November 2024 Decarbonisati n Technolo gy Powering the Transition to Sustainable Fuels & Energy
2
Contents
November 2024
5 Power of carbon accounting in the low-carbon fuel industry Kristine Klavers EcoEngineers
13
Key to scalable, sustainable hydrocarbon fuels Andrew Symes OXCCU
19
Advanced gasification for waste-to-energy products Amna Bezanty KEW Technology
25 Circular syngas with biomass and plastic waste gasification Harold Boerrigter and Sven Felske Shell Catalysts & Technologies
31
Ammonia: a cracking opportunity for hydrogen Joachim Harteg Jacobsen Topsoe
37
Propelling the maritime industry to sustainability with methanol Zinovia Skoufa Johnson Matthey Integration of biomass feedstocks directly into refineries Vahide N Mutlu and Başak Tuncer SOCAR Türkiye Research & Development and Innovation Inc. Quantify and reduce risk for acceleration of new projects Ana Khanlari and Ron Beck Aspen Technology Enhancing decarbonisation through tracer technology Roy Greig RESMAN Energy Technology
43
51
59
67
Smart tank storage solutions for new biofuel feedstocks Kees Oerlemans, Koen Verleyen and Pele Myers nVent
72
Accelerate SAF R&D with highthroughput catalyst testing Giada Innocenti, Benjamin Mutz, Christoph Hauber, Jean-Claude Adelbrecht, and Ioan-Teodor Trotus hte GmbH Decarbonisation through innovation Empowering mission-critical applications in LNG, biofuels, hydrogen, and carbon capture facilities
78
© 2024. The entire content of this publication is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means – electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise – without the prior permission of the copyright owner. The opinions and views expressed by the authors in this publication are not necessarily those of the editor or publisher and while every care has been taken in the preparation of all material included the publisher cannot be held responsible for any statements, opinions or views or for any inaccuracies.
www.decarbonisationtechnology.com
1
The world’s energy system is changing. To solve the challenges, Shell Catalysts & Technologies is developing its Decarbonisation Solutions portfolio to provide integrated value chains of technologies to help industries navigate the energy transition. Our experienced teams of consultants and engineers draw on Shell’s owner–operator– licensor expertise to co-create pathways and technology solutions to address your specific decarbonisation ambitions – creating a cleaner way forward together. Learn more at shell.com/decarbonisation. Accelerating decarbonisation solutions together
The goal of the energy transition is to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases into the environment while continuing to meet the world’s energy needs. While most often expressed in relation to the Paris Agreement goal to limit global warming to less than 2ºC, the transition also underpins the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal, SDG-7, “to ensure access to affordable, reliable sustainable and modern energy for all”. Another SDG, SDG-12, aims to “ensure responsible consumption and production, including the minimisation of waste going to landfill or otherwise polluting our planet”. This goal also predicates the shift away from less sustainable energy crops to advanced biofuels. The use of waste as a feedstock in refineries to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels supports both of these goals. Already, refineries have adapted hydrotreaters and are recycling used cooking oil (UCO). Processing UCO is straightforward, and the product, either in the form of hydrogenated vegetable oil (HVO) or hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids (HEFA), is drop-in fuels that can be blended in diesel or aviation kerosene fuels. More complex waste streams include forestry and agricultural residues, the biogenic components of municipal waste, and unrecyclable waste plastic. These need more vigorous conversion processes, such as gasification, hydrothermal liquefaction, and pyrolysis. Gasification is a commercially proven technology, while the other two processes are at an advanced technical readiness level, ready for commercialisation. Increasingly, refiners are looking to invest and build to increase capacity. However, it will take decades for fossil fuels to become fully redundant. While some refineries are now dedicated biorefineries, others are coprocessing waste-derived feedstocks with crude oils. Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) is a waste stream from combustion or from chemical processes such as cement manufacture. Where possible, capturing the CO 2 from such processes is becoming a requirement. E-fuels and other uses for captured carbon are emerging and should be considered as an addition rather than an alternative to permanent storage. Both options reduce the emissions of CO 2 to the atmosphere, so can contribute towards the fundamental goal of the transition. However, a massive increase in the scale of carbon capture from industrial processes is mission-critical. Direct air capture (DAC) to draw down CO 2 from the atmosphere will also be essential. Achieving DAC at an impactful scale is one of the generational challenges for modern society. In the meantime, policy and regulation that disincentivise capture from industrial flues make no sense at all. Renewable fuels such as ammonia or methanol, for shipping with kerosene range e-fuels for sustainable aviation fuels, although carbon neutral, will still result in CO 2 emissions. However, marine vessels fuelled by renewables and equipped with carbon capture raise the prospect of carbon-negative shipping.
Managing Editor Rachel Storry
rachel.storry@emap.com tel +44 (0)7786 136440
Consulting Editor Robin Nelson robin.nelson@ decarbonisationtechnology.com
Editorial Assistant Lisa Harrison lisa.harrison@emap.com
Graphics Peter Harper
Business Development Director Paul Mason info@decarbonisationtechnology.com tel +44 844 5888 771
Managing Director Richard Watts richard.watts@emap.com
EMAP, 10th Floor Southern House Wellesley Grove, Croydon CR0 1XG
Cover Story nVent RAYCHEM mission-critical solutions keep processes running safely, efficiently, and reliably in biofuels, hydrogen, carbon capture and LNG facilities. nvent.com/RAYCHEM
Dr Robin Nelson
www.decarbonisationtechnology.com
3
CO 2 Catch it ’cause you can!
