v
T. +31 (0) 40 247 31 82
[email protected]
Energy from
chemical fuels
Strategy and roadmap
2015-2019
InnoEnergy SE
Kennispoort 6th floor
John F. Kennedylaan 2
5612 AB Eindhoven
The Netherlands
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
Page 1 of 45
Table of Contents
1. Introduction......................................................................................................................................3
2.
Market Challenges and Business Drivers .........................................................................................4
3.
Technologies to Address Those Challenges .....................................................................................5
4.
3.1
Conversion Technology Overview ............................................................................................5
3.2
Processes Discussed in this Document.....................................................................................7
Process Overview ...........................................................................................................................10
4.1
5
Details of technology ..............................................................................................................11
Thermochemical Conversion 1: Pre-Treatment .............................................................................12
5.1
Details of technology ..............................................................................................................12
5.2
Assessment on “impactability” ..............................................................................................13
Hydrothermal Carbonisation (HTC) ............................................................................................... 14
Torrefaction ................................................................................................................................... 14
Fast Pyrolysis ................................................................................................................................. 15
Hydrothermal Carbonisation ......................................................................................................... 16
Torrefaction ................................................................................................................................... 16
Fast Pyrolysis ................................................................................................................................. 17
5.3
Industry value chain necessary ..............................................................................................18
5.4
Actions needed to increase “impactability” (action plan) .....................................................19
6. Thermochemical Conversion 2: Gasification for Production of Chemicals or Heat and Power
Generation..............................................................................................................................................20
7.
8.
6.1
Details of technology ..............................................................................................................20
6.2
Assessment on “impactability” ..............................................................................................21
6.3
Industry value chain necessary ..............................................................................................24
6.4
Actions needed to increase “impactability” (action plan) .....................................................25
Electro-Chemical Conversion Processes - Electrolysis and Fuel Cells ............................................26
7.1
Details of technology ..............................................................................................................26
7.2
Assessment on “impactability” ..............................................................................................26
7.3
Industry value chain necessary ..............................................................................................30
7.4
Actions needed to increase “impactability” (Action plan) .....................................................31
(Bio-)Chemical Conversion Processes (‘Syntheses’) .......................................................................32
8.1
Details of technology ..............................................................................................................32
8.2
Assessment on “impactability” ..............................................................................................33
8.3
Industry value chain necessary ..............................................................................................36
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
8.4
Page 2 of 45
Actions needed to increase “impactability” (action plan) .....................................................37
9. Final Energy Utilization Processes: Combustion and Co-Combustion Based Heat and Power
Generation and Mobility ........................................................................................................................38
9.1
Details of technology ..............................................................................................................38
9.2
Assessment on “impactability” ..............................................................................................39
9.3
Industry value chain necessary ..............................................................................................42
9.4
Actions needed to increase “impactability” (action plan) .....................................................43
Annexes ..................................................................................................................................................44
A.1 List of contributors .......................................................................................................................44
A.2 References....................................................................................................................................44
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
Page 3 of 45
1. Introduction
The thematic field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ is strongly focused on supporting the objectives of
the European SET plan (Strategic Energy Technologies). Europe needs joint efforts to establish a
sustainable, secure and competitive energy supply. The inter-related challenges of climate change,
security of energy supply and competitiveness are multifaceted and require a coordinated response.
In 2009 the EU has set ambitious climate and energy targets for 2020. These targets, known as the
"20-20-20" targets, set three key objectives for 2020: 20% less greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,
20% reduction in the use of primary energy by improving energy efficiency, and 20% share of
renewables in energy mix of total energy consumption [1].
In January 2014, the European Commission presented the ‘2030 Policy Framework for Climate and
Energy’, which sets even more ambitious targets [2]. The EU leaders decided on this framework on
October 23rd, 2014. A center piece of the framework is the target to reduce EU domestic greenhouse
gas emissions by 40% below the 1990 level by 2030. Renewable energy will play a key role and,
therefore, the Commission proposes an objective of increasing the share of renewable energy to at
least 27% of the EU's energy consumption by 2030. The improved energy efficiency continues to
make an essential contribution to all EU climate and energy policies. Progress towards the 2020
target of improving energy efficiency by 20% is being delivered by policy measures at the EU and
national levels.
The 2030 policy framework paper also takes into account the longer term perspectives set out by the
Commission in 2011 in the ‘Roadmap for Moving to a Competitive Low Carbon Economy in 2050’ [3],
the ‘Energy Roadmap 2050’ [4] and the ‘Transport White Paper’ [5]. These documents reflect the
EU's goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80-95% below 1990 levels by 2050 as part of the
effort needed from developed countries as a group.
The thematic field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ contributes to the low carbon strategy of the EU by
investing in the commercialization of conversion technologies from primary energy carriers to
‘chemical fuels’ and energy that possess the potential to significantly reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, to improve overall process chain efficiencies, or to increase the integration of renewable
energies.
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
Page 4 of 45
2. Market Challenges and Business Drivers
The political framework set by the European Commission has a significant impact on the energy
markets throughout Europe and beyond. This causes that companies operating in the thematic field
‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ face the following market challenges:
•
•
•
•
Conventional resources, mainly fossil fuels, are still very dominating and competitive in terms
of economics.
Renewable energy sources (RES) are generated locally and some of them, such as wind and
solar, are volatile.
Reduction of CO2 emissions is encouraged by the EU Emissions Trading System.
The regulatory framework in the context of renewable energy sources keeps changing over
time.
These market challenges create business drivers for companies, which basically are their reactions to
these external challenges, when trying to establish new, cost competitive technologies on the
market. The business drivers include, but are not limited to:
•
•
•
•
•
Maintain competitive feedstock costs by
o increasing the use of novel low-cost biomass resources, such as residues and wastes
o increasing feedstock flexibility
o reducing the logistic costs of biogenic feedstocks (reduce transport costs,
improvement of storage capability and increase of energy density)
o recycling of nutrients from biomass based fuel conversion processes to generate
additional revenue
Reduce CO2 emission of conversion technologies by
o substituting fossil resources with biomass feedstock
Reduce plant and operating costs (CAPEX, OPEX) by
o establishing load and product flexible conversion systems (e.g. poly-generation
technologies)
o increasing process efficiency and establish more efficient conversion technologies
Use surplus RES by
o establishing electrochemical conversion systems for production of energy carriers
and chemicals from RES surplus electric power (e.g. ‘Power-to-Gas’, ‘Power-toLiquid’)
o providing grid stabilization services and thereby allow an increased use of RES
o providing high density energy storage through energy carriers and chemicals that are
easy to handle and store
Establish local, small-scale systems
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
Page 5 of 45
3. Technologies to Address Those Challenges
The thematic field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ mainly focuses on conversion processes and
complete conversion routes (‘process chains’) from fossil and biogenic resources to final energy
carriers and chemicals (‘chemical fuels’). Therefore, the focus of the thematic field includes
resources, conversion processes, transport/storage and utilization of energy carriers and allocation of
chemicals.
The main objective of all investments is to reduce GHG emissions. For this reason, projects are
supported that deal with either co-feeding biogenic resources with fossil feedstock in existing
processes (e.g. co-firing, co-combustion), with replacing fossil resources altogether, or with reducing
the consumption of fossil and biogenic resources by increasing the efficiency of established
processes.
3.1
Conversion Technology Overview
The resources include biomass as well as conventional (i.e. fossil) resources. In addition, the thematic
field includes hydrogen as a feedstock produced from electrochemical conversion processes using
RES. The feedstock is converted in one or several conversion processes to energy carriers and
chemicals, which ultimately are utilized in various forms of energy (e.g. heat, electricity and mobility)
or as chemicals (Figure 3-1).
Feedstock
Upgrading
Conversion of
Biomass
Intermediate
Products
Conversion to
Energy Carrier
Energy Carriers and
Chemicals
Final energy
conversion
Final Energy Usage
mobility
energy carrier
biogenic
resources
fossil fuels
upgrading
conversion
intermediate
products
final
conversion
final energy
conversion
electric power
heat
energy intensive
products
energy intensive
products
chemicals
chemicals
Figure 3-1: Overview over the fields of operation of ECF
Figure 3-2 provides a simplified overview of the conversion routes from biogenic resources and
“renewable” hydrogen to energy carriers and chemicals. There exist numerous conversion routes,
and Figure 3-2 is by no means a comprehensive survey, rather than an overview.
Figure 3-3 gives a similar overview of the conversion routes starting from conventional resources,
such as natural gas, crude oil and coal. As stated for the biogenic conversion routes this is a simplified
overview of the huge number of conversion routes.
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
Page 6 of 45
Figure 3-2: Overview of the conversion routes from biogenic resources to energy carriers,
chemicals.
