NextSTEPS Sustainable Transportation Energy Pathways · 2016-03-11 · NextSTEPS Sustainable...
22
NextSTEPS Sustainable Transportation Energy Pathways www.steps.ucdavis.edu H 2 Three paths forward for biofuels May 16, 2014 Lew Fulton (Co-Director, NextSTEPS, ITS-UC Davis Nathan Parker (Postdoc, ITS-UC Davis) Julie Witcover (Project Scientist), ITS-UC Davis) Geoff Morrison (Postdoc, ITS-UC Davis)
Transcript of NextSTEPS Sustainable Transportation Energy Pathways · 2016-03-11 · NextSTEPS Sustainable...
NextSTEPS Sustainable Transportation Energy Pathways
www.steps.ucdavis.edu
H2
Three paths forward for biofuels
May 16, 2014
Lew Fulton (Co-Director, NextSTEPS, ITS-UC Davis
Nathan Parker (Postdoc, ITS-UC Davis)
Julie Witcover (Project Scientist), ITS-UC Davis)
Geoff Morrison (Postdoc, ITS-UC Davis)
Outline
• Models and projections: Need for low carbon liquid fuels for long-term climate goals
• Expectations for biofuels: shifting volume projections to 2030
• Snapshot: current innovations in biofuels (‘three routes’)
– Leapfrog investments
– Incremental improvements
– Transitional technologies
• Three Routes Forward: supply-side scenario analysis
• Policy landscape
• Final thoughts: Key questions moving forward
2
Key takeaways
• Incremental: Small, incremental improvements in existing biorefineries can rapidly achieve near-term reductions in CO2e emissions.
• Leapfrog: Large stand alone cellulosic biorefineries that require new technologies and large investments have the largest long-term potential but won’t surpass incremental achievements until production hits at least 2 BGY.
• Transitional: Bolt-on/Gen 1.5 technologies that use corn stover and corn fiber have lower investment risk than stand-alone cellulosic facilities and might enable learning that provides a better business model for transitioning to cellulosics.
*Current policy landscape favors incremental improvements
3
ETP-2012 extensions (Fulton et al draft paper)
4
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2010 2030 2050 2075
All modes
GT
CO2
EJ
Electricity
Hydrogen
CNG/LPG
GTL/CTL
Biofuel
Kerosene
HFO
Diesel
Gasoline
2DS Emissions
Summary picture: 27 EJ of biofuels in 2050, 40 in 2075
IEA ETP-2012 Extensions (Fulton et al, draft paper)
5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
20
10
20
30
20
50
20
75
20
10
20
30
20
50
20
75
20
10
20
30
20
50
20
75
20
10
20
30
20
50
20
75
20
10
20
30
20
50
20
75
20
10
20
30
20
50
20
75
20
10
20
30
20
50
20
75
PLDV Bus Rail Air Road freight Rail Water
Passenger transport Freight transport
EJ
Electricity
Hydrogen
CNG/LPG
GTL/CTL
Biofuel
Kerosene
HFO
Diesel
Gasoline
Lots of electricity and hydrogen by 2050 in some modes, but
still a huge liquid fuels need
Our aim: inform debate on biofuels, focusing on
technological development
• Biofuel growth faces many constraints… – demand side (e.g., ethanol blendwall)
– supply side (low carbon technologies)
• …and many unresolved issues – full environmental impact (on climate and other factors)
– appropriate policy (how to scale sustainably?)