Click here
Discover the innovative carbon capture absorption technology DMX™
Power of carbon accounting in the low-carbon fuel industry Why life-cycle assessments are essential for renewable diesel and sustainable aviation fuel producers to meet ESG and net-zero goals
Kristine Klavers EcoEngineers
I n today’s carbon-conscious world, carbon accounting is essential for industries to measure, manage, and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It goes beyond compliance, helping organisations meet their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) and net-zero goals, optimise production processes, and tap into financial incentives that drive return on investment (ROI). Emerging climate regulations, low-carbon fuel markets, subsidies, and tax credits offer significant opportunities to support companies and their stakeholders on their ESG journey, making literacy in carbon accounting and carbon markets all the more critical. Understanding carbon accounting and exploring the challenges involved is important for achieving compliance and strategic goals. As businesses market low- carbon products, they must be confident and transparent with
Figure 1 Many industries are focusing on reducing the carbon intensity (CI) of their products Source: EcoEngineers
success in an increasingly regulated marketplace requiring minimum CI scores that are verified. This article is not meant to be a complete analysis of LCAs, but rather it is meant to reinforce their importance in the context of carbon accounting. Foundations of carbon assessments LCAs are the foundation of product-level carbon accounting. They are a systematic and comprehensive method for evaluating the environmental impact of a product, service, or system, from its inception to its end-of-life (cradle-to-grave). LCAs are a tool used to ensure
the results they communicate to stakeholders, including the public, clients, and financial entities (see Figure 1 ). A key to unlocking the power of carbon accounting is life-cycle assessments (LCAs). LCAs are particularly important in determining the carbon intensity (CI) of low-carbon renewable fuels such as renewable diesel (RD) and sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). Understanding carbon accounting enables businesses to communicate their low-carbon calculations effectively to stakeholders, positioning them for
www.decarbonisationtechnology.com
5
Feedstock production and transportation
Fuel production and distrib u tion
Use of the nished fuel
Energy imputs
Process energy use
Chemical imputs
s
u
e
i
h
Material inputs
AG. Coproducts
o
Figure 2 An LCA is used to assess the overall GHG impacts of a fuel, including each stage of its production and use Source: US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA, 2023 )
that emissions are quantified across the life-cycle of a product, including raw material extraction, production, transportation, use, and disposal using available data and established models. In 2006, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) published ISO 14040 ( ISO, 2006 ), a framework for developing LCAs to measure a product’s impact and facilitate environmental decision-making, helping to ensure consistency and the ability to compare products and processes. ISO 14040 outlines four key phases to develop an LCA: Goal and scope definition: This phase builds the LCA framework and, among many variables, involves establishing the functional units, objectives, and boundaries for the assessment, defining the purpose of the study and identifying the product system to be assessed. Using the same units for comparing LCAs is crucial. For example, CI measured in kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per kg of product (kg CO2e/kg) is different from one measured in kg CO2e/MJ of product (megajoule). The main difference between these two units of measurement is that the former measures the CI based on the mass of the product, while the latter measures it based on the energy content. The system boundaries phase requires the boundaries to be clearly defined (for example, gate-to-gate, gate-to-grave, and overall cradle-
to-gate). As RD and SAF production chains expand, upstream processes like farming practices and fertiliser use might need to be included in the system boundaries, which again will significantly impact the CI score (see Figure 2 ). Inventory analysis: During this phase, data is collected on all relevant inputs (such as raw materials, energy, and water) and outputs (such as emissions, waste, and byproducts) relating to the system boundary established in Phase 1. This inventory forms the foundation for the impact assessment, which will be described in Phase 3. Data comes from sources such as process data, design data, industry data averages, public data, and/or set default values. All data and assumptions need to be referenced, and the collection process and timing of the data must be included. The better the data, the more reliable and accurate the calculations. Depending on the model applied for determining the CI scores of RD and SAF, there are different default values available. This is especially clear when including the feedstock indirect land-use change (iLUC) value. Currently, the iLUC values of the different models available vary widely (see Figure 3 ). Life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA): This phase uses the results of the earlier phases to determine and evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the product or system. This is typically defined in the
www.decarbonisationtechnology.com
6
