Anthropogenic CO2 as a Feedstock for Cyanobacteria-Based Biofuels Pradeep Sharma, Ryan P. Lively, Benjamin A. McCool and Ronald R. Chance

2

Cyanobacteria-based (“Advanced”) Biofuels

• Biofuels in general

• Risks of climate change has made the

global energy market very carbon-

constrained

• Biofuels have the potential to be nearly

carbon-neutral

• Advanced biofuels

• Energy Independence & Security Act (EISA)

requires annual US production of 36 billion

gallons of renewable fuels by 20221,2

• Corn-based ethanol may peak out around 15

billion gal/yr

• Advanced biofuels technologies, such as

Algenol’s Direct to Ethanol®, have the

potential to fill the gap

• Algenol intends to compete on price

regardless of mandates and a reduced RFS

1EISA, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ140/html/PLAW-110publ140.htm 2US EPA Renewable Fuel Standards, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-08-15/pdf/2013-19557.pdf

CO2 H2O

3

Algenol’s Direct To Ethanol®

2 CO2 + 3 H2O

C2H5OH + 3 O2

Direct To Ethanol® technology

Direct To Ethanol® Commercial Vision

• Over-expression of genes for intracellular

fermentation pathway enzymes in the

cyanobacteria

• Enhanced cyanobacteria consume

• CO2

• Saltwater

• Sunlight

in low cost photobioreactors, to

photosynthetically produce high amounts of

ethanol and biomass

• Biomass is converted into various oils and

ethanol is purified to fuel grade purity

• Main capital cost drivers

• VIPERTM film photobioreactors

• Downstream purification

• Main operating cost drivers

• CO2

• Energy use (downstream operations)

4

CO2 Sourcing – Important Considerations

• Potential ‘Anthropogenic’ Sources

• Power plants

• Natural gas processing plants

• Fertilizer plants

• Hydrogen plants (Steam Methane Reformers)

• Fermentation plants

• Cement plants

• Requirements for CO2 source

• Size

‒ A 15 mgal EtOH/yr Algenol facility will need over 100,000 tonne CO2/yr

• Location

‒ Important for transporting CO2 to bio-refinery and product to market

• Cost of CO2 capture

‒ Depends on the quality of feed gas – including CO2 concentration

‒ Desired – more CO2 and less unwanted (toxic) impurities

5

Power Plants – the Biggest CO2 Source

• “The burning of coal, natural gas and oil for electricity and heat is the largest

single source of global greenhouse gas emissions”

United States Environmental Protection Agency1

• The largest coal fired power plant (3.5 GW) in the nation generates enough

CO2 to support over 1 Bgal EtOH/yr (via Direct to Ethanol)2

• US total power from coal in 2006 was

227.1 GW, can support over

90 Bgal EtOH/yr (photobioreactors laid

over half the state of Maine). Corn EtOH

would need half of Alaska!

• Coal and natural gas contribute 67% to

the electricity generated in US

1USEPA, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html 2http://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do#/facilityDetail/?q=&st=GA&fc=13015&fid=1001505&sf=11001000&lowE=0&highE=2300

0000&g1

Fuel Mix for U.S. Electricity

Generation, EIA, year 2011 data

6

Carbon Capture from Power Plants

• Coal plants in general are more polluting than natural gas

• SOx emission – 2591 lb/109 BTU (coal), ~1 lb/109 BTU (natural gas)

• CO2 emission1 – 940 kg/MWe (coal), 367 kg/MWe (natural gas)

• Rise of low-cost non-traditional natural gas

• Power plants have been/will be switching to natural gas for both

economic and environmental reasons

• Three main types of capture technologies exist

• Post-combustion

• Pre-combustion

• Oxy-fuel combustion

• For existing coal and natural gas fired plants, post-combustion

capture is readily applicable due to the relative ease of retrofits

1Rubin, E. S. et al., International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technol., Vol. 1, 2004

7

Effect of CO2 Price on Direct to Ethanol®

• A CO2 capture cost of $50/tonne1 will result in total operating expenses of $1.40/gal

of ethanol.

• Algenol is currently targeting an operating cost of $1.20/gal, though our overall goal

is below $1.00/gal.

• Achieving a CO2 delivery cost of $35/tonne enables Algenol to reach $1.20/gal in

operating expenses with $0.27/gal as the CO2 cost.

• CO2 from steam methane reformers can be delivered at approximately $35-$45 per

tonne. Fermentation and Ammonia plants can be even cheaper.

• Techno-economic analyses on CO2 capture stations reported in the literature include

the cost of CO2 compression and transportation for CCS purposes ($7-$10/tonne).

Algenol does not need that if co-located.

• Based on these considerations, in the analysis to follow, we assume $35/tonne for

CO2 delivered to the system boundary at modest pressure.

