Dr Jonas Joelsson

From forest feedstock

to green olefins via

gasification

Value chains studied within the Skogskemi project

GGROS, Örnsköldsvik, 24 March 2015

Dr Jonas Joelsson

[email protected]

www.processum.se

SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden

SP in figures

 SP Group owners 100% RISE

 Subsidiaries 10

 Employees 1400

 Turnover SEK 1487 million

SP Processum AB

• Owners:

• 60% SP

• 40% Industry

• Initiate, perform and finance

R&D within biorefining

• Number of employees 17

• Host for the growth initiative

The Skogskemi (”Forest Chemistry”) project, 2012-2014

2 M€ over two years

En första förfrågan i augusti

Biorefinery of the future: Forest Industry

Knowledge of forest products

Manage and process forest products

Sustainable Chemistry, Stenungsund: Chemicals industry

Fossil-based raw materials Knowledge of end products Manage and process chemicals

Declining market segments Looking for new applications

Looking for new bio-based raw materials

Two clusters

Our goal:

“We want to create conditions for long-term sustainable and competitive production for two of Sweden’s base industries by developing new forest-based value chains for production of chemicals and materials”

Specific value chains selected

• Bulk • Drop-in

• Available technology

Olefins

(ethylene, propylene) – building blocks for the most common

plastic materials

n-Butanol

- a building block chemical in for example paints, coatings,

adhesives and inks. Potential transportation fuel.

Methanol

- a building block chemical used in a wide range of products

and an potential transportation fuel.

Value chains and platforms

• Less detailed for platforms • Economic evaluation • Systems analysis – Process integration – LCA – Innovation system – Policy and markets • Discussion platform

Gasification platform

New gasification plant

Methanol value chain

Olefins value chain

Butanol value chain

Sugar platform

Forest methanol Final upgrading

SNG (methane) Syngas Ethanol distribution in NG network reforming synthesis MTO Cracker dehydration FO RE ST FE ED ST O CK Methanol Ethylene n-butanol Propylene D RO P-IN CH EM IC AL S Pre-treatment, enzym. hydrolysis Soda pulping enzym. hydrolysis Existing kraft pulp

mill New ethanol plant Converted kraft pulp mill Pulp Acetaldehyde

oxidation _{hydrogenation}condensation, Separation,

Methanol value chain

Forest methanol Final upgrading Existing kraft pulp

mill Pulp Separation, purification Sugar platform Ethanol Pre-treatment, enzym. hydrolysis Soda pulping enzym. hydrolysis New ethanol plant Converted kraft pulp mill

Value chains and platforms – Today’s focus

• Case-specific analyses – Technologies – Scale of plants – Locations – Site integration • Pre-FEED of value chains

• Less detailed for platforms • Economic evaluation • Systems analysis – Process integration – LCA – Innovation system – Policy and markets • Discussion platform

Gasification platform

New gasification plant

Olefins value chain

SNG (methane) Syngas distribution in NG network reforming synthesis MTO Cracker FO RE ST FE ED ST O CK Methanol Ethylene Propylene D RO P-IN CH EM IC AL S dehydration

Butanol value chain

n-butanol Acetaldehyde

Three gasification processes

Three cases:

• Three different gasification processes • Different localisation

– Integration options – transports

• Wood as feedstock

• Descriptions of possible cases

• Estimate of technical and economic performance • Brief review of technological maturity

Gasification platform participants

Eva Andersson, CIT Industriell Energi AB,Matteo Morandin,Chalmers,Jim Andersson,

Bio4Energy,Ingmar Schüssler,SP,Anders Hultgren,SCA,Klas Simes,Holmen,Hans

Grundberg,Domsjö,Anders Nordin,BioEndev,Thomas Hjertberg,Borealis,Lars Lind,

GASIFICATION, CASE 1 – INDIRECT VÄRÖ

GASIFICATION, CASE 2 – CFB IGGESUND

Input

Output

Investment costs and production

Total investment* Production

(ton/year) Case 1 -indirect M€ 637 (MSEK 5736) 274 000 Case 2 -CFB M€ 531 (MSEK 4782) 427 000 Case 3 -EFG M€ 538 (MSEK 4842) 367 000 Operation hours: 2016 2017 2018  4000 6400 8000