goal and scope phase. Key categories include global warming potential (GWP), resource depletion, and water use. Different impact categories are identified and quantified, from climate change to acidification and land use. Interpretation: In this phase, the results are interpreted against the study’s original goals and scope. This includes identifying significant issues, drawing conclusions, and making recommendations for reducing environmental impacts. It is essential to fully describe assumptions, describe sources of data, and test sensitivity to different variables used to calculate CI scores. Highlighting uncertainty and variability without explaining its context in the study provides no inherent value and can expose companies to reputational and regulatory risks. Challenges in carbon accounting: Data, methodologies, and regulatory evolution While the benefits of carbon accounting are clear, its implementation across diverse industries and regions presents several challenges. One of the most significant challenges is data identification, selection, availability, and quality. Carbon accounting involves the meticulous management of information and relying on precise and comprehensive data, which can be difficult to acquire, particularly for first-of-a-kind, new processes and industries with complex global supply chains. Although the data might be available, decisions on the formatting, collection, and sharing of the data are a challenge. For example, the agriculture sector, which provides feedstocks for biofuels like RD and SAF, involves multiple stakeholders across different regions, each with its unique data collection practices. Inconsistent or incomplete data can lead to a high range of uncertainty in the calculated CI scores, jeopardising a company’s compliance with regulatory programmes and its ability to participate in carbon markets. Another challenge is the variability between carbon accounting models and methodologies. Models are the software tools used to calculate GHG emissions, while methodologies refer to the underlying frameworks that define how, when, where, and why data is assessed. Different industries and regions use various models, each with unique default values, units, and data requirements. For example, the Argonne GREET
100
90.8
82.3
80
60
35.7
40
20
0
Credits for soil carbon management
-20
-40
CORSIA (ICAO)
RFS (EPA)
GREET 2022
No til l age Manure management Cover cropping
Net GHG emissions
Direct supply chain emissions ILUC emissions
(Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Technologies) model is commonly used in the US to calculate CI scores for transportation fuels, whereas regions like Canada may use models such as GHGenius or openLCA. The differences in methodologies make comparing CI scores across projects and geographies challenging. Moreover, the regulatory landscape for carbon accounting is constantly evolving. Governments worldwide are updating and expanding their climate policies to meet local and global emission reduction targets. These updates often dictate the models and methodologies required for calculating compliance or participation within a regulated environment. Regulations set the rules for how carbon accounting must be conducted and can affect reporting requirements, which may complicate companies’ efforts to align with these rules. Therefore, companies must proactively monitor regulatory changes and adjust their practices to maintain compliance. Government incentives in renewable fuels Today, the production of renewable fuels like RD and/or SAF needs substantial governmental incentives to be financially feasible, and many countries are incorporating them into their low- Figure 3 Different LCA models include different iLUC default values and yield different results. This chart shows life-cycle emissions estimates for corn ethanol-to-jet. Source: The International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT, 2023)
www.decarbonisationtechnology.com
7
Region
GHG reduction requirement RD and SAF
LCA model requirement
(minimum)
US Renewable Fuel
Biomass RD and SAF (D4 and D5 Renewable Identification Numbers, or RINs); 50%
Not known
Standard (RFS)
US State Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS)
CI dependent
California: CA-GREET Oregon: OR-GREET Washington: WA-GREET
Programmes
US Inflation Reduction
Section 45Z, <50 kgCO 2 e/MMBtu Section 45V, CI <4 kgCO 2 e/kgH 2
TBD
Act (IRA)
40VH2-GREET
Canada Clean Fuel Regulations (CFR)
CI dependent
openLCA
EU Renewable Energy (e.g. British Columbia) Canadian Provincial LCFS
CI dependent
GHGenius
Biofuels <65-80%
RED Specific
Directive (REDIII)
Recycled carbon fuel (RCF) and renewable fuels of non-biological origin (RFNBOs) <70%
Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA)
SAF <10%
ICAO-GREET
Table 1 Most fuel programmes have different GHG reduction criteria and use different models Source: EcoEngineers
carbon fuel standards or ESG programmes. Some governments offer financial incentives to promote production, while others impose penalties on companies that fail to meet minimum renewable fuel quotas or carbon-reduction targets. Depending on the regulatory programme, renewable fuel producers must adhere to published models and verification methodologies and ensure LCAs are conducted in a manner that complies with government regulations. Regulatory programmes: A multi-layered approach In the US, various regulatory bodies and programmes provide financial incentives to encourage renewable fuel production (see Table 1 ). Some key programmes include: • Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): This US policy requires obligated parties like refiners and importers to meet annual renewable volume obligations (RVOs) through the purchase and retirement of Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs). The RFS programme is structured into four nested categories (D3, D4, D5, and D6), each with specific GHG-reduction targets compared to their petroleum-based counterparts. However, USEPA, which administers and
enforces the RFS, does not publicly disclose the precise calculation methodologies used to determine these GHG reductions. In certain cases, pre-defined GHG-reduction targets are outlined for specific processes. • California Low Carbon Fuel Standard (CA- LCFS): California’s LCFS programme is perhaps the most influential to the transportation fuels market in the US. It aims to reduce GHG emissions and dependence on petroleum- based fuels by increasing the use of low-carbon transportation fuels. The programme rewards producers of low-carbon fuels with credits, which can be sold to parties with deficits. These credits and deficits are calculated using the CA- GREET model, which is derived from Argonne (ANL) GREET and based on different ANL- GREET versions, including CA-LCFS-specific modifications and datasets. Several other US states, such as Oregon, Washington, and New Mexico, have implemented similar LCFS programmes, often relying on slightly modified versions of the CA- GREET model to calculate CI scores. The state- level programmes generally mirror California’s LCFS in design and purpose but may have different requirements and nuances.
