enough

power to satisfy the power demand in the electric power grid.

solide oxide fuel

cell (SOFC)

5 10 9 9 5 9 9 8 9

Inv

(re

qu

ire

d in

ve

stm

en

t)

cro

ss im

pa

ct in

se

ve

ral a

pp

lica

tio

ns

impact on

TR

L Le

ve

l

cov

era

ge

of

va

lue

ch

ain

by

KIC

pa

rtn

ers

KIC

ind

ust

ry in

tere

st

Inv

(fo

rese

ea

ble

re

gu

lato

ry i

mp

act

)


Page 28 of 45

0

2

4

6

8

10TRL-Level (1-9)

Cost decrease

Operability

GHG decrease



Inv(Foreseeable

regulatory impact)

Inv(Required

Investment)


application

alkaline electrolysis (AEC)

0

2

4

6

8

10TRL-Level (1-9)

Cost decrease

Operability

GHG decrease



Inv(Foreseeable

regulatory impact)

Inv(Required

Investment)


application

PEM electrolysis (PEMEC)


Page 29 of 45

The SOFC would be beneficial in combination with solid oxide electrolysis as an integrated setup for

both operating modes.

0

2

4

6

8

10TRL-Level (1-9)

Cost decrease

Operability

GHG decrease



Inv(Foreseeable

regulatory impact)

Inv(Required

Investment)


application

solid oxide electrolysis (SOEC)

0

2

4

6

8

10TRL-Level (1-9)

Cost decrease

Operability

GHG decrease



Inv(Foreseeable

regulatory impact)

Inv(Required

Investment)


application

solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC)


Page 30 of 45


Figure 6-1 shows the research centers/universities and industries along the value chain for

conversion of electric energy via electrolysis to hydrogen and for conversion of hydrogen in SOFCs. It

highlights some of the major players, however is by no means comprehensive.

Figure 7-1: Value chain for electrolysis and SOFC systems


Page 31 of 45

7.4 Actions needed to increase “impactability” (Action plan)

• Contact research institutes, universities and key players in industry involved in electrolysis

technologies (see list of electrolyzer suppliers) and identify key customers

• Propose the added value of adapted electrolysis systems for different applications


o Development of simpler and cheaper Systems.

o Development of high temperature steam electrolysis technology for two mode

operation (electrolyzer and fuel cell).

o Increase of dynamic operability of systems.


Page 32 of 45

8. (Bio-)Chemical Conversion Processes (‘Syntheses’) Up to now the energetic use of biomass is mainly restricted to the direct conversion of biomass to

heat and power. These conversion processes are bound to the location of the biomass resources. In

remote areas in most cases the heat cannot be used and the production of electric power cannot

meet the fluctuating demand. The production of high valuable fuels with syntheses adds flexibility in

storage and supply of energy by generation of an energy carrier, which is easy to transport, to store

and can be used for flexible, demand-actuated power generation.

The contributions by Jörg Sauer to this section are gratefully acknowledged [20].


A general overview of chemical conversion processes is shown in Figure 8-1.

Figure 8-1: (Bio-)chemical conversion processes as discussed in this roadmap document

Catalytic Conversion of Synthesis Gas: Synthesis gas (CO + H2) can be converted through different

catalytic routes to synthetic fuels ("synfuels"). The catalysts, the process and plant design together

with the process conditions define whether the resulting products can be supplied into the diesel,

the jet fuel or the gasoline pool. All processes have been realized on demonstration and commercial

scale (Fischer-Tropsch: Sasol, Shell, Velocys; DME: Haldor Topsøe, Air Liquide; MtG: Exxon, Haldor

Topsøe). The break-even point for commercialization of existing syngas conversion technologies is at

a million ton per year scale, which will not be feasible for biomass based processes because of the

physically dispersed availability of renewable sources of energy (e.g. electricity from PV or

sustainable biomass). Therefore, new intensified processes are needed which allow economic

production of synfuels at lower capacities per unit. Additionally, tailored synfuels are currently

discussed as the basis for the development of concepts for internal combustion engines which are

cleaner and more efficient.