Feedstock
Upgrading Conversion to
Intermediate Products
5
Intermediate Products
Final Conversion to
Energy Carriers and Chemicals
Energy Carriers and
Chemicals
distillation
in oil refineries
Intermediate refinery
products
cracking, reforming,
isomerisation, alkylation,
coking, blending
in oil refineries
liq. petroleum gas
crude oil
tar sands
shale oil
butane
petrol
extraction
jet fuel/kerosene
distillation
fuel oil
diesel fuel
natural gas
steam reforming
synthesis gas
shale gas
Fischer-Tropsch
synthesis
gas hydrates
lignite/brown coal*
sub-bituminous coal*
PSA
hydrogen
synfuels
G-t-L
catalysis
methanol/DME
liquefaction
LNG
gasification
carbonization
coal tar
fuels
anthracite*
coking
coke
bituminous coal*
pyrolysis
coal briquet
* detones topics mainly covered by the Thematic Field „Clean Coal Technologies“
Figure 3-3: Overview of the conversion routes from fossil (= conventional) resources to energy
carriers, chemicals.
Page 7 of 45
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
In Figure 3-4 the transport, storage and final usage of energy carriers and chemicals is presented.
Energy carriers and
chemicals
Transport, storage, and blending
Distribution
Final energy
conversion
Final Energy
Usage
internal combustion engine
mobility
oil-based fuels
biodiesel (FAME)
biodiesel/
biokerosene (HVO)
blending with
gasoline
tanks
Gas station
blending with
diesel
alcohol-based fuels
online shop
ethanol/ETBE
turbine
fuel cell
electricity
butanol
hydrogen
hydrogen
compressed hydrogen in hydrogen
tanks
hydrogen station
liquid hydrogen tanks
synthetic Fuels
Methane/SNG
pipelines
natural gas grid/
CNG station
combustion
heat
co-firing/cocombustion
BtL
LNG
micro CHP
methanol/DME/
MTBE
char
direct sales by
manufacturer
bio oil
gas/coal-fired
power station
chemical
industry
Figure 3-4: Overview of the conversion routes from energy carriers and chemicals to their final
utilization.
3.2
Processes Discussed in this Document
This ‘Strategy and Roadmap’ document surveys the most promising conversion processes and
conversion routes as depicted in Figure 3-2 through 3-4. For further discussion they will be grouped
according to the technology, on which they are based. These technologies comprise
•
•
feedstock supply
o crop/biomass feedstock cultivation
o fossil fuel production
conversion processes to generate intermediate products or final energy carriers and
chemicals
o physicochemical:
extraction
distillation
biogas upgrading
o biochemical:
aerobic and anaerobic digestion
fermentation (+distillation)
enzymatic hydrolysis + fermentation (+distillation)
o thermochemical:
hydrothermal carbonization
torrefaction
pyrolysis
gasification (+chemical synthesis)
gasification (+CHP)
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
Page 8 of 45
chemical (including the necessary pre-treatment steps where applicable):
acid hydrolysis
biooil/pyrolysis oil upgrading
transesterification
hydrotreating and refining
catalytic processes, such as Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, steam reforming etc.
o electrochemical conversion
hydrogen via water electrolysis (electrochemical conversion)
fuel cell
final energy conversion
o combustion, co-firing/co-combustion
o steam/combined-cycle processes for electricity production
o (micro) CHP
o internal combustion engine, turbine
o fuel cell (see electrochemical conversion)
o
•
The status of technical implementation of these conversion processes ranges from commercially
proven solutions with a wide range of technology suppliers (e.g. mainly all technologies in ‘final
energy conversion’) via technologies that are currently being deployed at commercial scale (e.g.
biomass gasification, hydrothermal carbonization) to technologies that are at a very early stage of
development (e.g. hydrolysis + fermentation + distillation). Figure 3-6 and Figure 3-6 provide an
evaluation of the maturity of various conversion processes covered by the thematic field ‘Energy
from Chemical Fuels’. The estimated market potential is plotted on the ordinate in Figure 3-5 and the
estimated market readiness level is plotted in Figure 3-6. This figure is based on a diagram developed
by the EPRI in 2010 [6].
The conversion processes most promising for InnoEnergy Innovation are in the stage of early
development to late deployment and possess a significant market potential. For conversion
technologies that have already reached a higher TRL (i.e. ≥ 6) will invest in technical aspects of these
processes if the developments lead to improvement in process efficiency or economics. The area
most interesting for InnoEnergy is highlighted with a red box in Figure 3-6.
Figure 3-5: Technical maturity of the various conversion technologies and their estimated market
potential addressed in the thematic field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’.
Page 9 of 45
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
Estimated Customer Acceptance
MSW incineration
aerobic/anaerobic digestion
biogas upgrading
low-rate co-firing
hydrolysis+ferment.+dist.
hydr. carbonisation
gasification+CHP
fermentation+distillation
direct DME from biomass
Syngas fermentation
Small-scale FT synthesis
medium-rate co-firing
Small-scale M-t-G
pressurized biomass gasification
transesterification
torrefaction
pyrolysis
Hydrotreating of bio-oil
bio hydrogen
5
Research
Development
Demonstration
9
7
6
Deployment
Mature Technology
‚1/Time-to-Market‘ or TRL
Figure 3-6: Maturity of the various conversion technologies and their estimated customer
acceptance addressed in the thematic field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’.
The market potential is the estimated maximum total sales revenue of all suppliers of a product in a
market during a certain period. This is synonymous with the term TCM (total capturable market),
which is an estimate of how much a company would make in sales if there were no other
competitors.
Estimated customer acceptance means the expected interest of potential customers to buy the
offered innovation / product.
The technologies that appear most promising for InnoEnergy Innovation Projects possess a TRL in
the range of 5 to 7 and are located in the upper half of the MRL spectrum in Figure 3-6.
For all economic evaluations in this document an annuity of 10 % was assumed and the O&M costs
were estimated as an annual rate of 4 to 6 % of the investment, depending on the handled media
and the maturity of the process.
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
Page 10 of 45
4. Process Overview
The thematic field ‘Energy from Chemicals Fuels’ will support the development and
commercialization of technologies that are ready for the market in the mid-term, which means that
they must have reached TRL of at least 5. In addition, activities will be supported that address
technical aspects (e.g. components, catalysts, sub-processes) of processes already being
commercialized.
Projects will be supported in close collaboration of the ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ InnoEnergy
office with other InnoEnergy offices, e.g. ‘Clean Coal Technologies’ and ‘Renewables’.
Based on the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) and the estimated market potential and market
readiness level (MRL) of the various conversion processes a process overview for the thematic field
‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ was derived (please refer to Figure 4-1). As mentioned in the previous
section, the main focus is on conversion processes. Most technologies in ‘final energy conversion’ are
already in the stage of commercialization (i.e. TRL = 9). Activities concerning ‘fuel characterization’
are required as supporting activity and, therefore, included.
2015
2016
2017
2018
thermochemical conversion
hydroth. carbonisation, torrefaction, pyrolysis, gasification+chemical synthesis,
gasification+CHP
electro-chemical conversion
electrolysis, fuel cells
chemical conversion
acid hydrolysis, transesterification, hydrotreating, refining, Catalysis
(e.g. Fischer-Tropsch, steam reforming)
biochemical conversion
digestion, fermentation+distillation, enzymatic hydrolysis+ferment.+dist.
physicochemical conversion
extraction, distillation, ad- / absorption
final energy conversion
combustion, co-firing/co-combustion, gas and coal fired power plants, internal
combustion engine, turbine, fuel cell
Figure 4-1: Process overview ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
4.1
Page 11 of 45
Details of technology
The criteria for the assessment of the impactability are defined as follows:
1. TRL: Please note that a technology with TRL higher than 7 might not be suitable for an
InnoEnergy investment, because the technology is already too mature.
2. Impact on cost decrease: how large would be the impact of a IE investment on the
reduction of the (production) cost of the conversion process – as compared to the state-ofthe-art of that particular conversion process
3. Impact on operability: how large would be the impact of a IE investment on the
operability of the conversion process – as compared to the state-of-the-art of that particular
conversion process
4. Impact on GHG decrease: how large would be the impact of a IE investment on the
decrease in GHG emissions of that particular conversion process – as compared to the fossil
state-of-the-art production process for the same product (i.e. energy carrier or chemical)
5. coverage of the value chain by IE partners, i.e. partners from industry and R&D
organizations
6. interest of IE industry partners
7. inverse(foreseeable regulatory impact): how strong is the product/market bound to
existing/future regulations; Is/Will the market of the product be regulated?
8. inverse(required investment): how large is the required IE investment for that particular
conversion process to have a significant impact
9. cross impact of IE investment on several ‘applications’ (i.e. other conversion processes –on
the ECF roadmap)
These criteria and will be used throughout this document.
The quantitative targets for each technology will be presented in the following sections.