www.decarbonisationtechnology.com
8
Where energies make tomorrow
Technip Energies is a global leader in the ethylene industry and advanced decarbonization solutions. From technology licensing to engineering and construction, we assist our clients in delivering ethylene complexes while lowering CO 2 emissions through energy efficiency, electrification, hydrogen utilization and carbon capture. We bring innovative projects to life, breaking boundaries to transform the energy landscape and accelerate the energy transition. www.ten.com Driving ethylene decarbonization
Ethylene by
International regulations: Harmonising CI calculations On the international stage, countries like Canada and regions such as the European Union (EU) have also adopted carbon accounting frameworks that are designed to support the transition to renewable fuels (see Table 1 ): • In Canada, federal regulations rely on the openLCA model to calculate CI scores for its Clean Fuel Regulations (CFR), while British Columbia uses the GHGenius model (an Excel-based spreadsheet model) for its LCFS programme. These models help to regulate and provide financial incentives for producers of renewable fuels while promoting adherence to carbon-reduction goals. • In Europe, the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) III and its implementing measures set minimum blending mandates for RD and SAF at minimum GHG-reduction targets, incentivising producers to incorporate renewable fuels into their portfolios while supporting the EU’s broader climate goals. • Globally, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) regulates SAF through its Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA). To estimate and verify the CI scores of CORSIA-approved SAF pathways, ICAO has developed its version of the GREET model, known as ICAO-GREET, to help ensure compliance with global aviation emissions reduction targets. In the US, tax credits have become another key component of renewable fuel incentives, as demonstrated by several provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA): • 40BSAF-GREET: This model, adopted by the US Department of the Treasury, calculates the
CI score for a particular set of parameters for SAF production under the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Credit (Section 40B), including meeting other policies such as prevailing wage, US-made content, and apprenticeship requirement. The CI score determines the credit generation range of the produced fuel. In 2025, Section 40B is expected to be replaced by the Section 45Z Clean Fuel Production Tax Credit. • 45VH2-GREET: Another US Treasury- approved model, 45VH2-GREET, determines emissions rates for clean hydrogen production tax credits under Section 45V of the US tax code. These credits aim to incentivise clean hydrogen production, with substantial financial rewards tied to achieving low CI scores. By establishing these frameworks, governments are encouraging producers to adopt more sustainable practices and meet increasingly stringent environmental requirements, driving the renewable fuel market forward, promoting innovation, and making low-carbon technologies more economically viable. Optimising ROI by improving CI scores Grasping the complexities and significance of data management and the timing of LCAs is central to success in regulatory compliance markets that use CI scores. However, managing CI scores alone is not equivalent to success in carbon accounting. Instead, companies must measure variables through LCAs that allow for calculating a CI score, representing one method or aspect of carbon accounting. Companies that understand the intricacies of CI-related compliance requirements, timing, data management, and the available LCA models can unlock substantial financial incentives.
Clean hydrogen production credit (45V)
45V Tax credit ($/kg-H -produced)
Credit awards clean hydrogen producers for every kilogram of hydrogen produced in the US 45V can serve as a key driver to bring clean hydrogen cost down Department of Treasury released proposed rule in December 2023
Well-to-Gate carbon intensity (kgCO e/kgH )
Meets labour standards
Doesn’t meet labour standards
<4, ≥ 2.5
$0.60 $0.75 $1.00 $3.00
$0.12 $0.15 $0.20 $0.60
<2.5, ≥ 1.5 <1.5, ≥ 0.45
<0.45
Figure 4 Section 45V under the U.S. IRA provides incentives for low-CI hydrogen Source: US Department of Energy (US DoE, 2023)
www.decarbonisationtechnology.com
10
Clean fuels tax credits (45Z)
In January 2025, the sustainable aviation fuel tax credit transitions to a per-gallon credit for all clean fuel that incentives low-carbon fuels Law divides clean fuels into two categories: 1) Sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) and 2) All other fuels The tax credit is in e ect for three years, from 2025-2027 Registration is currently open and must be completed to claim credit
Carbon intensity (gCO e/MU)
45Z Value - Non-SAF ($/gal)
45Z Value - SAF ($/gal)
47 or greater
0
0
38 24
0.20 0.5 0 0.80
0.35 0.88 1.75 1.40
9.5
0
1.0
Figure 5 Under the Section 45Z tax credit, SAF producers are incentivised to reduce the CI of SAF/RD Source: US Department of Energy (US DoE, 2024) Summary
Some programmes are considering penalties for entities that fail to meet minimum CI limits, making precise compliance with regulatory requirements essential. For instance, under Section 45V of the US IRA, producers of clean hydrogen can earn up to $3.00/kg of hydrogen produced if the CI score is below 0.45kg CO₂e/kg of hydrogen, contingent on meeting other key requirements like prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements (see Figure 4 ). Similarly, under the Section 45Z tax credit, which is expected to go into effect in January 2025, SAF producers can receive up to $1.75 per gallon (/gal) if they achieve a zero CI score in gCO 2 /MJ (see Figure 5 ). The ability to report on verified CI scores provides producers with several competitive advantages, including: Increased financial returns: By lowering CI scores, companies can potentially earn more tax credits and generate more credits in regulated fuel and voluntary carbon markets. Access to new markets: Governments worldwide are increasingly prioritising low- carbon products. By improving CI scores, companies can potentially access new markets with stricter carbon regulations or attract environmentally conscious buyers. Enhanced brand reputation: Companies with strong carbon accounting practices and low CI scores can enhance their brand reputation, appealing to investors, customers, and other key stakeholders. Risk mitigation: By adhering to evolving carbon regulations and continuously improving CI scores, companies can mitigate the risk of penalties or exclusion from key markets.
As the global economy transitions toward a low-carbon future, carbon accounting will play an increasingly central role in shaping the strategies and success of industries worldwide. The evolution of regulatory frameworks, financial incentives, and carbon markets presents opportunities and challenges for producers in the renewable fuel sector. By fully understanding and embracing carbon accounting practices, ensuring proper data management, and leveraging advanced tools, companies can better manage the complexities of the carbon economy and achieve their sustainability goals. Renewable fuels like RD and SAF are poised to become critical components of the global energy transition, especially as governments set more ambitious climate targets. While production costs remain a challenge, combining financial incentives, tax credits, and carbon trading schemes can make low-carbon fuels a viable option for companies willing to invest in CI score optimisation and compliance. Ultimately, proper carbon accounting offers a technical blueprint for organisations to drive their low-carbon strategy, meet regulatory requirements, and thrive in a low- carbon, competitive market. For companies across industries – from renewable fuels to manufacturing – carbon accounting is no longer optional but a key driver of long-term profitability and sustainability. VIEW REFERENCES Kristine Klavers kklavers@ecoengineers.us
www.decarbonisationtechnology.com
11
It’s the“aha”moment when a client realizes what Crystaphase brings to any challenge.Deep-dive analysis by expert teams. Highly advanced filtration technologies.Carefully tailored solutions that bring out the best in your reactor. Active collaboration throughout every step of the process. That’s the Crystaphase Experience.
