BREWtoolAssessing the environmental and

economic performance of bulk bio-based chemicals and their petrochemical

equivalents

Data issues & First Results

Manuela Crank

Data missing...• LCI data auxiliaries/catalysts/media components

• eg. NaHCO2 , K2HPO4, KHPO4

Incomplete specification of...

INPUTS• Exact feedstock not always specified• Auxiliaries/catalysts often not fully specified; e.g. antifoam, acids,

bases• Fermentation media components also not always specified (required

breakdown of media composition)

Environmental analysis – data issues

Incomplete specification of...

OUTPUTS• Credits for biogas: assumptions about this not always specified

(composition, HHV, efficiency of conversion to heat/electricity)• Waste water COD -> needs to be known to calculate environmental

impacts• Sludge composition and typical treament required (deactivation by

heating/disposal to land or incineration?)• Process emissions (in particular, CH4, N2O) not always specified –

leads to underestimation of greenhouse gases

• Data input form to be updated to improve clarity

Environmental analysis – data issues

Data to be checked – energy conversion factors for utilities

Electricity for compressed air

[GJ electricity/mN3] 0.00040

(Radgen, 2004)

Electricity for refrigeration, temperatures

[GJ electricity/kWh refrig.] 0.00085(Radgen, 2004)

Electricity for refrigeration, very low

[GJ electricity/kWh refrig.] 0.00360(Radgen, 2004)

data from pers. comms. with P. Radgen, Fraunhofer Institute ISI, Karlsruhe,Germany, May 2004

Economic analysis – data issues

Data missing...• Prices for bulk chemicals – mostly using Chemical Market Reporter.

Contract prices available?• Components of fermentation medium – difficult to find bulk prices

NaHCO2 (150 EUR/t), K2HPO4, KHPO4 – similar price assumed. Good souces for bulk prices known?

Incomplete specification of...• Investment costs need to be more clearly defined (ISBL/OSBL)• Labour requirements/cost of 1 FTU (35 EUR\h = 72,000 EUR/y). Is

this a reasonable figure for EU situation?• Default value (EUR/t) assigned where no labour requirements

specified.• 1 USD = 1.1 EUR – Is this a reasonable long-term average?

Data to be checked – utilities pricing

Electricity [EUR/GJ electricity] 28.53 Grothe (2000)

LP steam production in the chemical sector [EUR/t steam] 9.00 Grothe (2000)

MP steam production in the chemical sector [EUR/t steam] 11.90 Grothe (2000)

HP steam production in the chemical sector [EUR/t steam] 15.00 Grothe (2000)

Compressed air [EUR/mN3] 0.00466 Energy Matters, May/Jun 2001, 7

Refrigeration [EUR/GJ refrigeration] 14.47 Grothe (2000)

Cooling water [EUR/t] 0.04 Grothe (2000)

Process water [EUR/t] 0.54 Grothe (2000)

Grothe, E. (2000): Konzeption und Wirtschaftlichtkeit der industrielen Glycerinvergärung zu 1,3-Propandiol. Forschr-Ber VDI Reihe 17 Nr. 200. Düsseldorf. VDI Verlag.

Prices from Grothe are 1994 values. We need up-to-date, representative EU prices for utilities.

MartinP\BioplastVCH_Wiley\compar3[Summar1].xls

Refresher: Conventions for system boundaries

System_1.xls

Naturalresources Emiss.

ProductPost-consumerwaste

Land Emiss.

Emiss.

Cradle-to-Factory Gate

Cradle-to-Grave

Processing

Process waste

Mining/ Extraction

Agriculture,Forestry

UseWasteM'mt

Landfill

Sewage Treatment

Emiss.

MartinP\BioplastVCH_Wiley\compar3[Summar1].xls

Propanediol (PDO) cradle to factory gate

System_1.xls

Energy use (GJ/t)

020406080

100120140

PDO-B-g

lycer

ol-UU

PDO-B-D

uPon

t

PDO-B-A

er-S

RI

PDO-B-A

naer

-SRI

PDO-P-E

O-SRI

PDO-P-A

cr-S

RI

Renewable

Non-renewable

Greenhouse gas emissions (kg CO2eq/t)

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

PDO-B-g

lycer

ol-UU

PDO-B-D

uPon

t

PDO-B-A

er-S

RI

PDO-B-A

naer

-SRI

PDO-P-E

O-SRI

PDO-P-A

cr-S

RI

Emitted fromnon-renewables

Sequesteredin product

Netemissions =GWP100

Land use (ha/t)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

PDO-B-g

lycer

ol-UU

PDO-B-D

uPon

t

PDO-B-A

er-S

RI

PDO-B-A

naer

-SRI

PDO-P-E

O-SRI

PDO-P-A

cr-S

RI

Land

Product value (EUR/t) = Production cost + 25% ROI

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

PDO-B-g

lycer

ol-UU

PDO-B-D

uPon

t

PDO-B-A

er-S

RI

PDO-B-A

naer

-SRI

PDO-P-E

O-SRI

PDO-P-A

cr-S

RI

Prod Value

MartinP\BioplastVCH_Wiley\compar3[Summar1].xls

Lactic acid (LA) cradle to factory gate

System_1.xls

Energy use (GJ/t)

0102030405060708090

100

LA-S

hell-o

pt:ele

ctro.