Page 33 of 45

Syngas Fermentation: Anaerobic microorganisms like Clostridium ljungdahlii allow the production of

fuel components (ethanol, butanol) but also chemical building blocks like organic acids from syngas.

The fermentations can be performed at much milder conditions compared to conventional catalytic

processes, which result in a less complex process technology.

Conversion of Lignocellulose: Lignocellulose can be depolymerized through various hydrolysis

processes into its monomeric constituents (C6 and C5 sugars, lignin). The intermediates from the

hydrolysis of lignocellulose can be converted through chemical or biochemical routes to products like

fuels and chemical building blocks (alcohols, organic acids, phenols). The target of new developments

should be maximizing the value added by the various co-products from lignocellulose and the

optimization of process efficiencies and specific investments.

Upgrading of Intermediates such as Pyrolysis Oils: Lignocellulosic biomass can be converted through

pyrolysis processes to gaseous, liquid and solid products at elevated temperatures (approx. 500 °C).

Under hydrothermal conditions at slightly lower temperatures and higher pressures compared to

pyrolysis (approx. 350 °C, 20 bar) biomass can be converted into bio oil and also gaseous and solid

co-products. The process is called "hydrothermal liquefaction". The products from pyrolysis as well as

from hydrothermal liquefaction cannot be applied directly as fuel, but have to be upgraded. For this

upgrading various chemical or biochemical processes have been proposed in scientific literature.

Conversion technologies which are feasible at production scale combined with adequate business

models are needed.


In this very broad field of chemical syntheses KIC InnoEnergy can only focus on niche processes. One

of the processes with large potential is the fermentation of sugars to butanol, as there is already an

existing butanol market and market prices are promisingly high. Furthermore, investments for

process and technology demonstration could be kept rather low, e.g. by refurbishing existing,

decommissioned bio-ethanol plants. Existing technologies suffer from low efficiency and high

investments.

Additionally, the hydrolysis of lignocellulose (wood or straw), either enzymatic or with acids, is not

efficient enough and investments are too high today. KIC InnoEnergy could bring together the right

partners to overcome these hurdles. In general the development of this process appears to be

suitable for KIC InnoEnergy, considering the scale of the activities and associated cost to develop and

bring such systems to the market.

Large-scale Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (FT) with fossil feedstock is a mature technology. By

simplification of the process technology and intensification of the process the downsizing to scales

suitable for the usage of renewable feedstock creates a rather large impact. Furthermore, the

development of medium scale FT units complements the development targets of the gasification

plants as stated in Chapter 6.

The impact a KIC InnoEnergy investment in these conversion processes is summarized in the

following table 8-2.


Page 34 of 45

Table 8-2: KIC impactability of chemical conversion processes within „Energy from Chemical Fuels“


• Simplify processes

• Improve efficiency

• Reduce specific investments


• develop a 25 MW Fischer-Tropsch synthesis with 75+ % conversion efficiency at an

investment of 500 €/kWchem and an annual operating time of 8 000 h/a.

• develop a 25 MW sugars to butanol fermentation with 75+ % conversion efficiency at an

investment of 1000 €/kWchem and an annual operating time of 7 000+ h/a.

• develop a 25 MW dry biomass to butanol process with 44+ % total conversion efficiency at

an investment of 2200 €/kWchem and an annual operating time of 7 000+ h/a.


cost

de

cre

ase

op

era

bil

ity

GH

G d

ecr

ea

se

Conversion of

Synthesis Gas

Catalytic Syntheses are only demonstrated in large scale units which is

not feasible for biomass conversion processes. New, simplified processes

with lower specific investment demand are needed for integration in

biomass conversion plants.