crystaphase.com
Key to scalable, sustainable hydrocarbon fuels A novel iron-based catalyst and process directly convert CO2 and green H2 from water into jet fuel range hydrocarbons in one step, reducing Capex and Opex
Andrew Symes OXCCU
T o prevent global temperatures from surpassing the critical two-degree threshold, a rapid transition away from using fossil fuels must occur within the next 30 years. This has led some to assume that all refineries and petrochemical plants will have to shut down, but this is incorrect. While they need to change radically, and some may be replaced, they will not all be replaced entirely, as demand for hydrocarbons in certain sectors will remain. Wherever possible, renewable electricity should be used directly due to efficiency, but only hydrocarbons will suffice in some sectors. The critical change will be the inputs. Refineries and petrochemical plants must rapidly move from using fossil fuels as their feedstocks to using a source of recycled carbon with green electricity, as articulated in a recently published paper in Nature ( Vogt and Weckhuysen, 2024 ). Continued need for hydrocarbons Aviation will continue to need hydrocarbon fuels due to its energy density requirements. While some reduction in aviation fuel demand may be necessary, particularly where there is excessive flying – such as short flights – significant demand will remain. It is unrealistic to expect people to stop flying or demand that politicians ban it. In fact, rather than seeking to ban aviation, many want to ensure that flight is available for future generations and people in developing countries. Flights without hydrocarbons remain a distant prospect. Electric or hydrogen planes for long- distance flights face huge challenges with safety, refuelling, and range due to energy density, and lighter-than-air flights (airships) will always be limited in terms of speed.
Additionally, hydrocarbon fuels will always be needed in military operations. With the urgent need to reduce emissions, a source of sustainable hydrocarbon aviation fuel, SAF, will play a vital role in meeting these needs with far fewer emissions. In the same way, hydrocarbons are essential for the production of plastics and chemicals. It is unrealistic to expect a total ban, especially where they are critical for medicine, healthcare, food production, transport, and electronics. Reducing the excessive use of plastic is important, particularly as many unnecessary single-use applications are causing a huge waste problem and the increasing issue of microplastics. Likewise, excessive chemical use should be stopped, as it can contaminate soil, water, and air, harming human health and biodiversity. However, some sectors will need to continue, or even increase, their use of chemicals and plastics to improve life expectancy, human prosperity, and economic growth. These must be made with fewer emissions to reduce their climate impact. To supply these critical hydrocarbons with fewer emissions, fossil carbon, crude oil, coal, or natural gas must be replaced by a source of recycled or surface carbon and varying amounts of low carbon intensity hydrogen, such as that derived from electricity generated from renewable sources. The three options are biomass, plastic waste, or carbon dioxide (CO₂). Despite requiring the most green electricity input via green hydrogen, CO₂-based hydrocarbons are predicted to be the largest component over time due to the challenges with biomass or plastic waste as feedstocks. Feedstock challenges First-generation biomass feedstocks, such as oil
www.decarbonisationtechnology.com
13
Plastics
Chemicals
Aviation fuel
CO
OXCCU
Product use
H
Circular c arbon u tilisation
CO + H O
CO Capture
Figure 1 Circular carbon utilisation
green hydrogen are the feedstocks (see Figure 1 ), and this has some key advantages despite the significant requirement for green electricity. Most importantly, in utilising CO₂ as the feedstock along with green hydrogen from renewable energy, e-fuels or PtL have the potential for scale with minimal impact on land use. The fuel can be circular if the CO₂ has recently originated from the atmosphere. CO₂, which was recently in the atmosphere, is made into a fuel and then returns there as CO₂ when burned. There are two types: direct air capture (DAC) CO₂, where a machine captures the CO₂ from the air using green energy, or biogenic CO₂, where a plant captures the CO₂ from the air to make biomass. The biomass is harvested and used to make a product, producing waste CO₂ in the process. This waste ‘biogenic’ CO₂ is captured and used to make a fuel that releases the CO₂ to the atmosphere when burned. Assuming the plant can regrow fairly quickly to make more biomass, capturing more CO₂ from the atmosphere, the process achieves circularity. Ethanol production and anaerobic digestion are continuous sources of biogenic CO₂ that is destined for the atmosphere anyway, derived from crops that will regrow. Transition from fossil carbon to surface carbon If fossil CO₂ is used, the byproduct of processes that use fossil fuels (or mineral CO₂ in the case of cement), a low-carbon fuel is created. It is not circular, as carbon originally trapped underground still ends up in the atmosphere as CO₂. However,
crop-based biodiesel and SAF, produced through the hydrogenated esters and fatty acids (HEFA) process, and ethanol from corn fermentation, dominate biofuel and biochemical production today. However, their growth is severely limited by competition with food crops, land use constraints, and, in the case of ethanol, the costly requirement of additional units to convert ethanol into more valuable long-chain hydrocarbons through olefins and oligomerisation. Second-generation carbon waste-based fuels form a diverse category with a wide variety of feedstocks and conversion processes but most commonly involve a type of lignocellulosic waste (biomass waste), municipal solid waste (rubbish), or plastic waste. The processes generally entail heating the waste without oxygen via pyrolysis to convert it to a liquid or turning the waste into gas through gasification and then converting that gas into a liquid. Crop waste fermentation to ethanol is also possible but still has technical challenges despite efforts over the last 20 years. All these processes can play a role in the biofuel and biochemical landscape. However, they all suffer from the same challenges: securing, aggregating, and sorting the feedstock and ensuring the intermediate liquid or gas in the process is free of the contaminants in the feedstock. Power-to-liquids This has led to excitement around the newest option, CO₂-based fuels, chemicals, and plastics, often called power to liquids (PtL). Here, CO₂ and