• We focus on the near term supply side picture in the US – factors affecting technology development to date – using GHG emission profiles of the technologies as currently
assessed in policy (not a comprehensive assessment of climate effects from policy)
6
DOE Projections: Highly variable over time
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Projected Volumes (Billion Gallons of Gasoline Equivalent)
Corn Ethanol
Cellulosic Ethanol
Biodiesel
Other Biofuel
Net Imports
2013
2020
2030
AEO 2005AEO 2006AEO 2007AEO 2008AEO 2009AEO 2010AEO 2011AEO 2012AEO 2013AEO 2014
AEO 2006AEO 2007AEO 2008AEO 2009AEO 2010AEO 2011AEO 2012AEO 2013AEO 2014
AEO 2005
AEO 2007AEO 2008AEO 2009AEO 2010AEO 2011AEO 2012AEO 2013AEO 2014
AEO 2006
Actual 2013 Volume
7
Improvements in biofuels operate on spectrum of carbon
intensity and financial risk
Waste-based
8
A new approach: Leapfrog vs. Incrementalism
5
Dimension Incremental Transitional Leapfrog Capital Requirement Small Moderate Large
Risk to Capital Small risk of failure Small to high risk of failure High risk of failure
Payback on
Investment
<2 years ~2-10 years >10 years
Carbon Intensity
Reduction from
Petroleum Baseline
Small reductions 50% or greater but limited
scalability.
Expected to be 50% or greater
Actors Established producers (e.g.
corn ethanol, soy biodiesel,
etc.)
Established biofuel
producers (e.g. corn
ethanol, soy biodiesel, etc.),
biochemical firms,
petroleum refiners
Start-ups, established
producers, Fortune 500
companies
Primary Conversion
Technologies
Fermentation+distillation
(FD), Transesterification
(TE)
Enzymatic hydrolysis +
fermentation (EHF),
Pyrolysis to bio-oil
Enzymatic hydrolysis +
fermentation (EHF), Pyrolysis +
hydrotreating, Hydrotreating of
algae oil, Gasification
Examples of Firms Pacific Ethanol, Little Sioux
Corn Processors (corn
ethanol), Minnesota
Soybean Processors
(biodiesel)
Quad County Processors
(corn fiber), Poet-DSM
(corn stover), Abengoa
Bioenergy, DuPont
KiOR, Mascoma, Ineos, BP
Biofuels, Cool Planet, ZeaChem
9
Leapfrog firms having challenges or poised for
commercialization?
Cellulosic hydrocarbons:
• e.g. KiOR, Columbus, MS
• Start-up difficulties
Stand-alone cellulosic plants in development:
Company Location Capacity KiOR Columbus, MS 13 MGY Beta Renewables Crescentino, Italy 20 MGY Cool Planet Alexandria, LA 10 MGY INEOS Vero Beach, FL 8 MGY
Cellulosic ethanol:
• e.g. Beta Renewables, Crescentino, Italy
• Slow start-up
10
Over $8 billion in Leapfrog biofuels funding since 2009
Leapfrog 2009-2012 Total Per year Source
Federal $3,335 million $833 million http://energyinnovation.us/
Venture Capital $2,325 million $581 million www.privco.com
Energy Companies ~$2,000 million $500 million Company websites
Seed Funding for Leapfrog facilities, split between Gov’t, VC and energy
company investments
11
Slow growth for most conversion technologies, enzymatic hydrolysis
most common Leapfrog conversion technology
0
1
2
3
4
5
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
En
tran
ts p
er Y
ear
(#)
Biochemical Pyrolysis+hydrotreating Gasification Algae transesterification Other
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Cu
mu
lati
ve
En
tran
ts (
#)
New entrants (annual) Cumulative
12
Examples of Incremental Biorefineries
Louis Dreyfus corn ethanol plant, Grand Junction, IA
• NG-fired, DDGS, with corn oil extraction
• More efficient plant than reference • Drops CI from 98.35 gCO2e/MJ to
89.56 gCO2e/MJ • Payback <2 years. • 1.0 Gen
POET corn ethanol plant, Chancellor, SD • Corn fractionation (1% lower CI) • Landfill gas (no CI value given) • Raw Starch Hydrolysis (6% lower CI) • CHP vs. grid electricity (2% lower CI)
Enogen corn • GMO corn includes
enzymes in kernel • Enables process
efficiencies
13
Incrementalism is bringing down carbon intensities (self-reports)
• Compared to corn ethanol reference fuel at 98 gCO2e/MJ • Incremental changes to corn ethanol production result in modest
carbon intensity reductions (~13% reduction at POET in SD) • Source: Self-reported ratings for available pathways in
California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
De
clin
e i
n g
CO
2e
/MJ
14
Other transitional plants in development:
Examples of transitional technologies
Corn fiber cellulosic: • e.g. Pacific Ethanol,
Stockton CA • Payback 12-18 months • 2-3% yield
improvement
Bagasse cellulosic: • e.g. Usina Vale, Brazil • Increases plant capacity from 40
MGY to 51 MGY at capital cost of $3.50/gal of capacity
Corn Stover cellulosic:
• e.g. POET-DSM, Emmetsburg, IA
• Shared road, rail spur, grid connections
• Separate facilities
Company Location Production Abengoa Hugoton, KS 25 DuPont Nevada, IA 30 GranBio Alagoas, Brazil 21 Quad County Processors Galva, IA 2
15
Can the Transitional route be stepping stone to Leapfrog?