Biological processes could also simplify process technologies and thus

lower the specific investment demand. Both process routes would lower

energy production costs and increase security of energy supply.

* catalytic routes 6 5 7 9 8 9 8 8 8

* fermentation 6 5 8 9 9 9 9 9 9

Conversion of

Lignocellulose

7 5 7 9 9 9 9 9 9 The direct conversion route for Lignocellulose would broaden the

spectrum of products. This would allow integrating biomasses on various

additional value chains.

Upgrading of

Intermediates

4 5 7 9 9 9 9 9 9 The upgrading of intermediates would allow integrating the products into

existing value chains of already traded products.

Inv

(re

qu

ire

d i

nv

est

me

nt)

cro

ss i

mp

act

in

se

ve

ral

ap

pli

cati

on

s

impact on

TR

L Le

ve

l

cov

era

ge

of

va

lue

ch

ain

by

KIC

pa

rtn

ers

KIC

in

du

stry

in

tere

st

Inv

(fo

rese

ea

ble

re

gu

lato

ry i

mp

act

)


Page 35 of 45

0

2

4

6

8

10TRL-Level (1-9)

Cost decrease

Operability

GHG decrease



Inv(Foreseeable

regulatory impact)

Inv(Required

Investment)


application

Syngas Value Chain: Catalytic Routes

0

2

4

6

8

10TRL-Level (1-9)

Cost decrease

Operability

GHG decrease



Inv(Foreseeable

regulatory impact)

Inv(Required

Investment)


application

Syngas Value Chain: Syngas Fermentation


Page 36 of 45


The research centers/universities and industry along the value chain from dry biomass and waste to

liquid fuels via Fischer-Tropsch synthesis in shown in Figure 6-2 on page 29. Figure 8-2 shows the

actors of the value chain from wood and cellulose to butanol. It highlights some of the major players,

however is by no means comprehensive.

0

2

4

6

8

10TRL-Level (1-9)

Cost decrease

Operability

GHG decrease



Inv(Foreseeable

regulatory impact)

Inv(Required

Investment)


application

Lignocellulose Hydrolysis Value Chains

0

2

4

6

8

10TRL-Level (1-9)

Cost decrease

Operability

GHG decrease



Inv(Foreseeable

regulatory impact)

Inv(Required

Investment)


application

Pyrolysis Oil/Hydrothermal Liquefaction

Value Chain


Page 37 of 45

Figure 8-2: Value Chain from wood/cellulose to butanol


• Contact research institutes, universities and key players of the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis

market

• Propose the added value of adapted Fischer-Tropsch reactor systems for different

applications


o Drastically reduce complexity of reaction systems and product upgrading

o Modularize systems for investment decrease

• Contact research institutes, universities and key players of the butanol synthesis market

• Propose the added value of simplified butanol fermentation systems


o Drastically reduce complexity of reaction systems and product upgrading

o Modularize systems for investment decrease


Page 38 of 45

9. Final Energy Utilization Processes: Combustion and Co-

Combustion Based Heat and Power Generation and Mobility

Almost all technologies in final energy usage have already reached a TRL of 9. Only co-firing and

gasification (see section 6) have slightly lower TRLs. The technologies comprise combustion of

biomass and fossil feedstocks, combined heat and power production on a small, decentralized scale

and on a large, industrial scale, and transportation (i.e. mobility) based on biodiesel and ethanol.

Considering the maturity of most technologies, the large number of developments that are already

underway, the relatively mature technologies and also the fact that large-scale industrial companies

are already involved, it can be questioned if technologies for final energy usage are an area suitable

for development projects within the KIC InnoEnergy framework. However, KIC InnoEnergy could

support developments of process aspects, such as the improvement of components and sub-

processes which can be integrated with processes already being commercialized.

The contributions by Ludger Eltrop [23] and Lars Waldheim [12] to this section are gratefully

acknowledged.