www.decarbonisationtechnology.com
14
the process substantially reduces total emissions, as fewer fossil fuels need to be dug up to supply the same amount of end product. In this scenario, CO₂ is recycled, which would otherwise have been emitted. This means getting two uses out of some of the carbon that has been dug up before it ends up in the atmosphere. It improves the world’s carbon efficiency. It is progress, but not perfection. The priority is still to eliminate the 38 billion tonnes of fossil CO₂ emitted annually, and being able to use it should not be an excuse to keep infrastructure, such as coal power plants, when these can be replaced by zero-carbon alternatives. However, in sectors like cement production, it is very unlikely that all CO₂ emissions will be eliminated in the short term. In such cases, reusing a fraction of that CO₂ to reduce oil demand and overall emissions is a logical step, while working towards a future where only biogenic or DAC CO₂ is used. Hence, while there must be a shift from fossil carbon to surface carbon (biomass, DAC CO₂, and biogenic CO₂), realistically this will take time and investment, and recycling fossil CO₂ during the transition represents a step in the right direction. Ultimately, no fuel, chemical or plastic will ever be perfect in terms of emissions. Even if DAC and 100% renewable electricity are used, there are emissions embedded in the production of the equipment used, land use impacts of DAC in particular, non-CO₂ effects associated with aviation emissions due to contrails, and the potential for warming from hydrogen leakage. These will all need to be factored into a good life-cycle analysis (LCA). LCAs provide a comprehensive and accurate assessment of the total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the fuel or product across its entire life-cycle. They cover all life-cycle stages, use consistent boundaries and reliable data, account for direct and indirect emissions, and convert all GHGs into CO₂e, enabling transparency and comparability. The source of CO₂ and H₂ will directly affect the overall environmental score. To qualify as SAF or a low-emissions chemical or plastic, emissions must be below a certain threshold. Currently, the barrier to scaling PtL is cost. While over the longer term, the more difficult constraint could be access to surface CO₂, currently there are numerous biogenic CO₂ sources to use. The bigger
challenge currently is accessing low-cost green hydrogen. The good news is that the electrolyser industry is starting to scale, and the cost of green electricity continues to fall as more and more renewable electricity is rolled out. An efficient industrial process is needed to convert CO₂ and hydrogen into hydrocarbons. We want the minimum number of steps, the lowest energy input, and the highest selectivity, so the maximum amount of carbon and hydrogen goes into the product rather than byproducts. The production of water is inevitable because both oxygens have to be taken off the CO2 and turned to water to make a deoxygenated hydrocarbon fuel. The goal is to have all the remaining hydrogen not making water, and all the carbon transformed into valuable hydrocarbon products. The good news is that if enough hydrogen is used in the 3:1 ratio, the reaction is thermodynamically favoured (negative change in Gibbs free energy), and the reactor will release heat (exothermic) rather than requiring energy input. The challenge is twofold: the kinetic stability of the CO 2 , and being able to direct the reactions that occur towards making longer deoxygenated hydrocarbon chains rather than methane, light hydrocarbon gases, or alcohols. OXCCU’s direct hydrogenation process This ‘direct hydrogenation’ of CO₂ to long-chain deoxygenated hydrocarbons in a single step is a fairly new area of research. The vast majority of Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) research over the last 100 years has focused on syngas (CO and H₂) to fuels in countries that have coal or gas and want to reduce oil imports rather than using CO₂ and H₂. Hence, the main focus of PtL processes to date has been the ‘two-step approach’. Here, CO₂ is first converted to CO via the reverse gas shift reaction, and then combined with H₂ to get to syngas, which can be used with conventional F-T catalysts (normally cobalt-based) (see Figure 2 ). The challenge is that the first reverse gas shift step is expensive from both a Capex and Opex perspective, and it does not match well with the F-T process. This is because it is an endothermic reaction that operates at 700-1,000°C, while the F-T reaction is a highly exothermic reaction that is normally kept down at 280°C. Reverse water gas shift (RWGS) requires a large energy input, which cannot be efficiently provided by the low-
www.decarbonisationtechnology.com
15
Industry standard: Indirect
Unconverted CO
Unconverted syngas
After treatment
RWGS
F-T
Separator
Separator
CO + H
CO + H O
CO + 2H -(CH )- + H O
SA F
CO H
Unconverted syngas
After treatment
OXCCU
Separator
Proprietary catalyst
CO + 3H -(CH )- + 2H O
OXCCU: Direct
Figure 2 Indirect and direct hydrogenation of CO₂