Transitional (Bolt-ons)
Full Leapfrog ?
Current bolt-ons: 1. Corn fiber cellulosic ethanol 2. Corn stover cellulosic ethanol 3. Sugarcane bagasse cellulosic ethanol
*No thermochemical pathways **Only residue feedstocks
16
Incremental route is most important for near term
developments
Biofuel production potential Nominal GHG Impacts
Base biofuel use in 2013 = 10.5 BGGE US Transport GHG in 2012 = 1,735 MMT
17
US policy landscape for low carbon fuels includes two
different policy designs
California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) Annual Carbon Intensity Targets
rated as 10% reduction by 2020 (from 2010)
18
US Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Annual Volume Mandates (nested)
15 bg corn eth limit (2015)
16 bg cellulosic fuels (2022)
Carbon intensity reduction thresholds (rated as 20%, 50%, 60% from gasoline reference)
• Incremental. California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard especially 1gCO2e/MJ carbon reduction bin width; wider under US Renewable Fuel Standard • Transitional. Limited support modest credit prices, RFS cellulosic ‘price premium’ from waiver
• Leapfrog. Either program could ‘high enough’ credit price + ‘low enough’ capital gap
• Volatile, uncertain credit prices (in both policies) favors incrementalism
Policy landscape currently favors incrementalism
* Bins are rewarded reductions from CI of target (LCFS) or reference fuel (RFS); LCFS has 5gCO2e/MJ min to modify existing pathways; RFS-Advanced includes Biomass-Based Diesel
19
California Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) pathways, Nov 2013 (# default, # in use)
California LCFS tracks carbon intensity ratings for existing
and new pathways
CARBOB (42,0)
Corn ethanol (13,84)
Sugarcane ethanol (3,21)
Biogas(6,1)
CNG (2,0)
Electricity (2,0)
Hydrogen (5,0)
ULSD (42,0)
BD soybean (1,0)
LNG (5,0)
Grain/other Eth(2,47)
BD canola (0,1)
Default
New/Modified
Baseline fuel
Baseline fuel
Mean
New modifiedBD/RD waste (6,11)
Fu
el
Pa
th
wa
ys
EER Adjusted Carbon Intensity (gCO2e/ MJ)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Source: CA Air Resources Board (ARB)
In use
New/Modified (62)
(I,I9)
ARB derived
(6,69)
20
Final thoughts (5 questions for the future)
• How far should (can) we go down an ethanol pathway over the medium-long term?
• Leapfrog. What is required (and when will it happen) to spur investments in large-scale Leapfrog facilities? – Key lessons from existing leapfrog efforts for next steps? – How to ensure scale-up occurs with proper environmental
safeguards? • conditions for sustainable use – how to identify, enforce, monitor?
• Transitional. Are there ways to encourage ‘transitional’ investments so that they open up opportunities for higher volume, low carbon liquid fuels?
• Incremental. Is more needed to realize incremental improvements in the near term?
• Slower ramp-up – perhaps provides ‘breathing space’ for society to debate biofuel pros and cons, find answers to questions above, refine policies.
21
Questions?
Lew Fulton: [email protected]
Nathan Parker: [email protected]
Geoff Morrison: [email protected]
Julie Witcover: [email protected]