Biomass co-firing for combined heat and power production

In order to reduce CO2 emissions from existing fossil fuel fired power plants, biomass is co-

combusted, also called co-firing. The co-firing of biomass with coal in existing large power station

boilers has proven to be one of the most cost-effective large-scale technologies for conversion of

biomass to electricity [21]. The electrical efficiency of larger scale coal fired power plants is in a range

of 36 to 40 %. Pre-treatment of biomass, e.g. by torrefaction, reduces fuel transport cost

(international market) and fixed investment (one mill and feeding system for coal & biomass). In the

case of co-feeding, biomass is fed with the coal through the coal mills and into the same burners as

the coal. This is associated with limits in the fraction of biomass that can be used, typically less than

20 %. Separate feeding means that the biomass is milled [21] and fed to separate burners. If the

biomass is acceptably clean and low in ash content, the co-firing rate can go up to 100 %, i.e. actually

substituting all coal, even if this may mean that the power plant suffers from some increased de-

rating.

For less clean biomass or waste fractions, indirect co-firing is used, i.e. the fuel is gasified, the

producer gas cleaned to the extent required and then fired into the boiler. This is practiced in a

handful of installations, and the substitution can be up to 50 % or higher. Please refer to section 6 of

this document for further details.

Parallel co-firing means that the biomass is burned separately, but integrated with the main boiler via

the steam system such that the steam generated provides power and less steam is produced from

the fossil fuel. This has been applied in Denmark for straw and the Netherlands for waste, but is very

site specific and not considered any further in this section.


Page 39 of 45

In the past, there were a lot of discussions on how much biomass and what qualities can be co-fired

without compromising availability due to increased fouling and corrosion and the disposal of the

mixed ash for construction purposes. Direct co-firing uses mainly “white” woody biomass pellets

whereas the use of other fuels such as forestry residues, bark, demolition wood and straw is still

restricted to low co-firing rates, otherwise indirect co-firing has been used.

Key sectors for biomass combustion and co-combustion are the pulp and paper, and timber

processing industry and power generation [22]. One of the main targets is the reduction of power

generation costs combined with CO2 emission reduction. Additionally the operability of such plant

will be improved. The combustion technology (stoker), although still widely used, e.g. in the paper

and pulp industry, sugar cane industry and palm oil industry, does not represent the cutting edge

technology. In Europe and in particular in Scandinavia, but also in China and the US, most plants

today use bubbling fluidized bed (BFB) or circulating fluidized bed (CFB) technology, depending on

their capacity. These plants operate with a variety of fuels such as coal, petcoke lignite, wood,

biomass residues, and assorted wastes.

Mobility

Mobility is a wide field and the roadmap looks at bio-diesel and ethanol supply for a bio-fuel based

mobility only, namely biodiesel combustion in a compression ignition engine and ethanol combustion

in a spark ignition engine. Although playing a minor role only in global transportation systems these

technologies are well established, especially in certain countries.

Ethanol combustion in an internal combustion engine (spark ignition engine) yields significantly

larger amounts of formaldehyde and related species such as acetaldehyde than gasoline combustion

in such engines. This leads to a significantly larger photochemical reactivity that generates much

more ground level ozone. Experimental data show that ethanol exhaust generates two times as

much ozone as gasoline exhaust.

While studying the effect of biodiesel on a diesel particulate filter (DPF) it was found that though the

presence of sodium and potassium carbonates improved the catalytic conversion of ash, as the diesel

particulates are catalyzed, they may congregate inside the DPF and so interfere with the clearances

of the filter. This may cause the filter to clog and interfere with the regeneration process. In a study

on the impact of exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) rates with blends of jathropha biodiesel it was

shown that there was a decrease in fuel efficiency and torque output due to the use of biodiesel on a

diesel engine designed with an EGR system.


In the area of conventional biomass power generation, there is a continuous development in the

performance of this technology at an incremental rate and no big break-throughs can be expected.