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
Page 12 of 45
5 Thermochemical Conversion 1: Pre-Treatment
The thermochemical processes comprise biomass pre-treatment processes as well as
thermochemical conversion processes to energy carriers and chemicals. The development of biomass
pre-treatment processes for increased fuel flexibility, utilization of a wide range of biogenic
resources, mobilization of scattered biomass resources, and reduction of fuel and fuel transportation
cost is one focus of the activities in the thematic field. According to IEA Bioenergy the largest
potential for feedstock prize reduction is generated by internationally transported biomass [7]. High
energy density, mechanical stability and minimum bio-degradability are achieved by e.g. thermal pretreatment technologies. In addition, pre-treated, standardized fuels will improve the performance of
final energy conversion technologies [8]. The other focus of the thematic field is on improving the
conversion processes with regards to CAPEX, OPEX, conversion efficiency, and reliability in
operations.
The contributions by Hans Hubschneider and Lars Waldheim to this section are gratefully
acknowledged [12].
5.1 Details of technology
Depending on the water content of the biomass there are different thermochemical conversion
processes options:
•
•
Wet biomass: There are a few options for conversion processes including hydrothermal
carbonization (HTC) und hydrothermal gasification.
o Hydrothermal carbonization (HTC) converts wet biomass at moderate temperatures
and pressures in aqueous solution to biocoal powder. This process was first
described by Friederich Bergius in 1913.
o Hydrothermal gasification generates synthesis gas from wet biomass in near- and
super-critical water. This process is still in the phase of research and development,
and, therefore, not discussed any further in this document.
Dry biomass: The simplest form of dry biomass processing is densification, e.g. pellet
production. Thermal processes like torrefaction and fast pyrolysis produce solid and liquid
fuels with high energy density which can easily be stored and transported. Gasification,
which is also a promising conversion process for dry biomass, will be discussed in section 6.
o Torrefaction of dry biomass followed by pulverization and densification to biocoal
pellets or briquettes increases the energy density from 10-11 to 18-20 GJ/m³ which
results in a 40-50% reduction in transportation costs [9, 10]. Torrefaction of biomass
improves the grindability and reduces the fuel handling cost of biomass. This leads to
more efficient co-firing in existing coal fired power stations or entrained-flow
gasification for the production of chemicals and transportation fuels. The efficiency
of the torrefaction conversion process (based on the LHV of feedstock and products)
for a dry feedstock is approximately 90 %, but can be as low as 75 % if a very wet
feedstock is used.
The statements and findings for torrefaction hold true for the most part for slow
pyrolysis as well. Therefore, the latter is subsumed under torrefaction in the
remainder of the document.
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
Page 13 of 45
Fast pyrolysis (also called flash pyrolysis) takes place at 500-600 °C in such a way that
the vapours are removed from the pyrolysis reactor and quenched within less than 2
seconds. To achieve these conditions, the biomass must be very dry (< 10 %
moisture) and the particle size smaller than 3 mm. To drive the reactions, either the
pyrolysis gas or the char are used as a fuel for providing the heat of reaction for the
endothermic process. In almost all fast pyrolysis systems hot sand is used as an
energy carrier. The sand is removed with the char and is re-heated in a combustion
unit together with char prior to recycling, or is separated from the char and heated
by the gas formed by the pyrolysis reaction.
The main product of fast pyrolysis is a pyrolysis oil (70..80 wt.-%) which requires
further upgrading since it is prone to polymerization and is very acidic. This is done
via pyrolysis oil upgrading to arrive at a bio-oil. This is described in more detail in
section 8 of this document.
Unlike torrefaction, the fast pyrolysis process can be used to separate contaminants
from the biomass feedstock. The alkalis predominantly remain in the char, however
other contaminants such as nitrogen, sulphur and chloride are found mainly in the
pyrolysis oil.
o
5.2 Assessment on “impactability”
The following table provides an overview of the impact that InnoEnergy investments can achieve in
the field of the pre-treatment processes.
Impact in
cost decrease
operability
GHG decrease
coverage of vlue chin by IE partners
IE industry interest
Inv(foreseeable regulatory impact)
Inv(required investment)
HTC
torrefaction
fast pyrolysis
TRL Level
Topic
7
8
7
7
7
4
7
7
4
9
9
9
9
6
1
9
9
4
5
5
5
8
8
5
corss impact in several applications
Table 5-1: InnoEnergy impactability of pre-treatment processes within „Energy from Chemical
Fuels“
Economic and social impact comments
7 improvement of fuel flexibility; utilization of a wide range of biogenic resources;
7 mobilization scattered biomass resources and reduction of fuel costs;
7 enhancement of feedstock flexibility (low cost biogenic resources), reduction of
fuel costs; reduction of transport costs; process integration (pre-treatment and
power generation)
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
Page 14 of 45
Hydrothermal Carbonisation (HTC)
The Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of HTC is in the range of 6 to 7. Yet, it is still of interest for
InnoEnergy investments, because the development on the market did not progress as quickly as
anticipated two years ago (e.g. see version 1 of the roadmap). There are not enough players in the
market. Due to profitability the focus has shifted from producing biocoal for energy production to
disposal of waste streams (e.g. sewage sludge). [11]
Hydrothermal Carbonisation
Cross Impact in several
application
Inv(Required
Investment)
Inv(Foreseeable
regulatory impact)
industry interest
TRL-Level (1-9)
10
8
6
4
2
0
Cost decrease
Operability
GHG decrease
Coverage of value chain
by IE partners
Torrefaction
The technical implementation of the torrefaction process is at TRL 6..8, the span relating to the
individual developers. There are few installations that have a capacity above 100 000 tons per year
(tpy) in operation, which supply feedstock for a 30..35 MWel power plant. However, most plants have
capacities in the 10 to 30 000 tpy range. This is some 1..4 tons/hr, therefore, more on the pilot plant
or demonstration scale.
Therefore, it is quite obvious that – in relation to wood pellets – this is a technology that is currently
in the stage of being introduced on the market. However, there is a hen-and-egg problem, as power
companies are not inclined to commit to buy torrefied pellet feedstock until they are convinced that
such materials are being produced at a sufficient scale. And for pellet producers on the other hand, it
is often not possible to finance the investment in a large installation, unless sufficient off-take
agreements are available.
It was stated that torrefied pellets are more costly, since a torrefaction plant, in comparison to a wet
feedstock wood pellets plant, uses slightly more feedstock per GJ required (typically 2..5 %), and it
possesses higher CAPEX (typically 25..30 %), which is partly compensated by lower OPEX. The net
overall production cost is 5..10 % higher compared to conventional wood pellets plants.
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
Page 15 of 45
Torrefaction
Cross Impact in several
application
Inv(Required
Investment)
TRL-Level (1-9)
10
8
6
4
2
0
Inv(Foreseeable
regulatory impact)
IE industry interest
Cost decrease
Operability
GHG decrease
Coverage of value chain
by partners
Fast Pyrolysis
The main intended use for bio-oils from fast pyrolysis oil upgrading has been as a substitute for heavy
and light fuel oil in boiler and heating boiler applications. However, since the bio-oil is very different
from petroleum oil (far lower LHV, different ash content, higher acidity etc.) its use requires some
changes to the piping, pumping and storage systems.
Yet another area where bio-oil has attracted interest is as an intermediate for producing
hydrocarbon-type biofuels by cracking or hydrocracking the bio-oils thermally or in refinery-like
catalytic processes. As the oxygen content of bio-oil is quite high, the hydrogen requirement is also
high, or the carbon loss is high, if oxygen is expelled as CO2. To improve this property, there have
been and still are developments for catalytic pyrolysis systems, hydropyrolysis systems and also
downstream vapor phase catalysis to achieve a more stable oil for use as hydrocracker feed
containing less oxygen. The resulting product is a mixture of gasoline, aviation fuel and diesel.
The market for bio-oils in excess of sample batch quantities of a few tons has not existed in the past.
It is only in the last year that larger units, such as the Valmet/UPM/Fortum unit, have begun
operation, with a few other plants under construction or in more advanced planning state.
Therefore, it is not clear how the market will develop. The strong driver today appears to be the
upgrading of the bio-oil to hydrocarbon biofuels, and in particular to aviation fuels, where prices are
significantly higher than for diesel fuel, for instance.
In late 2013, a consortium of the most prominent developers also successfully filed a REACH
registration of bio-oil as a product, i.e. enabling this material to be sold on the EU market.
The fast pyrolysis technology is at TRL 5 to 8, the span relating to the individual developers, but also
the fact that very few developers have a prototype in operation. The downstream pyrolysis oil
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
Page 16 of 45
upgrading is in the order of TRL = 3..5. Unlike the torrefaction technology, where expectations were
high a few years ago but where development has slowed down, the fast pyrolysis technology appears
to have gained from the interest for biofuels, and in particular for drop-in fuels.