temperature heat from the F-T reaction. RWGS also requires either a new, complex and difficult- to-scale electrically heated reactor design, or an autothermal reforming (ATR)-like reactor that burns hydrogen, resulting in significant energy loss and high operational cost. The F-T reaction itself can also require expensive reactor designs as it is very exothermic and, as mentioned earlier, needs to be kept down at 280°C. The solution is a multifunctional heterogeneous catalyst with a surface on which both reactions, RWGS and F-T, can take place (see Figure 3 ). A metal surface can bind CO₂ and then encourage the F-T chain growth reactions, which form the long-chain hydrocarbons, to occur by lowering their activation energies while suppressing methane, light gas, and oxygenate formation. The key was to go back to the iron F-T catalysts, and this is what OXCCU did. It is now scaling its patented, highly selective iron F-T catalysts for the direct hydrogenation of CO₂. Based on more than a decade of research within the University
of Oxford chemistry department and then spun out into OXCCU ( Yao, et al. 2020 ), novel catalysts with high conversion and selectivity have been developed, which result in a more efficient process with lower costs to convert CO₂ and H₂ directly to long-chain hydrocarbons. With fewer steps involved, there is a reduction in Capex and Opex, ultimately leading to lower fuel costs. This emphasis on cost reduction is supported by independent researchers from Imperial College London, who demonstrated that OXCCU’s one-step technology has a 50% lower capital cost, lower operation costs, and a reduced environmental impact compared to other methods that utilise multi-step processes to create jet fuel. Before selling as jet fuel, OXCCU will need confirmation that it is within the ASTM D7566 route for F-T SPK. Currently, the F-T SPK annex 1 refers to ‘syngas’ as the feedstock. While syngas is not specifically defined, it is generally understood that it consists mainly of CO and H₂, not CO₂ and H₂. The OXCCU process, while having only CO₂ and H₂ as the feedstock, still involves CO and H₂ on the surface. Sometimes CO₂ turns to CO on the surface and immediately undergoes a chain growth reaction. Other times, CO formed leaves the surface but is recycled, rebinds, and then undergoes F-T chain growth. Hence, all the CO₂ in the OXCCU process goes via ‘syngas’ and fits the standards. The only difference between the two-step F-T, which has already been confirmed as acceptable, and the OXCCU one-step F-T process is that the RWGS step happens on the same catalyst surface as the F-T. The intermediate is CO and H₂ (syngas) in both cases, as per annex 1.
E-Hydrocarbons
CO
H
H O
Figure 3 Dual-function catalyst for CO₂ conversion
www.decarbonisationtechnology.com
16
2027 Series B
2030 Technology
Demo plant 2024 Deliver kg/day plant in Oxford
package licenced globally Licence
2028 Deliver 10 ton/day plant Commercial plant
Shape catalyst 2022
2026 Deliver 160 kg/day plant
Catalyst IP Filed 2020 Patent led and paper published
3,000 hours stability test in shaped form
2025 Series A2
Catalyst R&D 2010 Early research starts
FOAK plant
2023 £18m Series A
2021 £2m Spin out and seed
2014 EPSRC research funding
Figure 4 OXCCU’s pathway to scale
meaning the technology will be substantially derisked. The current target start date is 2026. The OX3 plant will be OXCCU’s commercial facility, which it plans to licence to a project developer, though it expects to be heavily involved. The company anticipates it will produce 10-20 tonnes of liquid fuel per day and generate both e-naphtha for chemicals and plastics, as well as e-SAF to help meet aviation fuel mandates. A key factor for success will be OXCCU’s significantly reduced Capex costs compared to others due to the advantages of the one-step process and the ability to utilise existing refinery infrastructure where possible for distillation, hydrotreatment, and blending. ASTM allows up to 5% co-processing with F-T SPK, and current SAF mandates and recycled chemical and plastic regulations allow for mass balancing. Conclusion Hydrocarbons are incredible materials, deeply linked to human progress, and cannot always be substituted. The good news is that the fossil type do not have to be used; they can be obtained another way, which reduces their emissions, enabling their continued use. The most scalable is PtL, but the challenge is cost. OXCCU is focused on developing the lowest cost PtL pathway via direct hydrogenation of CO₂, eliminating the RWGS step, and has a path to scale its technology. VIEW REFERENCES Andrew Symes andrew.symes@oxccu.com
Pathway to scale With £2m seed funding, OXCCU built its own lab and established an excellent team of chemists and chemical engineers. It successfully replicated the results from the Nature paper over extended periods and in an industrial format. In 2023, OXCCU secured an £18 million Series A funding round led by Boston-based Clean Energy Ventures, along with support from IP Group, Aramco, Eni, United Airlines, Braavos, Trafigura, University of Oxford, TEV, and Doral, with the purpose of building its OX1 plant in its new site in Oxford Airport. OX1 is now operational, producing 1.2 litres of liquid fuel per day, and will demonstrate the effect of the recycled gases in the recycle loop. It represents a significant scale-up from the lab by a factor of 1,000 and will be operated by OXCCU’s growing chemical engineering team. In the OX1 kg/day plant, OXCCU is currently using bottled hydrogen and CO₂, so the fuel is not yet low-carbon. However, the purpose of this plant is to demonstrate its catalyst and process outside of the lab rather than to produce fuel with an excellent LCA. The key is that there is a clear roadmap for scaling and LCA improvement with OX2 (see Figure 4 ). OXCCU’s first-of-a-kind (FOAK) OX2 plant will be based in Saltend Chemical Park, Hull in Humberside and is set to produce 200 litres of liquid fuel per day. Operated by PX Group, it will use green hydrogen and biogenic CO₂. This will provide all the fuel and data required for OXCCU to be able to licence its process to commercial projects. Crucially, the reactor tube dimensions, diameter and height will remain the same,
www.decarbonisationtechnology.com
17
AHEAD A long history of looking
For nearly a century, Grace catalysts have kept fuel and petrochemical feedstocks flowing from the industry’s largest refineries to the trucks, trains, planes, and ships that keep our world running. We are leveraging our long history of innovation in fluid catalytic cracking to develop products that enable lower carbon fuels and help meet the challenges of the energy transition.