The financial strength, market positions and know-how basis of the actors, in relation to the capacity

of KIC InnoEnergy means that the overall combustion-steam-power process does not appear suitable

for KIC InnoEnergy developments. However, to drive the future developments in this area, while also

expanding the use of various forms of biomass, there are some key challenges relating to the fuel

constituents and their interaction with materials inside the boiler furnace and heat recovery section


Page 40 of 45

(agglomeration, fouling, corrosion). Developments to address such issues lie well in the area of KIC

InnoEnergy activities and can lead to solutions and potential products.

When addressing the issues of broadening the fuel spectrum for indirect co-firing, gasification and

appropriate downstream gas cleaning seem more suitable for KIC InnoEnergy investments (please

refer to section 6).

Mobility is an area with numerous big players (car and truck manufacturers) and where the political

framework plays an important yet hard to foresee role. This area is not considered any further in this

document.


• Widen feed quality spectrum to also include agrowaste

• Reduce the specific investment costs drastically

• Improve dynamic operability

• Increase energy efficiency

• Enhance system integration and modularization


• Develop a process for indirect co-firing at utility scale, including gas cleaning, at less than

2000 €/kWel (total investment) by 2020, with 40+ % electric efficiency and an annual

operating time of 8 000 h/a

• 1 MWhel coal equals 1 ton of CO2 emitted, target is to achieve 80 % net reduction

The impact a KIC InnoEnergy investment in these conversion processes is summarized in the

following table 9-1.

Table 9-1: KIC impactability of final energy conversion processes within „Energy from Chemical

Fuels“


cost

de

cre

ase

op

era

bil

ity

GH

G d

ecr

ea

se

combustion 9 3 5 9 5 7 5 4 7 small scale CHP: customer for heat required; high total efficiency;

improvement of fuel flexibility; reduction of CO2 emissions; reduction of

power generation costs; reduction of CAPEX by standardization of plant

design ("off the shelf plants"); implementation of nutrient recycling

technologies

high-rate co-firing 9 5 5 9 5 7 5 8 7 large scale power generation: application of combined cycle technology;

high electrical efficiency; improvement of fuel flexibility; reduction of

CO2 emissions; reduction of power generation costs; reduction of CAPEX

by standardization of plant design ("off the shelf plants");

implementation of nutrient recycling technologies

mobility 9 2 2 1 1 1 4 1 3 Biodiesel/ethanol powered passenger cars: potential/supply of such

biofuels is limited, public perception is not necessarily positive,

reduction of CO2 emissions strongly depends on biomass feedstock

Inv

(re

qu

ire

d i

nv

est

me

nt)

cro

ss i

mp

act

in

se

ve

ral

ap

pli

cati

on

s

impact on

TR

L Le

ve

l

cov

era

ge

of

va

lue

ch

ain

by

KIC

pa

rtn

ers

KIC

in

du

stry

in

tere

st

Inv

(fo

rese

ea

ble

re

gu

lato

ry i

mp

act

)


Page 41 of 45

0

2

4

6

8

10TRL-Level (1-9)

Cost decrease

Operability

GHG decrease



Inv(Foreseeable

regulatory impact)

Inv(Required

Investment)


application

Combustion

0

2

4

6

8

10TRL-Level (1-9)

Cost decrease

Operability

GHG decrease



Inv(Foreseeable

regulatory impact)

Inv(Required

Investment)


application

High-Rate Co-Firing


Page 42 of 45


Tables 9-2 and 9-3 provide examples of plants that are either co-fired with biomass or converted for

combustion of 100 % biomass feedstock altogether.