Fast Pyrolysis
Cross Impact in several
application
Inv(Required
Investment)
TRL-Level (1-9)
10
8
6
4
2
0
Inv(Foreseeable
regulatory impact)
IE industry interest
Cost decrease
Operability
GHG decrease
Coverage of value chain
by IE partners
Hydrothermal Carbonisation
As stated above, the commercialization of the HTC technology did not progress on the market as
quickly as anticipated two years ago (e.g. see version 1 of the roadmap). Due to low profitability
when producing biocoal for energy production the focus has shifted from to disposal of waste
streams (e.g. sewage sludge).
Qualitative Targets:
•
•
widening of feedstock spectrum to include sewage sludge
reduce CAPEX and OPEX for HTC plants
Quantitative Targets:
•
•
•
•
develop a process that would be accepted as a “end-of-waste-process”
develop a process with investment < 800 €/kWLHV,biocoal at a scale where agrowaste biomass
or sewage sludge can be used as feedstock
find combinations of feedstock and processes that can produce bio-coal below 28 €/MWh
increase the operational availability to 8000 h/a
Torrefaction
Considering the number of developments that are already underway, the relatively simple
torrefaction technology, and also the fact that large-scale industrial companies are already involved,
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
Page 17 of 45
it can be questioned if torrefaction is an area suitable for development projects within the
InnoEnergy framework. However, InnoEnergy could support developments of process aspects,
such as the improvement of components and sub-processes (e.g. related to widening the feedstock
base) which can be integrated with processes already being commercialized.
Qualitative Targets:
•
•
•
widening of feed quality spectrum to also include agrowaste for torrefaction
improvement of logistic chain
study economy of scale for logistic vs. processing costs
Quantitative Targets:
•
•
•
•
develop a process with investment < 450 €/kWLHV,torrpellet at a scale where agrowaste biomass
can be used as feedstock
find combinations of feedstock and processes that can produce torrefied-pellets below 21
€/MWh
increase the conversion efficiency to > 88 %
increase the operational availability to 8000 h/a
Fast Pyrolysis
There are still a number of technical challenges with the pyrolysis technology. The high cost and
requirements for the feedstock is one challenge. Another challenge is the feeding system itself as a
uniform feed rate is essential. There is also an issue with scale-up related to the feeding system, as in
a small unit, mixing of fuel and sand can be easily accomplished – as supposed to larger systems. On
the product side, the contamination of ash and other fuel constituents needs to be minimized, while
increasing the product stability is necessary to ensure a secure supply-chain for the customers.
Therefore, fast pyrolysis appears to be an area suited for InnoEnergy, as developments do not
need to address the process in all aspects. There are components, such as the feeding system,
catalysts and sub-processes that can be integrated with the processes already being commercialized.
Qualitative Targets:
•
•
•
•
widening of feedstock quality spectrum to also include agrowastes
develop processes for upgrading of pyrolysis oil to deliver improvement of bio-oil purity
explore catalytic upgrading to biofuel intermediates
explore synergies with other activities to valorize heat sales over the whole year
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
Page 18 of 45
Quantitative Targets:
•
•
•
•
•
•
reduce S, N and ash content in bio-oil to low levels requiring no post-combustion clean-up to
meet Medium Combustion Plant Directive (MCP directive), i.e. > 90 % for N and > 95 % for
PM
develop a process with investment < 1000 €/kWLHV,PyrOil at a scale where agrowaste biomass
can be used as feedstock
find combinations of fuels and processes that can produce bio-oil below 28 €/MWh
increase the operational availability to 8000 h/a
increase the value and energetic output of the co-products to reduce the GHG burden of the
bio-oil
reduce the GHG burden to below 90 % of the GHG allocation without reducing the efficiency
5.3 Industry value chain necessary
Figure 5-1 and Figure 5-2 show the research centers/universities and industry along the value chain
from wet/dry biomass to bio-coal and bio-oil. It highlights some of the major players, however is by
no means comprehensive.
Figure 5-1: Overview of some of the major players in the field of hydrothermal carbonization.
Figure 5-2: Overview of some of the major players in the field of torrefaction and fast pyrolysis.
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
Page 19 of 45
5.4 Actions needed to increase “impactability” (action plan)
•
•
•
•
•
HTC1: Combustion of HTC coal is still an issue, especially when increasingly using bio waste as
feedstock. In Europe HTC should be accepted as end-of-waste process to allow for “easier”
combustion.
HTC2: Optimization of HTC coal for combustion. On one hand this relates to modifications of
the pretreatment processes, such as drying and pelletization of the bio-coal, and to adaption
of the burner technology on the other hand.
Torrefaction1: For torrefaction one of the critical R&D issues is the feedstock flexibility of the
process, because this will significantly enhance the feedstock base and the role of
torrefaction in mobilizing scattered biomass resources such as agricultural residues [10].
Fast Pyrolysis1: The energy content of the gas and char (by-products of fast pyrolysis) has to
be utilized, such that a pyrolysis plant can export power and/or heat.
Pyrolysis Oil Upgrading: please refer to section 8
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
Page 20 of 45
6. Thermochemical Conversion 2: Gasification for Production of
Chemicals or Heat and Power Generation
Currently the production of power and heat from biomass is mostly based on conventional
combustion systems with boiler/steam turbine configuration which are operated at low energy
efficiency (~20% electric). Gasification and downstream use of the produced syngas via gas engines
or gas turbines possesses a large potential to increase efficiency and widen the feedstock base
(biogenic residues/wastes). The efficiency and reliability of such plants still needs to be fully
established [13]. Biomass gasification is still in the demonstration phase and faces technical and
economic challenges [14].
The contributions by Lars Waldheim to this section are gratefully acknowledged [12].
6.1 Details of technology
The process chain (feedstock/gasifier/final energy conversion) has to be designed and optimized for
decentralized small scale units (1..15 MW fuel input) as well as for central large scale units (>50 MW
fuel input). Small scale gasifiers, predominantly moving bed and fluidized bed type, are coupled with
internal combustion engines (ICE), whereas large scale gasification-based systems use combined
cycle (gas and steam turbine) systems (BIGCC Biomass Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle
System). Table 6-1 shows electrical efficiencies for different biomass based power generation
technologies, with the standard combustion system at 20..31% and a maximum for BIGCC at 42%.
The power generation routes via gasification provide high efficiencies with high fuel flexibility.
Additionally, for large scale units, gasification based processes offer high load and product (power,
heat, SNG, H2, etc.) flexibility.
Table 6-1 : Fuel conversion efficiency for biogenic feedstock
power generation
technology for biomass
electrical
efficiency
combustion (stoker)
20..31%
de-central
co-firing (pf power plant)
36..40%
central
gasification + ICE
20..37%
de-central
gasification + CC (BIGCC)
38..42%
central
Alternatively, gasification can also be coupled with an effective gas cleaning system that provides a
clean synthesis gas suitable for catalytic synthesis processes, e.g. Fischer-Tropsch synthesis.
A reduction of power generation costs of gasification based technologies by improvement of fuel
conversion efficiency, enhancement of feedstock flexibility (low cost biogenic resources), reduction
of investment costs by standardization of plant design and production (‘off the shelf’ plants) and
process integration (pre-treatment and power generation) are main targets for technology
developments.
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
Page 21 of 45
6.2 Assessment on “impactability”
Although gasification technologies have been developed for decades, their deployment for biomass
and waste has lagged behind the parallel developments on the coal side, where both, for power
generation and for production of chemicals, are commercially used already.
The technology for firing gas into boilers and furnaces is at TRL 9, whereas any development
involving gas cleaning for the purpose of using the gas in prime movers or for chemical synthesis is at
TRL 6-8, depending on the developer.
However, and relative to conventional biomass and waste combustion technologies, gasification for
power generation can be shown to have a considerable improvement potential over the
conventional systems and also be used in smaller capacity units. However, there are a number of
technical and commercial challenges that up to now have prevented the realization of this potential,
that are related to fuel flexibility and to gas cleaning. This involves development of new processes,
sub-processes and components.
If the gas cleaning system achieves high purities a combination with a catalytic synthesis process like
Fischer-Tropsch would provide improved conversion efficiencies and valuable fuels for mobility.
Some of these gas cleaning issues are specific for the gasification technology and some have common
aspects with gas cleaning for conventional systems. Development of such units and systems,
and initially focusing on the lower capacity range, appears to be suitable for InnoEnergy, considering
the scale of the activities and associated cost to develop and bring such systems to a demonstration.
Furthermore it seems advantageous to couple the development of gas cleaning technologies with
the development of improved gasification technologies to achieve InnoEnergy´s targets in an
efficient way.