METHANOL PRICE REQUIRED FOR BREAK-EVEN

(NPV=0)

Case 1 - Indirekt

Case 2 - EFG

Case 3 - CFB

S

E

K

/t

o

n

_5%

10%

15%

Gasoline-equivalent price including Swedish tax

Methanol market price

Case 1 – Indirect

Case 2 – CFB

Case 3 - EFG

Forest-to-olefins

Gasification platform

New gasification plant

Olefins value chain

SNG (methane) Syngas distribution in NG network reforming synthesis MTO Cracker FO RE ST FE ED ST O CK Methanol Ethylene Propylene D RO P-IN CH EM IC AL S MTO subproject: • Process description • Constructability study • Mass balance including

steam cracker integration • Methanol storage study • Business case

development

Subproject lead partner:

MTO Process licensed by UOP

“Fully commercialized

in 2013, with two new

units expected to be

operational by the

end of 2015.”

The methanol-to-olefins (MTO) process in Stenungsund

Ethylene MTO E2E

Investment M€316 (MSEK 2864)

M€70 (MSEK 636)

MTO – economic evaluation

T e c h n ic a l p a th w a y s a n d p la tf o rm s T e c h n ic a l p a th w a y s a n d p la tf o rm s T e c h n ic a l p a th w a y s a n d p la tf o rm s T e c h n ic a l p a th w a y s a n d p la tf o rm s T e c h n ic a l p a th w a y s a n d p la tf o rm s

Environmental assessment (LCA)

Policy and market analysis

Innovation system analysis

Technical systems analysis –

Process integration

Life-cycle assessment (LCA)

• Significant global warming improvment if biomass is GHG neutral

• Improvment for most impact categories

• Difference between

gasification options due to site-specific integration options _0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% Re fe re nc e ca se Fo re st -b as ed Re fe re nc e ca se Fo re st -b as ed Re fe re nc e ca se Fo re st -b as ed

Global warming Acidification Eutrophication

Fossil end-of-life CO2 emission (replaced olefins) Fossil end-of-life CO2 emission (remaining fossil olefins and other cluster products)

Environmental impacts of the entire Stenungsund cluster when

approximately 30% of the olefins are produced from forest feedstock, compared to the today’s production in the cluster.

Analysis of Swedish policy situation

• Several policy measures target renewable energy usage

• Few adress renewable chemicals

• Complex policy situation, perceived as low stability, high risk

• Specific support for deployment missing

Technological innovation systems analysis

– the role of pilot & demonstration plants

• Deployment projects needed – innovation system

development

– ”learning by doing”

• Fossil market risks important • Policy overlap needed to

Conclusions - gasification

• The gasification technologies are not operated on the envisioned scale today

– Different stages of development

• Differences in results at least partly related to overall setup and not to choice of gasification technology

• Large investments for gasification and MTO • Significant market and policy risks

• Subsidies will be needed

• Methanol as transportation fuel more interesting than methanol for chemical use, with current support system

Conclusions – general project conclusions

• There are many possible value chains (new and old) based on forest feedstock • Technology exists for production of base chemicals from renewable methanol

and ethanol – could be built today

• Could open new markets, some with a possible ”green premium”

• Technical uncertainties in upscaling of the forest-to-ethanol/methanol step • Economic challenges - incentives for deployment are needed

• Current policies favour renewable fuels over renewable chemicals • Large risks – too low profits

• Continuation projects for some of the value chains, for example – Methanol recovery from pulp mills

– Ethanol to ethylene pathway

• The project has created new networks and relations between forest industry and chemical industry

Thank you for

your attention!

For more information and project reports,

please contact

[email protected]