Table 9-2: Examples of co-firing plants [12]

Company/Plant Location Tot. power

output, MWel

Co-firing

capacity, MWfuel

Electrabel Rodenhuize Belgium 180 840

Electrabel RuienBelgium 75 Indirect co-firing

RWEnpower Oxfordshire UK 2100 656

Drax Power North Yorkshire UK 4000 625

DONG Energy Copenhagen Denmark 365 592

RWE Essent Geertruidenberg Netherlands 600 577 Direct co-fring

RWE Essent Geertruidenberg Netherlands 600 75 Indirect co-firing

British Energy Yorkshire UK 1960 460

Electrabel Liège Belgium 80 420

Scottish Power Scotland UK 2400 375

DONG Copenhagen Denmark 45 125 Parallel co-firing

DONG Kalundborg Denmark 5 Indirect co-firing pilot

HOFOR Copenhagen Denmark Unit 1 w. pellets

100%.

SSE Yorkshire UK 2035 327

E.ON Kent UK 2034 318

E.ON Nottinghamshire UK 2010 314

EDF Energy Nottinghamshire UK 2000 313

SSE Lancashire UK 1995 312

EDF Energy Nottinghamshire UK 1980 309

Lahti Energia Lahti Finland 80 Indirect co-firing

Vaskiluoton Voima Vasaa Finland 140 Indirect co-firing

Vattenfall Moabit 1, Germany

0

2

4

6

8

10TRL-Level (1-9)

Cost decrease

Operability

GHG decrease



Inv(Foreseeable

regulatory impact)

Inv(Required

Investment)


application

Mobility


Page 43 of 45

Table 9-3: Examples of converted biomass fired plants [12]

Company/Plant Location Power

output,

MWel

Biomass

capacity,

MWel

RWE Tilbury B, UK 1 040 750 decommissioned in 2013

RWE Lynemouth, UK 3*140 n.a. under construction

EON Ironbridge, UK 2*500 2*300 in operation, decommissioning

in 2015

DRAX Drax, UK 6*660 570? Per

unit

1 unit converted, 1 under

construction, 1 in planning

SSE Eggbourough, UK 3*660 n.a. conversion of all three units

planned

RWE Tilbury, UK 1 040 870 re-opening of the renovated

Tilbury B unit in planning

DONG Avedoere, Denmark 793 n.a. in planning

DONG Studsrup, Denmark 794 total n.a. 2 units in planning

DONG Skaerbaek, Denmark 392 total n.a. 2 units in planning

Hofor Amager 1, Denmark 314 total n.a. under construction


• Contact research institutes, universities and key players of the combustion and co-

combustion market

• Address issues of broadening the fuel spectrum for indirect co-firing by gasification and also

involving gas cleaning


Page 44 of 45

Annexes

A.1 List of contributors

The following organizations have contributed to the ‘Strategy and Roadmap’

• AVA-CO2 Schweiz AG, industry: Hans Hubschneider

• CC Germany, KIC: Christian Müller, Felix Teufel

• Deutscher Verein des Gas- und Wasserfaches e.V. (DVGW), applied research: Dominic

Buchholz

• Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems, applied research: Thomas Aicher

• Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), academia: Helmut Seifert, Jörg Sauer

• University Stuttgart, academia: Ludger Eltrop

• Waldheim Consulting, industry: Lars Waldheim

A.2 References

[1] http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/package/index_en.htm

[2] http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/2030/index_en.htm

[3] http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/roadmap/index_en.htm

[4] http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy2020/roadmap/index_en.htm

[5] http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/strategies/2011_white_paper_en.htm

[6] EPRI, “Biopower Generation: Biomass Issues, Fuels, Technologies, and Research,

Development, Demonstration, and Deployment Opportunities”, February 2010.