Table 6-2: IE impactability of gasification processes within „Energy from Chemical Fuels“
impact on
operability
GHG decrease
coverage of value chain by partners
Industry interest
Inv(foreseeable regulatory impact)
Inv(required investment)
gasification + ICE
7
7
7
9
9
9
5
8
BIGCC
8
7
7
9
6
9
5
8
gas cleaning/
6
waste gasification
7
8
9
8
9
6
7
cross impact in several applications
cost decrease
Economic and social impact comments
TRL Level
Topic
7 small scale CHP: customer for heat required; high total efficiency; improvement
of fuel flexibility; reduction of CO2 emissions; reduction of power generation
costs; reduction of CAPEX by standardization of plant design ("off the shelf
plants"); implementation of nutrient recycling technologies
7 large scale power generation: application of combined cycle technology; high
electrical efficiency; improvement of fuel flexibility; reduction of CO2 emissions;
reduction of power generation costs; reduction of CAPEX by standardization of
plant design ("off the shelf plants"); implementation of nutrient recycling
technologies
9 small scale CHP: improvement of fuel flexibility; customer for heat required;
high total efficiency; reduction of CO2 emissions; reduction of power
generation costs; reduction of CAPEX by standardization of plant design ("off
the shelf plants"); implementation of nutrient recycling technologies
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
Page 22 of 45
Qualitative Targets:
•
•
widen feedstock spectrum to also include agrowastes
improve gas cleaning technology for tar and S, N, Cl contaminants etc. to allow downstream
chemical syntheses
Quantitative Targets:
•
•
•
•
develop gas cleaning systems (in combination with improved gasification technologies) for 5
MW electric output CHP plant (BIG-ICE) with 35+ % total electric efficiency at total fixed
investment of 3 000 €/kWel and an annual operating time of 7 000+ h/a.
develop gas cleaning systems (in combination with improved gasification technologies) for 5
MW electric output CHP-Plant (BIG-GT) with 40+ % total electric efficiency at a total
investment cost of 2 500 €/kWel and an annual operating time of 6 000+ h/a.
develop a waste to energy gasification CHP gas cleaning system (in combination with
improved gasification technologies) for a 20 MW electric output CHP plant with 35+ % total
electric efficiency at a total investment cost of 3 000 €/kWel and an annual operating time of
6 000+ h/a.
develop a waste to liquids (Fischer-Tropsch) gasification gas cleaning system (in combination
with improved gasification technologies) for a 25 MW FT-Plant with 40+ % total conversion
efficiency at a total investment cost of 3 500 €/kWchem and an annual operating time of
7 000+ h/a.
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
Gasification + ICE
Cross Impact in several
application
Inv(Required
Investment)
TRL-Level (1-9)
10
8
6
4
2
0
Inv(Foreseeable
regulatory impact)
Cost decrease
Operability
GHG decrease
Coverage of value chain
by partners
Industry interest
BIGCC
Cross Impact in several
application
Inv(Required
Investment)
Inv(Foreseeable
regulatory impact)
Industry interest
TRL-Level (1-9)
10
8
6
4
2
0
Cost decrease
Operability
GHG decrease
Coverage of value chain
by partners
Page 23 of 45
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
Page 24 of 45
biomass/waste gasification and syngas
cleaning
Cross Impact in several
applications
Inv(Required
Investment)
TRL-Level (1-9)
10
8
6
4
2
0
Inv(Foreseeable
regulatory impact)
Industry interest
Cost decrease
Operability
GHG decrease
Coverage of value chain
by partners
6.3 Industry value chain necessary
Figure 6-1 shows the research centers/universities and industries along the value chain from dry
biomass/waste to electric power. It highlights some of the major players, however is by no means
comprehensive.
Figure 6-1: Value chain from dry biomass/waste to electric power and district heat
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
Page 25 of 45
Figure 6-2: Value chain from dry biomass/waste to liquid fuels
6.4 Actions needed to increase “impactability” (action plan)
•
•
•
•
Contact research institutes, universities and key players of the catalytic gas cleaning market
and the gasification technologies market
Propose the added value of adapted gas cleaning systems for different applications
Propose the added value of adapted gasification technologies for the gas cleaning
requirements
Define common targets:
o Gas cleaning system for BIG-ICE CHP: benzene has to be removed sufficiently to meet
emission targets, siloxanes have to be removed to improve process reliability,
process reliability has to be improved to meet the annual operating time targets
o Gas cleaning system for BIG-GT CHP: same challenges
o Gas cleaning system for waste-to-energy gasification with CHP: same challenges,
more severe conditions regarding S, N, halogen contaminants
o Optimized heat integration in gas cleaning and gasification will increase overall
efficiency
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
Page 26 of 45
7. Electro-Chemical Conversion Processes - Electrolysis and Fuel Cells
The development of electro-chemical conversion technologies is driven by the increasing need for
storage capacities in electric power supply. Batteries can provide high efficiencies but due to high
specific investment costs and low specific storage densities water electrolysis provides higher
potential for large scale storage applications [15]. In times when the electrical power demand
exceeds the power supply the reverse process of electrolysis, the fuel cell process could provide
electric power at high conversion efficiencies.
The contributions by Dominic Buchholz to this section are gratefully acknowledged [24].
7.1
Details of technology
For water electrolysis three technologies are under development. The technologies can be
differentiated by the electrolyte used. The technology with the highest maturity uses a liquid alkaline
electrolyte. More recent developments are based on fuel cell technologies. The low temperature
technology is the polymeric proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolysis, the high temperature
technology uses a solid oxide membrane, the so called solid oxide electrolysis cell (SOEC).
The most promising technologies are the PEM electrolysis due to its operability in a wide load range
and its better dynamic operation abilities. Its drawback is to today’s higher specific investment costs
which are in focus of recent development projects.
The second interesting technology is the high temperature steam electrolysis, the so called solid
oxide electrolysis (SOEC). Though it is still in its early stages of development, is shows the charming
potential to provide two operation modes alternatively. First, in times of surplus electric power, the
electrolysis operation, to store electric energy in the form of chemical energy in hydrogen. And
second, in times of electric power demand, the fuel cell operation, to produce electric energy from
hydrogen rich synthesis gas, e.g. stemming from biomass gasification [16].
7.2
Assessment on “impactability”
The liquid alkaline electrolysis (AEC) is TRL 9 and commercially available since several decades. It is
used at remote sources of electric power as the Aswan high dam to convert it into a chemical energy
carrier. This solution was more economic in comparison to build a long distance power line. It is
optimized for efficiency in static operation.
For dynamic operation the polymeric proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolysis shows
advantages. The TRL is 6 to 8 depending on the developer and the design production capacities of
the prototypes are still one order of magnitude lower, than the expected demand in the future.
Furthermore the specific investment costs are quite high in comparison to the liquid alkaline
electrolysis [17].
The high temperature steam electrolysis is at TRL 5 and would be beneficial at places where heat
would be available additionally to surplus electric power. By developing a demonstration unit that
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
Page 27 of 45
could be operated in both operation modes, electrolysis and fuel cell could increase the impactability
drastically [18].
The impact a InnoEnergy investment in electro-chemical conversion processes is summarized in the
following table.
Table 7-1: Impactability of electro-chemical conversion processes within „Energy from Chemical
Fuels“
cross impact in several applications
Inv(required investment)
Inv(foreseeable regulatory impact)
Industry interest
Economic and social impact comments
coverage of value chain by partners
GHG decrease
operability
TRL Level
cost decrease
impact on
Topic
electrolysis
alkaline (AEC)
PEM (PEMEC)
solide oxide
(SOEC)
Conversion of surplus electric energy into chemical energy carrier will be a key
technology for the „Energiewende“. Crucial are high efficiencies, high dynamic
load changes, partial load operability, and lowered specific investment costs. In
combination with storage technologies less surplus installation capacity of wind
and photovoltaic plants would be needed for a secure energy supply.
8
7
5
4
5
10
3
8
9
8
9
9
8
8
5
5
9
9
9
9
9
2
5
8
8
8
9
fuel cells
The reverse process of electrolysis, the so called fuel cell process, will be
essential in times when wind and solar power plants cannot provide enough
power to satisfy the power demand in the electric power grid.
solide oxide fuel
cell (SOFC)
5
10
9
9
5
9
9
8
9
Qualitative Targets:
•
•
•
•
Reduce the specific investment costs drastically.
Improve dynamic operability.
Increase energy efficiency.
system integration and modularization
Quantitative Targets:
•
•
•
Develop a 5 MW liquid alkaline electrolysis with 65+ % conversion efficiency at investment
costs of 600 €/kWel.
Develop a 5 MW polymeric proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolysis with 70+ %
conversion efficiency at investment costs of 800 €/kWel.
Develop a 5 MW two mode demonstrator for solid oxide electrolysis (SOEC) with 85+ %
conversion efficiency and solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) with 60 %+ conversion efficiency at a
total investment cost of 1 000 €/kWel.