1 Zhai, H. and Rubin, E.S., “Comparative Performance and Cost Assessments of Coal- and Natural-Gas-Fired Power Plants under

a CO2 Emission Performance Standard Regulation”, Energy & Fuels, In press, doi: 10.1021/ef302018v (2013).

8

Natural Gas Power Plant - Algenol Integration

• A simple carbon footprint analysis is performed on a coupled power/ethanol

production facility

• Analysis considers the parasitic load of typical liquid amine capture systems

on natural gas power stations

• CO2 assumed to be consumed within the Algenol Direct to Ethanol®

biorefinery

• The full life cycle analysis on this element of the system, with CO2 supplied at

the system boundary, has been reported previously1

• The produced ethanol is burned as a liquid fuel

• Fossil fuel is displaced by ethanol use

1Luo, D., et al., . “Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions for an ethanol production process based on blue-green

algae”, Environmental science & technology, 44(22), pp. 8670-8677, (2010)

9

Capture vs. Utilization

• Carbon Footprint: Direct To Ethanol® advantaged vs. CCS and greatly advantaged vs. Status Quo

• Same conclusion for Coal-Fired Power Plant (total Parasitic Load for CCS of typically 30%)

NG Power Plant (217.4 MW)

CO2 Capture (1 atm)

Algenol Ethanol Production

Ethanol Combustion

280 MW-eq.

Fuel Energy

200 MW

Electricity

105.8 TCO2/h emissions for Algenol Case

NG NG

(supply chain)

Luo et al

(LCA, 1% condensate, VCD case)

79.7

TCO2/h

15.3 TCO2/h 71.7 TCO2/h 10.8 TCO2/h

non-combustion

Algenol Plus NG Power Plant

200 MW Electricity CO2 Sequestration (Total: 226.4 MW)

Gasoline Combustion

Additional Compression

Parasitic Load – 4%

111.0 TCO2/h For Sequestration Case

280 MW-eq. Fuel

Energy

174.8 TCO2/h For No CO2 Capture Case

200 MW Electricity Gasoline Combustion

280 MW-eq. Fuel

Energy

Comparison to Sequestration (CCS) Comparison to Status Quo (No Capture)

Power Plant

Parasitic Load

- 8%

8.0 TCO2/h

not captured

10

Algenol vs. Other Transportation Fuels

• It is important to see how Algenol’s ethanol shares the stage with

other transportation fuels –

• Gasoline

• Diesel

• Corn ethanol

• Grid electricity (plug-in electric vehicle)

• Parameters for comparison –

• Cost of producing one unit of energy

• Carbon footprint in producing one unit of energy

• The production costs are computed by subtracting sales tax,

distribution cost, and marketing cost from the retail price

• The carbon footprint is calculated via Argonne National Laboratory’s

GREET model (except Algenol ethanol)

11

Cost and Carbon Footprint on an Energy-to- Wheel Basis 1

• When reduced to price per

MJ to vehicle wheel, electric

vehicles (EVs) are lowest

cost (neglects infrastructure

and CAPEX associated with

electrical fleet)

• Driving a vehicle with

electricity generated from a

power plant (US average

grid) produces a carbon

footprint much larger than

Direct to Ethanol ®

Direct To Ethanol ® strongly

advantaged when carbon footprint is

considered

1Lively, Sharma, McCool, Chance, “CO2 as a feedstock for cyanobacteria-based biofuels: cost of recovery and wells-to-wheels

analysis”, to appear in Chemical Engineering Progress

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Gasoline Diesel CornEthanol

AlgenolEthanol

GridElectricity

g-C

O2

/MJ

(ve

hic

le)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

₵/M

J (v

eh

icle

)

12

Conclusions and Path Ahead

• The CO2 capture and utilization analyses show that carbon capture from both natural

gas and coal fired power plants is economically feasible in providing the CO2

feedstock for a biofuel production process.

• Our carbon footprint analysis indicates –

• Corn ethanol: Algenol’s ethanol is less expensive with a much lower carbon footprint

when compared to corn ethanol. And, no food vs. fuel issue.

• Gasoline and Diesel: Algenol compares favorably in cost to petroleum derived gasoline

and diesel, but with a much lower carbon footprint.

• Grid electricity (w/o CCS): Compared to electric vehicles, Algenol has a slightly higher

cost, but is greatly advantaged in carbon footprint when there is no CCS for electricity

generation.

• Grid electricity (w/ CCS): The carbon footprint of the Direct-to–Ethanol® compares

favorably and the CO2 is re-utilized versus sequestered underground where it creates

many potential regulatory, safety and environmental issues that are still not well

understood.

• Algenol is actively developing its Direct to Ethanol technology at its integrated

biorefinery in Florida with a plan to produce > 10,000 gal liquid fuels/acre-yr