..

LA-S

hell-o

pt:so

lvent

LA-C

D-CDda

ta

LA-C

D-gen

data

Renewable

Non-renewable

Greenhouse gas emissions (kg CO2eq/t)

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.5

LA-S

hell-o

pt:ele

ctro.

..

LA-S

hell-o

pt:so

lvent

LA-C

D-CDda

ta

LA-C

D-gen

data

Non-renewable

Fixed in product

Net emissions

Land use (ha/t)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

LA-S

hell-

opt:e

lectrod

ial.

LA-S

hell-

opt:s

olvent

LA-C

D-CDda

ta

LA-C

D-gen

data

Land

MartinP\BioplastVCH_Wiley\compar3[Summar1].xls

Lactic acid (LA)

System_1.xls

Cargill Dow data compared to Shell data.

Non-renewable energy use: CD 50% less than Shell:

1) Similar mass flows corn -> glucose but inputs allocated (70% to corn)

2) Lower utility requirements (fermentation + purification: CD 40% of Shell.

Renewable energy use: CD also 50% less than Shell:

1) Allocation as above

2) Less glucose/t LA

3) No CSL (nitrogen source) - less corn feedstock (relatively minor)

MartinP\BioplastVCH_Wiley\compar3[Summar1].xls

Succinic acid (SA) cradle to factory gate

System_1.xls

Energy use (GJ/t)

020406080

100120

SA-B-D

extrF

er-S

RI

SA-P-M

A-ECT+E

coIn

v

Renewable

Non-renewable

Greenhouse gas emissions (kg CO2eq/t)

0.01.02.03.04.05.06.0

SA-B-D

extrF

er-S

RI

SA-P-M

A-ECT+E

coIn

v

Emitted

Fixed in product

Net emissions

Land use (ha/t)

0.0

0.1

0.2

SA-B-D

extrF

er-S

RI

SA-P-M

A-ECT+E

coInv

Land

MartinP\BioplastVCH_Wiley\compar3[Summar1].xls

Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA)cradle to factory gate

System_1.xls

Energy use (GJ/t)

020406080

100120140

PHA-cor

n pla

nts-G...

PHA-Fer

-Ger

nSla

PHA-cor

nplan

ts-Kur

d

PHA-Fer

-Heyd

PHA-pro

cunk

n

PH(3B)-F

er-g

lucos

e

PH(3A)-F

er-s

oyoil

Renew.

Non-renew. (U)

Non-renew. (L)

(U) – upper bound of data range

(L) – lower bound of data range

ATO PHA process:

lower end of this range

Production costs substantially lower than present market price

Data not yet confirmed by ATO

MartinP\BioplastVCH_Wiley\compar3[Summar1].xls

Hydrogen

System_1.xls

ATO H2 process from waste agricultural stream:

•Non-renewable energy use much lower than conventional process (assuming fossil-based energy source).

•Emissions from non-renewable sources very low

•Land use requirements very low

•Data still under discussion

In fact the utilities will also be renewable (H2 produced in process) so NREU and associated CO2 emissions will be close to zero

Promising for use as a bulk chemical where a higher price can be obtained than in energy market.

MartinP\BioplastVCH_Wiley\compar3[Summar1].xls

Bio-based vs petrochemical-based platform chemicals

System_1.xls

Comparison of cradle-to-factory gate non-renewable energy use

Platform chemical

Bio-

based1

Petchem-

based1EB-EP

Savings (EB-EP)/EP

(GJ/t) (GJ/t) (GJ/t) (%)

Acetic acid: B-Anaer-ATO vs P-MC-EcoInv 30%Succinic acid: B-DextrFer-SRI vs P-MA-ECT+Ecoinvent 57.8 104.3 46.5 45%Propanediol2: B-Aer-SRI vs P-EO-SRI 63.1 83.2 20.1 24%Hydrogen: B-Fer-ATO vs P-NG-Joosten 47%

1best case = lowest non-renewable energy use2DuPont data higher savings

Savings in cradle-to-factory gate energy use are in some cases substantial. More data sets will help to define the range of possible savings, both environmental and economic.

MartinP\BioplastVCH_Wiley\compar3[Summar1].xlsSystem_1.xls

Bio-based vs petrochemical-based platform chemicals

Comparison of cradle-to-grave non-renewable energy use (50% credits)1

Platform chemical

Bio-

based1

Petchem-

based1EB-EP

Savings (EB-EP)/EP

(GJ/t) (GJ/t) (GJ/t) (%)

Acetic acid: B-Anaer-ATO vs P-MC-EcoInv 35%Succinic acid: B-DextrFer-SRI vs P-MA-ECT+Ecoinvent 51.1 97.6 46.5 48%Propanediol2: B-Aer-SRI vs P-EO-SRI 50.5 70.6 20.1 28%Hydrogen: B-Fer-ATO vs P-NG-Joosten N/A

1Simplified case: no energy requirements for use phase

Savings in cradle-to-grave energy use (50% credits for energy recovery) are higher, due to the fact that renewable energy content of the final product is assigned as credits to non-renewable energy use.