[7] IEA Bioenergy: Thermal Pre-treatment of Biomass for Large-scale Applications. Summary

and Conclusions from the IEA Bioenergy ExCo66 Workshop 2010 (IEA

Bioenergy:ExCo:2011:05)

[8] Technology Map of the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan). Technology

Descriptions, EUR 24979 EN – 2011:

http://setis.ec.europa.eu/system/files/Technology_Map_2011.pdf

[9] IRENA Renewable Energy Technologies: Cost Analysis Series. Biomass for Power

Generation, 2012

[10] Kiel, J.: Torrefaction for biomass upgrading into commodity fuels. IEA Bioenergy Task 32

workshop “Fuel storage, handling and preparation and system analysis for biomass

combustion technologies”, Berlin, 7 May 2007

[11] Hans Hubschneider, AVA-CO2 Schweiz AG, personal communication, spring 2014

[12] Lars Waldheim, “KIC InnoEnergy Roadmap Review”, report, July 21, 2014

[13] IEA Technology Roadmap: Bioenergy for Heat and Power, OECD/IEA, 2012


Descriptions, EUR 24979 EN – 2011:

http://setis.ec.europa.eu/system/files/Technology_Map_2011.pdf

[15] IEC Electrical Energy Storage White Paper 2011: http://www.iec.ch/whitepaper/pdf/iecWP-

energystorage-LR-en.pdf (09.05.2014)

[16] von Olzhausen: „Kraftstoffe aus CO2 und H2O unter Nutzung regenerativer Energie“, 4.

Statuskonferenz der BMBF-Fördermaßnahme "Technologien für Nachhaltigkeit und

Klimaschutz - Chemische Prozesse und stoffliche Nutzung von CO2", 8.4.2014,

Königswinter: http://www.chemieundco2.de/_media/05_sunfire_status_080414.pdf

[17] Bertuccioli, L. et al.: Study on development of water electrolysis in the EU, Final Report

2014: http://www.fch-ju.eu/sites/default/files/study electrolyser_0-Logos_0.pdf

(09.05.2014)

[18] Smolinka, T.: Water Electrolysis: Status and Potential for Development, Joint NOW GmbH –

FCH JU Water Electrolysis Day, Brussels, April 3, 2014


Page 45 of 45

[19] Brisse, A.; Schefold, J.: High Temperature Electrolysis at EIFER, main achievements at cell

and stack level, Energy Procedia (2012) 29, p. 53-63

[20] Jörg Sauer, Institut für Katalyseforschung und -technologie (IKFT), Karlsruher Institut für

Technologie, personal communication, summer 2014

[21] IEA Technology Roadmap: Bioenergy for Heat and Power, OECD/IEA, 2012


Descriptions, EUR 24979 EN – 2011: http://setis.ec.europa.eu/system/files

[23] Ludger Eltrop, Institut für Energiewirtschaft und Rationelle Energieanwendung, Universität

Stuttgart, personal communication, summer 2014

KIC InnoEnergy SE

High Tech Campus 69

5656 AG Eindhoven

The Netherlands

[email protected]

KIC InnoEnergy Benelux

Technical University Eindhoven (TU/e)

Connector 1.08

Het Eeuwsel 6

5612 AS Eindhoven, The Netherlands

[email protected]

KIC InnoEnergy France

Immeuble L’Alizée

32, rue des Berges

38000 Grenoble, France

[email protected]

KIC InnoEnergy Germany

Albert-Nestler-Straße 26

76131 Karlsruhe, Germany

[email protected]

KIC InnoEnergy Iberia

Edifici Nexus II Oficina 0A

Jordi Girona, 29

08034 Barcelona, Spain

[email protected]

KIC InnoEnergy Poland Plus

ul. Czerwone Maki 84, Bldg C

30-392 Kraków, Poland

[email protected]

KIC InnoEnergy Sweden

Valhallavägen 79

SE-114 28 Stockholm, Sweden

[email protected]

KIC InnoEnergy is supported by

the EIT, a body of the European Union

Find out more

www.kic-innoenergy.com

facebook.com/kicinnoenergy

twitter.com/KICInnoEnergy

linkedin.com/company/kic-innoenergy

youtube.com/user/InnoEnergy

KIC InnoEnergy Energy from Chemical Fuels€¦ · KIC InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from...

Documents

Transcript of KIC InnoEnergy Energy from Chemical Fuels€¦ · KIC InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from...