grace.com
Advanced gasification for waste-to-energy products
Supportive policy needs to address development challenges
Amna Bezanty KEW Technology
W e are at the heart of two major parallel market evolutions; the energy trilemma, in which the UK, along with many other parts of the world, grapples with the affordability, security and sustainability of energy and the creation of a circular economy (see Figure 1 ). The issue with waste and problematic non- recyclable and single-use waste continues to be a major challenge. There is much talk of creating circular economies where waste is reused or regenerated as a material or product, but how do we deal with the vast quantities of different waste generated worldwide? At the top of the circular waste hierarchy (see Figure 2 ) is reduction. We all know we have to create less waste. Then, there is reuse and recycle. Travel down the pyramid, and you hit the well-known solutions of how we traditionally deal with waste – incineration backed up by disposal in landfill. For many years, this has been the primary way local authorities have managed their waste, working with waste management
companies to take as much waste as possible away from landfill and incinerate. However, we are facing a huge problem – not just with the vast amounts of waste still generated but also with the pathway to net zero. The waste sector is a significant carbon emitter, with incineration accounting for around 4% of the UK’s total emissions, and this is set to rise. Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) The government has also announced that, from 2028, domestic maritime transport, waste incineration, and energy from the waste sector will be added to its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) for the first time. Designed to tighten limits on emissions across key sectors such as industrial and aviation as the UK pushes for net zero, this change will have major implications. In an effort to ensure a level playing field across different technologies, the scheme is targeting incineration, combustion, and energy recovery from waste, including emerging technology like
Reduction
A ordability
Reduction Reuse
A ordability
Reuse
Recycling
Energy Trilemma
Recycling
Waste to molecules
Conversion
Energy Trilemma
Waste to molecules Incineration
Conversion
Recovery
Security
Sustainability
Recovery
Incineration
Security
Sustainability
Disposal
Land ll
Disposal
Land ll
Creating a ‘circular’ wa st e hierachy (our focus: keeping chemical energy as chemical energy) Creating a ‘circular’ wa st e hierachy (our focus: keeping chemical energy as chemical energy)
Figure 2 Circular waste hierarchy
Figure 1 The energy trilemma
www.decarbonisationtechnology.com
19
could fundamentally change the waste management system by decarbonising waste before it hits incineration and landfill. KEW’s advanced gasification technology The use of ACT operating at elevated pressure gasification (8 bar rather than atmospheric) allows the higher-efficiency conversion of carbon-rich feedstocks such as waste and non- recyclable materials and biomass into valuable products such as syngas (a mixture of hydrogen and carbon dioxide, CO₂). A feedstock can essentially be anything you put into the process, such as municipal solid waste (MSW) from households, commercial and industrial waste, medical waste, and biomass, including wood, crops, agricultural and forestry waste, and sewerage sludge. Unlike incineration, which burns waste materials in the presence of excess air to produce heat and ash, gasification uses limited oxygen to partially oxidise the feedstock (see Figure 3 ). This process generates syngas and reduces the volume of residual ash, offering a cleaner and more controlled approach to waste conversion. Being able to achieve a consistent hydrogen- rich, tar-free syngas composition regardless of the feedstock type and composition is a critical pathway to high-value energy molecules. Ideally co-located on waste disposal sites, it means any feedstock can be used to produce the same consistent compressed fuel (syngas), halving the energy needed to compress captured CO2 and drastically reducing costs and greenhouse gas emissions (see Figures 4 and 5 ). This could allow waste suppliers to convert their ‘dirtiest’ waste, which costs them (and
Combustion High presence of oxygen low heat
Gasi cation
Pyrolysis No oxygen high heat
Correct presence and balance of oxygen and high heat
Advanced Conversion Technology (ACT), such as advanced gasification, or Advanced Thermal Treatment (ATT), such as pyrolysis. Waste management in the UK currently relies heavily on incineration and combustion, both of which produce significant fossil CO2 emissions. However, by including innovative technologies that can transform waste into valuable resources while reducing carbon emissions, some emerging technologies will be severely disadvantaged. Given the lead times for changing waste management practices, many waste suppliers are looking for viable pathways to net-zero solutions and are currently trying to decarbonise via economically and technically challenging heat offtake or carbon capture, use and storage (CCUS). The expansion of the scheme while solutions are still needed puts it at risk of becoming counterproductive. Taxing waste-to-energy, such as waste-to-syngas and similar products, without a policy support scheme in place acknowledging their lower carbon nature could undermine their potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by placing too great an economic burden on their innovation. These technologies Figure 3 Combustion, gasification, and pyrolysis differ in their requirement for oxygen and heat
Non-recyclable waste from household, textiles and C&I and m unicipal s olid waste
Agricultural biomass, forestry residues, virgin or waste wood biomass
Sewage sludge, digestate Industrials’ byproduct waste e.g. pulp and paper clients, glass recycling clients
Figure 4 A variety of feedstocks can be used for gasification
www.decarbonisationtechnology.com
20
Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84Powered by FlippingBook