Science & Society 4 Glick, B.R. (2012) Plant growth-promoting bacteria: mechanisms and applications. Scientifica 2012, 15 5 Maiden, M.C. et al. (1998) Multilocus sequence typing: a portable approach to the identification of clones within populations of pathogenic microorganisms. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 95, 3140–3145 6 Montesinos, E. (2003) Development, registration and commercialization of microbial pesticides for plant protection. Int. Microbiol. 6, 245–252 7 Bashan, Y. et al. (2014) Advances in plant growth-promoting bacterial inoculant technology: formulations and practical perspectives (1998– 2013). Plant Soil 378, 1–33 8 Zachow, C. et al. (2009) The Caenorhabditis elegans assay: a tool to evaluate the pathogenic potential of bacterial biocontrol agents. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 125, 367–376 9 Umesha, S. et al. (2008) A novel indicator plant to test the hypersensitivity of phytopathogenic bacteria. J. Microbiol. Methods 72, 95–97
Trends in Biotechnology October 2014, Vol. 32, No. 10 10 FAO (2013) Advancement of Pesticide Regulatory Management in Asia, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific 11 European Commission (2009) Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC. Official J. Eur. Union L 309, 1–50 12 Alabouvette, C. et al. (2006) Biological control of plant diseases: the European situation. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 114, 329–341 13 Borriss, R. (2011) Use of plant-associated Bacillus strains as biofertilizers and biocontrol agents in agriculture. In Bacteria in Agrobiology: Plant Growth Responses (Maheshwari, D.K., ed.), pp. 41–76, Springer 14 Cotes, A.M. (2011) Registry and regulation of biocontrol agents on food commodities in South America. Acta Hortic. 905, 301–306
Biorefining policy needs to come of age Pierre-Alain Schieb1 and Jim C. Philp2 1
NEOMA Business School, 59 rue Pierre Taittinger, 51061 Reims, France Science and Technology Policy Division, Directorate for Science, Technology, and Industry, OECD, 2 rue Andre´-Pascal, Paris 75775, France
2
After significant delays, the first commercial cellulosic biorefinery is open in Europe and three more are due this year in the USA, with others soon to follow. Although biofuels might be the mainstay, there has been a significant shift in emphasis towards bio-based chemicals. A major bio-based public–private partnership has launched in Europe, but obstacles to biorefining remain, and public policy is not yet directed at enabling the integrated biorefineries of the future.
The importance of 2014 The arrival, albeit on a small scale, of cellulosic biorefining heralds a landmark achievement that could enable more future success. However, it has arrived late and, with high capital costs compared with first-generation ethanol plants, cellulosic biorefining in the USA will rely on the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) for some time before subsidies can be removed [1]. Meanwhile, there is a significant industry and government shift in emphasis from biofuels to bio-based chemicals. For example, the 2014 US Farm Bill has changed the USDA 9003 program title from the ‘Biorefinery Assistance Program’ to the ‘Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Program’. The small companies in the vanguard of bio-based production have encountered challenges in making biofuels on the large scale required to influence the market [2]. It has long been known in the fossil industry that the small proportion of crude oil used for chemicals and plastics production represents a disproportionately high Corresponding author: Philp, J.C. ([email protected]) 0167-7799/ ß 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2014.08.006
496
percentage of the profits earned from integrated fuel and petrochemical complexes [3]. A mature biorefining industry is likely to display the same economics. However, integrated biorefining models, although often discussed, are not as mature as single-feedstock, singleproduct models. In late 2014, the commercialization of 1,4-butanediol (BDO) will happen in Italy (a joint venture between Genomatica and Novamont) and, early in 2015, the largest-scale bio-based succinic acid plant of BioAmber to date will open in Canada. Work is also moving apace in France (Global Bioenergies) to commercialize bio-based olefins, the building blocks of the petrochemicals industry. Fermentationbased vanillin from Evolva first entered the market in 2014 [4]. A group of second-generation companies is working on high-value food and fragrance molecules, such as resveratrol, astaxanthin, and cis-3-hexenol. Public–private partnerships and loan guarantees: the mainstay of biorefinery public policy For the USA to replace approximately 20% of its petrochemical consumption with bio-based products over the next decade, as many as ten commercial-scale bio-based production plants would be required. This would need approximately US$50 billion in capital, mostly from private investors [5]. However, these are very high-risk plants, and public–private partnerships are seen as central to derisking these investments. Loan guarantees can be used to give investors confidence that governments are willing to create a long-term stable policy regime. Both the US Department of Energy (USDOE) and US Department of Agriculture (USDA) have used loan guarantees extensively, and all three cellulosic biorefineries due to open in late 2014 are supported this way. The bio-based industries initiative (Bio-based Industries Consortium) is a major, newly launched public–private