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
alkaline electrolysis (AEC)
Cross Impact in several
application
Inv(Required
Investment)
TRL-Level (1-9)
10
8
6
4
2
0
Inv(Foreseeable
regulatory impact)
Industry interest
Cost decrease
Operability
GHG decrease
Coverage of value chain
by partners
PEM electrolysis (PEMEC)
Cross Impact in several
application
Inv(Required
Investment)
Inv(Foreseeable
regulatory impact)
Industry interest
TRL-Level (1-9)
10
8
6
4
2
0
Cost decrease
Operability
GHG decrease
Coverage of value chain
by partners
Page 28 of 45
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
Page 29 of 45
solid oxide electrolysis (SOEC)
Cross Impact in several
application
Inv(Required
Investment)
TRL-Level (1-9)
10
8
6
4
2
0
Inv(Foreseeable
regulatory impact)
Industry interest
Cost decrease
Operability
GHG decrease
Coverage of value chain
by partners
The SOFC would be beneficial in combination with solid oxide electrolysis as an integrated setup for
both operating modes.
solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC)
Cross Impact in several
application
Inv(Required
Investment)
Inv(Foreseeable
regulatory impact)
Industry interest
TRL-Level (1-9)
10
8
6
4
2
0
Cost decrease
Operability
GHG decrease
Coverage of value chain
by partners
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
7.3
Page 30 of 45
Industry value chain necessary
Figure 6-1 shows the research centers/universities and industries along the value chain for
conversion of electric energy via electrolysis to hydrogen and for conversion of hydrogen in SOFCs. It
highlights some of the major players, however is by no means comprehensive.
Figure 7-1: Value chain for electrolysis and SOFC systems
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
7.4
•
•
•
Page 31 of 45
Actions needed to increase “impactability” (Action plan)
Contact research institutes, universities and key players in industry involved in electrolysis
technologies (see list of electrolyzer suppliers) and identify key customers
Propose the added value of adapted electrolysis systems for different applications
Define common targets:
o Development of simpler and cheaper Systems.
o Development of high temperature steam electrolysis technology for two mode
operation (electrolyzer and fuel cell).
o Increase of dynamic operability of systems.
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
Page 32 of 45
8. (Bio-)Chemical Conversion Processes (‘Syntheses’)
Up to now the energetic use of biomass is mainly restricted to the direct conversion of biomass to
heat and power. These conversion processes are bound to the location of the biomass resources. In
remote areas in most cases the heat cannot be used and the production of electric power cannot
meet the fluctuating demand. The production of high valuable fuels with syntheses adds flexibility in
storage and supply of energy by generation of an energy carrier, which is easy to transport, to store
and can be used for flexible, demand-actuated power generation.
The contributions by Jörg Sauer to this section are gratefully acknowledged [20].
8.1
Details of technology
A general overview of chemical conversion processes is shown in Figure 8-1.
Figure 8-1: (Bio-)chemical conversion processes as discussed in this roadmap document
Catalytic Conversion of Synthesis Gas: Synthesis gas (CO + H2) can be converted through different
catalytic routes to synthetic fuels ("synfuels"). The catalysts, the process and plant design together
with the process conditions define whether the resulting products can be supplied into the diesel,
the jet fuel or the gasoline pool. All processes have been realized on demonstration and commercial
scale (Fischer-Tropsch: Sasol, Shell, Velocys; DME: Haldor Topsøe, Air Liquide; MtG: Exxon, Haldor
Topsøe). The break-even point for commercialization of existing syngas conversion technologies is at
a million ton per year scale, which will not be feasible for biomass based processes because of the
physically dispersed availability of renewable sources of energy (e.g. electricity from PV or
sustainable biomass). Therefore, new intensified processes are needed which allow economic
production of synfuels at lower capacities per unit. Additionally, tailored synfuels are currently
discussed as the basis for the development of concepts for internal combustion engines which are
cleaner and more efficient.
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
Page 33 of 45
Syngas Fermentation: Anaerobic microorganisms like Clostridium ljungdahlii allow the production of
fuel components (ethanol, butanol) but also chemical building blocks like organic acids from syngas.
The fermentations can be performed at much milder conditions compared to conventional catalytic
processes, which result in a less complex process technology.
Conversion of Lignocellulose: Lignocellulose can be depolymerized through various hydrolysis
processes into its monomeric constituents (C6 and C5 sugars, lignin). The intermediates from the
hydrolysis of lignocellulose can be converted through chemical or biochemical routes to products like
fuels and chemical building blocks (alcohols, organic acids, phenols). The target of new developments
should be maximizing the value added by the various co-products from lignocellulose and the
optimization of process efficiencies and specific investments.
Upgrading of Intermediates such as Pyrolysis Oils: Lignocellulosic biomass can be converted through
pyrolysis processes to gaseous, liquid and solid products at elevated temperatures (approx. 500 °C).
Under hydrothermal conditions at slightly lower temperatures and higher pressures compared to
pyrolysis (approx. 350 °C, 20 bar) biomass can be converted into bio oil and also gaseous and solid
co-products. The process is called "hydrothermal liquefaction". The products from pyrolysis as well as
from hydrothermal liquefaction cannot be applied directly as fuel, but have to be upgraded. For this
upgrading various chemical or biochemical processes have been proposed in scientific literature.
Conversion technologies which are feasible at production scale combined with adequate business
models are needed.
8.2
Assessment on “impactability”
In this very broad field of chemical syntheses InnoEnergy can only focus on niche processes. One of
the processes with large potential is the fermentation of sugars to butanol, as there is already an
existing butanol market and market prices are promisingly high. Furthermore, investments for
process and technology demonstration could be kept rather low, e.g. by refurbishing existing,
decommissioned bio-ethanol plants. Existing technologies suffer from low efficiency and high
investments.
Additionally, the hydrolysis of lignocellulose (wood or straw), either enzymatic or with acids, is
not efficient enough and investments are too high today. InnoEnergy could bring together the
right partners to overcome these hurdles. In general the development of this process appears
to be suitable for InnoEnergy, considering the scale of the activities and associated cost to develop
and bring such systems to the market.
Large-scale Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (FT) with fossil feedstock is a mature technology. By
simplification of the process technology and intensification of the process the downsizing to scales
suitable for the usage of renewable feedstock creates a rather large impact. Furthermore, the
development of medium scale FT units complements the development targets of the gasification
plants as stated in Chapter 6.
The impact a InnoEnergy investment in these conversion processes is summarized in the
following table 8-2.
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
Page 34 of 45
Table 8-2: Impactability of chemical conversion processes within „Energy from Chemical Fuels“
Conversion of
Synthesis Gas
cross impact in several applications
Inv(required investment)
Inv(foreseeable regulatory impact)
Industry interest
Economic and social impact comments
coverage of value chain by partners
GHG decrease
operability
TRL Level
cost decrease
impact on
Topic
Catalytic Syntheses are only demonstrated in large scale units which is
not feasible for biomass conversion processes. New, simplified processes
with lower specific investment demand are needed for integration in
biomass conversion plants.
Biological processes could also simplify process technologies and thus
lower the specific investment demand. Both process routes would lower
energy production costs and increase security of energy supply.
* catalytic routes 6
* fermentation 6
Conversion of
7
Lignocellulose
5
5
5
7
8
7
9
9
9
8
9
9
9
9
9
8
9
9
8
9
9
Upgrading of
Intermediates
5
7
9
9
9
9
9
4
8
9
9 The direct conversion route for Lignocellulose would broaden the
spectrum of products. This would allow integrating biomasses on various
additional value chains.
9 The upgrading of intermediates would allow integrating the products into
existing value chains of already traded products.
Qualitative Targets:
•
•
•
Simplify processes
Improve efficiency
Reduce specific investments
Quantitative Targets:
•
•
•
develop a 25 MW Fischer-Tropsch synthesis with 75+ % conversion efficiency at an
investment of 500 €/kWchem and an annual operating time of 8 000 h/a.
develop a 25 MW sugars to butanol fermentation with 75+ % conversion efficiency at an
investment of 1000 €/kWchem and an annual operating time of 7 000+ h/a.
develop a 25 MW dry biomass to butanol process with 44+ % total conversion efficiency at
an investment of 2200 €/kWchem and an annual operating time of 7 000+ h/a.
