After the success of the first workshop, the consortium of Biorefinery Euroview focuses on the preparation of the recommendations that it will make for the European Commission, at the end of the project, to help in the development of biorefineries in Europe.
The objective of this workshop will be to select the best scenarios for the development of biorefineries in Europe.
Workshop report:
Prof. Wim Soetaert opened the workshop by welcoming all the participants and inviting them to participate actively in the discussions and to comment on the proposed results.
Short introduction to the Biorefinery Euroview project - Camille Burel, EuropaBio
Ms. Burel gave an overview of the objectives of the Biorefinery Euroview project, the different workpackages and the partners involved. She also explained briefly the general definition of a biorefinery, as proposed by the Biorefinery Euroview Consortium.
Overview current technology and future technological perspectives - Wim Soetaert, UGent
Prof. Soetaert began his presentation by introducing briefly the aim of WP3 of the project, the subject of the presentations of that afternoon. He gave an overview of the 4 concepts that have been defined by the Biorefinery Euroview Consortium and the different conversion technologies that can be identified, as well as their development status. It was remarked that syngas applications and the production of syngas out of petroleum are already commercial. However, the conversion of biomass to syngas is not commercial yet. Prof. Soetaert further mentioned that biochemical and thermochemical routes can be employed to convert biomass into chemicals, fuels or heat, but that often the chemical route is forgotten.
Then a schematic representation was given of each of the defined biorefinery concepts, showing the different conversion technologies and products involved. These concepts were intensively discussed by the participants and many useful remarks and comments were made.
For the ‘Oilseed Biorefinery’ the remark was made that the hydrogenation of oil for fuel production (NExBTL) should be added as a possible conversion route.
In the concept of the ‘Cereal Biorefinery’ the term ‘sugars’ should be replaced by ‘glucose syrup’ and the use of sugars for food applications should be added to the scheme, as well as corn steep liquor and oil. The term ‘chemical transformation’ was proposed instead of ‘catalysis’.
There was quite some discussion concerning the ‘Green Biorefinery’ concept, especially due to the fact that rather different feedstocks (potatoes, sugar beets, grass,…) are included in this concept, making it difficult to combine them into one concept. In addition, the ‘Green Biorefinery’ starting from starch plants (potatoes, tapioca,…) shows some overlap with the ‘Cereal Biorefinery’, as they both have conversion technologies based on starch. Therefore, the idea was raised to describe a biorefinery rather as a collection of different modules or building blocks instead of working with concepts. For every feedstock different modules or blocks can then be combined. However, the definition of concepts is one of the main tasks of the Biorefinery Euroview project and will therefore be further used. Further remarks concerning the ‘Green Biorefinery’ included the fact that catalysis of sugars is already commercial and that a block should be added showing that ‘high added value products’ or ‘extractables’ can be derived from the feedstock.
In the concept of the ‘Forest-based and Lignocellulosic Biorefinery’ pulp is missing in the scheme and fibres should be put separately. The questions were raised whether torrefaction should be included in the scheme and whether the different fractions of the lignocellulosic feedstock should be indicated.
No comments were formulated for the ‘Waste Biorefinery’.
A schematic representation of a general biorefinery concept was given to conclude this presentation.
Overview of Resource availability and Industrial implementation - Sofie Dobbelaere, UGent
An overview was given of the main supply sectors for the different feedstocks as well as availability prognoses for the coming 10 to 20 years. Especially waste and energy crops are thought to become more available in the future. In addition tradeability is an important factor in biomass availability, with straw being less tradeable than wood and grains because of the low transport density. An important remark was also that first generation technologies are mainly based on agricultural crops while second generation technologies are based on lignocellulosic biomass and waste. No comments were made concerning this topic.
Then some scenarios were presented of how integrated biorefineries can be implemented in Europe. Examples were given of the conversion of an existing biorefinery into an integrated biorefinery, of local integrated or decentralised biorefineries, industrial clusters, public-private partnerships, joint venture and co-location. The difference between a cluster and co-location was explained with the first one being bigger and having plants located in the neighbourhood while for co-location the plants are on the same site. There is also a different degree of integration. The question how biorefineries will evolve, who will own them and who will take the lead in their development is more difficult to answer. Currently in Europe the main driver is located at the product side, while in the US the main drivers are biomass producers.
Scenarios for biorefinery development – Wim Soetaert, Sofie Dobbelaere, UGent
Finally a number of future biorefinery concepts were presented and discussed.
New elements in the future ‘Oilseed Biorefinery’ are the use of dedicated oil crops like Jatropha and algae, the fermentation of glycerol and the gasification of the lignocellulosic fraction into syngas. However, it was remarked that glycerol can also be converted chemically into compounds like biomethanol, 1,2-PDO and epichlorhydrin. The gasification of the lignocellulosic fraction into syngas is only interesting when the production volume is large enough. It should be clearly stated that for the ‘Oilseed Biorefinery’ only the seeds are used, while the ‘Green Biorefinery’ takes the whole crop. The suggestion was made to use a separate slide for the biorefinery based on algae, as this is a new type of biorefinery. The term ‘Marine Biorefinery’ has already been proposed by some researchers in this regard. Also it was put forward that it might be better to select a part of a biorefinery and study that part in detail instead of trying to catch the whole thing. Again, the use of different modules to construct a biorefinery concept was mentioned.
The future ‘Cereal Biorefinery’ is converting the whole plant instead of the grains only. Remarks are made on the fact that pulp is lacking and that gasification should be replaced by combustion.
New in the future ‘Green Biorefinery’ is the catalysis of sugars into chemicals. Another future ‘Green Biorefinery’ concept is the conversion of grass and clover into chemicals and energy. It was suggested to include also the CO2 coming from the fermentation in the schemes. Instead of ‘cellulose fibres’ the more general name ‘fibres’ would be better. A distinction can then be made between soluble fibres which go into feed, and insoluble fibres that go into paper production. The starch can be converted into biopolymers.
The future ‘Forest based Biorefinery’ is characterised mainly by gasification of the black liquor instead of burning it and the recovery of other fractions such as the hemicellulose. The remark was made that when mechanical pulping is applied, no black liquor is produced and therefore the lignin is still present in the product. When sulphite is used in the pulping process then lignosulphite is produced.
The main difference in the future ‘Waste Biorefinery’ is that direct liquefaction is applied instead of anaerobic digestion. It was argued that sometimes the name ‘rest material’ is better then ‘waste’ because of legislation.