Science & Society
Trends in Biotechnology October 2014, Vol. 32, No. 10
partnership for the bio-based industries in the European Union (EU) [6]. Currently, there are approximately 70 private industry partners and over 100 public partners, and it has leveraged almost three times as much private finance as public finance. Is rural biorefining viable? The logic is clear: build biorefineries near the biomass feedstocks, because biomass energy density is relatively low and, therefore, its transportation is inefficient and expensive. However, with commodity chemicals, cost drives everything, and policymakers should pay careful
attention to the petrochemicals trend of integration at massive facilities, which makes it hard for small-scale production to compete. Additionally, policymakers should weigh the benefits and costs when extra transport and energy infrastructure may be required. On occasions when there is an obvious viability for rural facilities, bringing together research, training, business services, and pilot, demonstration and full-scale production at a biorefining hub makes sense for a variety of reasons. From a regional public policy perspective, attracting research and development (R&D) and business services brings added value to rural regions, as well as
Box 1. Agro-Industrie Recherches et De´veloppements and Bioraffinerie Recherches et Innovation ARD is a mutualized private research structure, owned by major players in the French agribusiness as well as by regional farming cooperatives, the latter being a particular strength of this facility. It was created in 1989 by exploiting the notion of value creation through nonfood applications to find new opportunities from the produce of its shareholders (e.g., cereals, sugar beet, alfalfa, and oilseeds). Subsequently, ARD set up two subsidiaries: Soliance (molecules for cosmetic products), and the largest-capacity demonstration platform in France, BIODEMO, which has hosted Amyris and BioAmber, and will host Global Bioenergies in the future. The innovation hub BRI is an open hub in the field of biorefining. BRI brings together various biorefineries at Bazancourt-Pomacle (Figure I), the R&D centre for ARD, as well as the French engineering schools Ecole Centrale Paris, Agro Paris Tech, and NEOMA Business School. Therefore, it covers the value chain from fundamental research to the pre-industrial prototype. BRI is supported financially by the Ministry of Industry of France, the General Council of the Marne De´ partement, the Region Champagne-Ardenne, and the city of Reims. The combination of farming cooperatives, private industry, and backing through regional and national public policy and funding is perhaps the optimal model that can be reproduced in many locations.
Chamtor Wheat transformaon
Procéthol 2G FUTUROL project-second-generaon ethanol
Further added value can be created through an industrial ecology network (Figure II). It has become clear that the end-of-pipe philosophy is insufficient in pollution prevention. Equally, cleaner production has its limits. The industrial ecology approach [14] considers, in the absence of a viable cleaner production alternative, using waste as a marketable by-product. Using waste from one process as an input to another process at the same site removes transportation and waste disposal or treatment costs. Examples of synergies include: Water synergy: recovery of condensate: Chamtor uses 50 000 m3 of surplus condensate during the beet season. This results in energy recuperation and less groundwater pumping; Steam synergy: reciprocal steam use; Effluent synergy: purification, storage and agricultural use; Products synergy: products and by-products from one plant are used as raw materials in another; R&D synergy: research programs are conducted in cooperation with the ARD stakeholders; Energy synergy: use of steam from cogeneration to drive industrial processes e.g. in bioethanol production using sugar beet or wheat; Organizational synergy: in cooperation with the Industries et AgroRessources (IAR) cluster (http://www.iar-pole.com/?lang=en), synergies such as construction, operation, and training occur; and Drilling synergy: production of raw water for industrial use.