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
Syngas Value Chain: Catalytic Routes
Cross Impact in several
application
Inv(Required
Investment)
TRL-Level (1-9)
10
8
6
4
2
0
Inv(Foreseeable
regulatory impact)
Industry interest
Cost decrease
Operability
GHG decrease
Coverage of value chain
by partners
Syngas Value Chain: Syngas Fermentation
Cross Impact in several
application
Inv(Required
Investment)
Inv(Foreseeable
regulatory impact)
Industry interest
TRL-Level (1-9)
10
8
6
4
2
0
Cost decrease
Operability
GHG decrease
Coverage of value chain
by partners
Page 35 of 45
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
Page 36 of 45
Lignocellulose Hydrolysis Value Chains
Cross Impact in several
application
Inv(Required
Investment)
TRL-Level (1-9)
10
8
6
4
2
0
Inv(Foreseeable
regulatory impact)
Cost decrease
Operability
GHG decrease
Coverage of value chain
by partners
Industry interest
Pyrolysis Oil/Hydrothermal Liquefaction
Value Chain
Cross Impact in several
application
Inv(Required
Investment)
TRL-Level (1-9)
10
8
6
4
2
0
Inv(Foreseeable
regulatory impact)
Industry interest
8.3
Cost decrease
Operability
GHG decrease
Coverage of value chain
by partners
Industry value chain necessary
The research centers/universities and industry along the value chain from dry biomass and waste to
liquid fuels via Fischer-Tropsch synthesis in shown in Figure 6-2 on page 29. Figure 8-2 shows the
actors of the value chain from wood and cellulose to butanol. It highlights some of the major players,
however is by no means comprehensive.
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
Page 37 of 45
Figure 8-2: Value Chain from wood/cellulose to butanol
8.4
•
•
•
•
•
•
Actions needed to increase “impactability” (action plan)
Contact research institutes, universities and key players of the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis
market
Propose the added value of adapted Fischer-Tropsch reactor systems for different
applications
Define common targets:
o Drastically reduce complexity of reaction systems and product upgrading
o Modularize systems for investment decrease
Contact research institutes, universities and key players of the butanol synthesis market
Propose the added value of simplified butanol fermentation systems
Define common targets:
o Drastically reduce complexity of reaction systems and product upgrading
o Modularize systems for investment decrease
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
9.
Page 38 of 45
Final Energy Utilization Processes: Combustion and CoCombustion Based Heat and Power Generation and Mobility
Almost all technologies in final energy usage have already reached a TRL of 9. Only co-firing and
gasification (see section 6) have slightly lower TRLs. The technologies comprise combustion of
biomass and fossil feedstocks, combined heat and power production on a small, decentralized scale
and on a large, industrial scale, and transportation (i.e. mobility) based on biodiesel and ethanol.
Considering the maturity of most technologies, the large number of developments that are already
underway, the relatively mature technologies and also the fact that large-scale industrial companies
are already involved, it can be questioned if technologies for final energy usage are an area suitable
for development projects within the InnoEnergy framework. However, InnoEnergy could support
developments of process aspects, such as the improvement of components and subprocesses which can be integrated with processes already being commercialized.
The contributions by Ludger Eltrop [23] and Lars Waldheim [12] to this section are gratefully
acknowledged.
9.1
Details of technology
Biomass co-firing for combined heat and power production
In order to reduce CO2 emissions from existing fossil fuel fired power plants, biomass is cocombusted, also called co-firing. The co-firing of biomass with coal in existing large power station
boilers has proven to be one of the most cost-effective large-scale technologies for conversion of
biomass to electricity [21]. The electrical efficiency of larger scale coal fired power plants is in a range
of 36 to 40 %. Pre-treatment of biomass, e.g. by torrefaction, reduces fuel transport cost
(international market) and fixed investment (one mill and feeding system for coal & biomass). In the
case of co-feeding, biomass is fed with the coal through the coal mills and into the same burners as
the coal. This is associated with limits in the fraction of biomass that can be used, typically less than
20 %. Separate feeding means that the biomass is milled [21] and fed to separate burners. If the
biomass is acceptably clean and low in ash content, the co-firing rate can go up to 100 %, i.e. actually
substituting all coal, even if this may mean that the power plant suffers from some increased derating.
For less clean biomass or waste fractions, indirect co-firing is used, i.e. the fuel is gasified, the
producer gas cleaned to the extent required and then fired into the boiler. This is practiced in a
handful of installations, and the substitution can be up to 50 % or higher. Please refer to section 6 of
this document for further details.
Parallel co-firing means that the biomass is burned separately, but integrated with the main boiler via
the steam system such that the steam generated provides power and less steam is produced from
the fossil fuel. This has been applied in Denmark for straw and the Netherlands for waste, but is very
site specific and not considered any further in this section.
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
Page 39 of 45
In the past, there were a lot of discussions on how much biomass and what qualities can be co-fired
without compromising availability due to increased fouling and corrosion and the disposal of the
mixed ash for construction purposes. Direct co-firing uses mainly “white” woody biomass pellets
whereas the use of other fuels such as forestry residues, bark, demolition wood and straw is still
restricted to low co-firing rates, otherwise indirect co-firing has been used.
Key sectors for biomass combustion and co-combustion are the pulp and paper, and timber
processing industry and power generation [22]. One of the main targets is the reduction of power
generation costs combined with CO2 emission reduction. Additionally the operability of such plant
will be improved. The combustion technology (stoker), although still widely used, e.g. in the paper
and pulp industry, sugar cane industry and palm oil industry, does not represent the cutting edge
technology. In Europe and in particular in Scandinavia, but also in China and the US, most plants
today use bubbling fluidized bed (BFB) or circulating fluidized bed (CFB) technology, depending on
their capacity. These plants operate with a variety of fuels such as coal, petcoke lignite, wood,
biomass residues, and assorted wastes.
Mobility
Mobility is a wide field and the roadmap looks at bio-diesel and ethanol supply for a bio-fuel based
mobility only, namely biodiesel combustion in a compression ignition engine and ethanol combustion
in a spark ignition engine. Although playing a minor role only in global transportation systems these
technologies are well established, especially in certain countries.
Ethanol combustion in an internal combustion engine (spark ignition engine) yields significantly
larger amounts of formaldehyde and related species such as acetaldehyde than gasoline combustion
in such engines. This leads to a significantly larger photochemical reactivity that generates much
more ground level ozone. Experimental data show that ethanol exhaust generates two times as
much ozone as gasoline exhaust.
While studying the effect of biodiesel on a diesel particulate filter (DPF) it was found that though the
presence of sodium and potassium carbonates improved the catalytic conversion of ash, as the diesel
particulates are catalyzed, they may congregate inside the DPF and so interfere with the clearances
of the filter. This may cause the filter to clog and interfere with the regeneration process. In a study
on the impact of exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) rates with blends of jathropha biodiesel it was
shown that there was a decrease in fuel efficiency and torque output due to the use of biodiesel on a
diesel engine designed with an EGR system.
9.2
Assessment on “impactability”
In the area of conventional biomass power generation, there is a continuous development in the
performance of this technology at an incremental rate and no big break-throughs can be expected.
The financial strength, market positions and know-how basis of the actors, in relation to the capacity
of InnoEnergy means that the overall combustion-steam-power process does not appear suitable for
InnoEnergy developments. However, to drive the future developments in this area, while also
expanding the use of various forms of biomass, there are some key challenges relating to the fuel
constituents and their interaction with materials inside the boiler furnace and heat recovery section
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
Page 40 of 45
(agglomeration, fouling, corrosion). Developments to address such issues lie well in the area of
InnoEnergy activities and can lead to solutions and potential products.
When addressing the issues of broadening the fuel spectrum for indirect co-firing, gasification
and appropriate downstream gas cleaning seem more suitable for InnoEnergy investments
(please refer to section 6).
Mobility is an area with numerous big players (car and truck manufacturers) and where the political
framework plays an important yet hard to foresee role. This area is not considered any further in this
document.
Qualitative Targets:
•
•
•
•
•
Widen feed quality spectrum to also include agrowaste
Reduce the specific investment costs drastically
Improve dynamic operability
Increase energy efficiency
Enhance system integration and modularization
Quantitative Targets:
•
•
Develop a process for indirect co-firing at utility scale, including gas cleaning, at less than
2000 €/kWel (total investment) by 2020, with 40+ % electric efficiency and an annual
operating time of 8 000 h/a
1 MWhel coal equals 1 ton of CO2 emitted, target is to achieve 80 % net reduction
The impact a InnoEnergy investment in these conversion processes is summarized in the
following table 9-1.
