Pyromaniax Unbound

by Jim Lane (Biofuels Digest) ... Why the attention? Some of it in the most recent data and news regarding commercial status.

TCat-8 has operated for over 2,000 hours with continuous catalyst circulation including a fluid bed reactor, catalyst stripper, catalyst regenerator, quench tower, and recycle compressor. The pilot plant is operating mass balance closures of 100% +/-2%, and regularly completes uninterrupted 24/7 runs. The TCat-8 unit operates inside a commercial chemical facility that is OSHA PSM compliant.

Mass balance closures, multiple sustained runs, operating inside an OSHA PSM facility? These are metrics and safety standards that should resonate with senior R&D management at industrial companies.

And then, BioBTX

But there’s more to be attentive to than solely Anellotech’s success. Consider that Carduso Capital is investing in a rival technology, BioBTX, a company based in Groningen-NL that also produces chemicals (Aromatics) from biomass.

The (amount undisclosed) Carduso Capital finance will accelerate the scaling up of the technique that BioBTX says it has “already proved itself on lab scale and in test lineups.” BioBTX CEO Cor Kamminga said: “after the construction of a pilot plant in Groningen it is the intention to roll out the technology into the market. First step will be the construction of a plant in Emmen, together with our partners Cumapol and SunOil, to produce building blocks for example PET packaging for the cosmetic industry out of Glycerin”.

Viva l’Anellotech difference

There are some important differences between Anellotech and other catalytic pyrolysis operations, that we should note. First, Anellotech focuses on the production of the BTX molecules (benzene, toluene and xylene); second, it does not first produce an oxygen-laden bio-oil and then upgrade it to fuels or chemicals.

There’s some evidence mounting around the world about the cost of other catalytic pyrolysis reactors and systems, via the disclosures in academic literature. What’s the state of play?

In a recent issue of Applied Energy, we had this paper from a team led by Clayton Wheeler of the University of Maine’s Chemical and Biomedical Engineering department, focusing on the production of fuels and chemicals from black liquor — a waste substance produced in the pulp and paper process — using catalytic pyrolysis. Again, we see a focus on the BTX molecule group.

A recent dissertation by Chamila Rajeeva Thilakaratne at Iowa State University, “Understanding catalytic pyrolysis of biomass for production of biofuels,” looked at the use of “microalgae remnant,” described as a low-cost by-product of microalgae lipid extraction. Interestingly, again we see an emphasis on aromatics. “Through catalytic pyrolysis, microalgae remnant is capable of producing aromatic hydrocarbons that could be used for the production of drop-in biofuels,” Thilakaratne observed.

What’s up with the algae that the costs soar to a minimum of $5.63 per gallon?

Looking at formate‐assisted pyrolysis

It’s called FAsP by the aficionados — in this approach, another team from Clayton Wheeler’s lab at the University of Maine looked at “formate‐assisted pyrolysis (FAsP) followed by hydrodeoxygenation processes. A process model was simulated using Aspen Plus to estimate material and energy balances for the conversion of 2000 dry MT per day of pine sawdust. Scenarios were considered for the regeneration of formate salts from either ‐biomass‐derived and natural‐gas‐derived carbon monoxide.”

Yikes, that capex is daunting. What happened? Good question, the authors don’t delve into it, but they do cite that the “feedstock cost was found to be the major cost contributor to the MSP of RGD fuel. Improving FAsP process yields will significantly reduce the production cost of RGD fuel. It has been learned that an increase in deoxygenation of bio‐oil in pyrolysis reactor decreases the capital and operating costs of bio‐oil upgrading to RGD fuel”

And over in the UK

This study appearing from a team at the University of Surrey and Cranfield University and published in Biomass and Energy examined “the techno-economic analysis of biofuel production via biomass fast pyrolysis and subsequent bio-oil upgrading via zeolite cracking....

The authors conclude that “the results provide evidence to support the economic viability of biofuel production via zeolite cracking of pyrolysis-derived bio-oil,” but we’re not so bullish on this approach. No one we know is keen on $10 fuel, or too many $10 chemicals either.