Table 9-1: Impactability of final energy conversion processes within „Energy from Chemical
Fuels“
impact on
operability
GHG decrease
coverage of value chain by partners
Industry interest
Inv(foreseeable regulatory impact)
Inv(required investment)
combustion
9
3
5
9
5
7
5
4
high-rate co-firing
9
5
5
9
5
7
5
8
mobility
9
2
2
1
1
1
4
1
cross impact in several applications
cost decrease
Economic and social impact comments
TRL Level
Topic
7 small scale CHP: customer for heat required; high total efficiency;
improvement of fuel flexibility; reduction of CO2 emissions; reduction of
power generation costs; reduction of CAPEX by standardization of plant
design ("off the shelf plants"); implementation of nutrient recycling
technologies
7 large scale power generation: application of combined cycle technology;
high electrical efficiency; improvement of fuel flexibility; reduction of
CO2 emissions; reduction of power generation costs; reduction of CAPEX
by standardization of plant design ("off the shelf plants");
implementation of nutrient recycling technologies
3 Biodiesel/ethanol powered passenger cars: potential/supply of such
biofuels is limited, public perception is not necessarily positive,
reduction of CO2 emissions strongly depends on biomass feedstock
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
Combustion
Cross Impact in several
application
Inv(Required
Investment)
TRL-Level (1-9)
10
8
6
4
2
0
Inv(Foreseeable
regulatory impact)
Industry interest
Cost decrease
Operability
GHG decrease
Coverage of value chain
by partners
High-Rate Co-Firing
Cross Impact in several
application
Inv(Required
Investment)
Inv(Foreseeable
regulatory impact)
Industry interest
TRL-Level (1-9)
10
8
6
4
2
0
Cost decrease
Operability
GHG decrease
Coverage of value chain
by partners
Page 41 of 45
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
Page 42 of 45
Mobility
Cross Impact in several
application
Inv(Required
Investment)
TRL-Level (1-9)
10
8
6
4
2
0
Inv(Foreseeable
regulatory impact)
Industry interest
9.3
Cost decrease
Operability
GHG decrease
Coverage of value chain
by partners
Industry value chain necessary
Tables 9-2 and 9-3 provide examples of plants that are either co-fired with biomass or converted for
combustion of 100 % biomass feedstock altogether.
Table 9-2: Examples of co-firing plants [12]
Company/Plant
Location
Electrabel
Electrabel
RWEnpower
Drax Power
DONG Energy
RWE Essent
RWE Essent
British Energy
Electrabel
Scottish Power
DONG
DONG
HOFOR
Rodenhuize Belgium
RuienBelgium
Oxfordshire UK
North Yorkshire UK
Copenhagen Denmark
Geertruidenberg Netherlands
Geertruidenberg Netherlands
Yorkshire UK
Liège Belgium
Scotland UK
Copenhagen Denmark
Kalundborg Denmark
Copenhagen Denmark
SSE
E.ON
E.ON
EDF Energy
SSE
EDF Energy
Lahti Energia
Vaskiluoton Voima
Vattenfall
Yorkshire UK
Kent UK
Nottinghamshire UK
Nottinghamshire UK
Lancashire UK
Nottinghamshire UK
Lahti Finland
Vasaa Finland
Moabit 1, Germany
Tot. power
output, MWel
180
2100
4000
365
600
600
1960
80
2400
45
2035
2034
2010
2000
1995
1980
Co-firing
capacity, MWfuel
840
75
656
625
592
577
75
460
420
375
125
5
327
318
314
313
312
309
80
140
Indirect co-firing
Direct co-fring
Indirect co-firing
Parallel co-firing
Indirect co-firing pilot
Unit 1 w. pellets
100%.
Indirect co-firing
Indirect co-firing
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
Page 43 of 45
Table 9-3: Examples of converted biomass fired plants [12]
Company/Plant
Location
Tilbury B, UK
Lynemouth, UK
Ironbridge, UK
Power
output,
MWel
1 040
3*140
2*500
Biomass
capacity,
MWel
750
n.a.
2*300
RWE
RWE
EON
DRAX
Drax, UK
6*660
SSE
Eggbourough, UK
3*660
570? Per
unit
n.a.
RWE
Tilbury, UK
1 040
870
DONG
DONG
DONG
Hofor
Avedoere, Denmark
Studsrup, Denmark
Skaerbaek, Denmark
Amager 1, Denmark
793
794 total
392 total
314 total
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
9.4
•
•
decommissioned in 2013
under construction
in operation, decommissioning
in 2015
1 unit converted, 1 under
construction, 1 in planning
conversion of all three units
planned
re-opening of the renovated
Tilbury B unit in planning
in planning
2 units in planning
2 units in planning
under construction
Actions needed to increase “impactability” (action plan)
Contact research institutes, universities and key players of the combustion and cocombustion market
Address issues of broadening the fuel spectrum for indirect co-firing by gasification and also
involving gas cleaning
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
Page 44 of 45
Annexes
A.1 List of contributors
The following organizations have contributed to the ‘Strategy and Roadmap’
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
AVA-CO2 Schweiz AG, industry: Hans Hubschneider
CC Germany, Christian Müller, Felix Teufel
Deutscher Verein des Gas- und Wasserfaches e.V. (DVGW), applied research: Dominic
Buchholz
Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems, applied research: Thomas Aicher
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), academia: Helmut Seifert, Jörg Sauer
University Stuttgart, academia: Ludger Eltrop
Waldheim Consulting, industry: Lars Waldheim
A.2 References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/package/index_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/2030/index_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/roadmap/index_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy2020/roadmap/index_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/strategies/2011_white_paper_en.htm
EPRI, “Biopower Generation: Biomass Issues, Fuels, Technologies, and Research,
Development, Demonstration, and Deployment Opportunities”, February 2010.
IEA Bioenergy: Thermal Pre-treatment of Biomass for Large-scale Applications. Summary
and Conclusions from the IEA Bioenergy ExCo66 Workshop 2010 (IEA
Bioenergy:ExCo:2011:05)
Technology Map of the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan). Technology
Descriptions, EUR 24979 EN – 2011:
http://setis.ec.europa.eu/system/files/Technology_Map_2011.pdf
IRENA Renewable Energy Technologies: Cost Analysis Series. Biomass for Power
Generation, 2012
Kiel, J.: Torrefaction for biomass upgrading into commodity fuels. IEA Bioenergy Task 32
workshop “Fuel storage, handling and preparation and system analysis for biomass
combustion technologies”, Berlin, 7 May 2007
Hans Hubschneider, AVA-CO2 Schweiz AG, personal communication, spring 2014
Lars Waldheim, “InnoEnergy Roadmap Review”, report, July 21, 2014
IEA Technology Roadmap: Bioenergy for Heat and Power, OECD/IEA, 2012
Technology Map of the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan). Technology
Descriptions, EUR 24979 EN – 2011:
http://setis.ec.europa.eu/system/files/Technology_Map_2011.pdf
IEC Electrical Energy Storage White Paper 2011: http://www.iec.ch/whitepaper/pdf/
iecWP-energystorage-LR-en.pdf (09.05.2014)
von Olzhausen: „Kraftstoffe aus CO2 und H2O unter Nutzung regenerativer Energie“, 4.
Statuskonferenz der BMBF-Fördermaßnahme "Technologien für Nachhaltigkeit und
Klimaschutz - Chemische Prozesse und stoffliche Nutzung von CO2", 8.4.2014,
Königswinter: http://www.chemieundco2.de/_media/05_sunfire_status_080414.pdf
Bertuccioli, L. et al.: Study on development of water electrolysis in the EU, Final Report
2014: http://www.fch-ju.eu/sites/default/files/study electrolyser_0-Logos_0.pdf
(09.05.2014)
Smolinka, T.: Water Electrolysis: Status and Potential for Development, Joint NOW GmbH –
FCH JU Water Electrolysis Day, Brussels, April 3, 2014
InnoEnergy – Thematic Field ‘Energy from Chemical Fuels’ - Strategy and Roadmap v2
Page 45 of 45
[19] Brisse, A.; Schefold, J.: High Temperature Electrolysis at EIFER, main achievements at cell
and stack level, Energy Procedia (2012) 29, p. 53-63
[20] Jörg Sauer, Institut für Katalyseforschung und -technologie (IKFT), Karlsruher Institut für
Technologie, personal communication, summer 2014
[21] IEA Technology Roadmap: Bioenergy for Heat and Power, OECD/IEA, 2012
[22] Technology Map of the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan). Technology
Descriptions, EUR 24979 EN – 2011: http://setis.ec.europa.eu/system/files
[23] Ludger Eltrop, Institut für Energiewirtschaft und Rationelle Energieanwendung, Universität
Stuttgart, personal communication, summer 2014
KIC InnoEnergy SE
Kennispoort 6th floor
John F. Kennedylaan 2
5612 AB Eindhoven
The Netherlands
[email protected]
InnoEnergy Benelux
Kennispoort 6th floor
John F. Kennedylaan 2
5612 AB Eindhoven
The Netherlands
[email protected]
InnoEnergy France
Immeuble L’Alizée
32, rue des Berges
38000 Grenoble, France
[email protected]
InnoEnergy Germany
Albert-Nestler-Straße 26
76131 Karlsruhe, Germany
[email protected]
InnoEnergy Iberia
Edifici Nexus II Oficina 0A
Jordi Girona, 29
08034 Barcelona, Spain
[email protected]
InnoEnergy Poland Plus
ul. Czerwone Maki 84, Bldg C
30-392 Kraków, Poland
[email protected]
InnoEnergy Scandinavia
Valhallavägen 79
SE-114 28 Stockholm, Sweden
[email protected]
InnoEnergy is the trading brand
of KIC InnoEnergy SE