BioDémo Industrial demonstraon
ARD–research centre Soliance
Cristal union Sugar producer
Cristanol First-generaon ethanol
TRENDS in Biotechnology
Figure I. Business units at the Bazancourt-Pomacle site. Reproduced, with permission, from www.agrodistribution.fr, and Benoit Tremeau. Abbreviation: ARD, AgroIndustrie Recherches et De´veloppements.
497
Science & Society
Trends in Biotechnology October 2014, Vol. 32, No. 10
TRENDS in Biotechnology
Figure II. Synergies at the Bazancourt-Pomacle site. Reproduced, with permission, from Benoit Tremeau. Abbreviation: ARD, Agro-Industrie Recherches et De´veloppements.
enabling business service efficiencies that would otherwise be fragmented. An excellent example is the AgroIndustrie Recherches et De´veloppements–Bioraffinerie Recherches et Innovation (ARD/BRI) hub in northern France, where farming cooperatives are key stakeholders (Box 1). Policy gaps and conflicts Level the playing field between bio-based chemicals, biofuels, and bioenergy Generous policy incentives for ethanol and biodiesel abound in many countries [7]. More recently, there has been bounteous support given to bioenergy projects. The importance of wood pellets for large-scale power generation, driven by the EU Renewable Energy Directive, is increasing dramatically, and many European countries have become net importers [8]. Mandated targets, green electricity schemes, investment grants, and feed-in tariff policies have led to a situation where biomass is being systematically allocated to the biofuels and bioenergy sectors. Given that the pellets market is not constrained by demand but by supply, sharp increases in pellet prices can be expected. Biomass is available for bioenergy at prices that are lower than those for materials applications. The Confederation of European Paper Industries (CEPI) has predicted that, partly due to the demand for wood for 498
energy consumption by 2020, there will be a wood supply gap for material use between 2015 and 2020 [9]. This also conflicts with policies that relate to the cascading use of biomass [10]. Policies to secure sustainable feedstock supply chains Securing feedstocks is a policy area ripe for conflict with agricultural policy (e.g., food versus fuel), and this needs careful attention and consultation to avoid expensive and contradictory policy lock-ins. A related issue is the nascent realization by some governments that waste must begin to be treated as a resource [11] and that domestic waste contains large amounts of fermentable carbon that could be utilized in biorefineries. One huge advantage is that the infrastructure for collection of waste is almost universal and, in many countries, there is separation infrastructure for the purpose of recycling nonputrescible materials. Greenhouse gas emissions standards for bio-based chemicals To date, there are no standards for greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions for bio-based chemicals and plastics similar to those that exist in the RFS for biofuels [12]. These standards could help to steer both public grant applications and private business plans towards the bio-based production that is of greatest societal and environmental
Science & Society
Trends in Biotechnology October 2014, Vol. 32, No. 10
Box 2. The Centre for Chemical Process Innovation (CPI) model for industrial bioprocess development The CPI (www.uk-cpi.com) in the UK uses an open innovation model to derisk process development by providing proof-of-concept testing at scale to accelerate commercialization. The model is: To carry out market analysis with businesses or partners that have technology or a defined market need; To set up a team of technology, market, and commercial professionals to design assets to develop a range of technologies that meet the market need; To find a combination of private and public investment to build and operate the development assets;
(A)
(B)
Private companies (both SME and large companies) use the assets and CPI expertise to prove, develop, and scale up their technology until it is ready for commercialization; Companies then invest their own funds to take the technology to market and create value; and The development assets are retained and developed by CPI for use by other companies and projects to build a national capability in the sector. CPI has a facility dedicated to industrial biotechnology that large and small companies can use to develop a bioprocess from laboratory definition through the pilot to the demonstration scale (Figure I).
(C)
TRENDS in Biotechnology
Figure I. The Centre for Chemical Process Innovation (CPI) industrial fermentation facilities: (A) laboratory, (B) 750 and (C) 10 000 L fermenters. Reproduced, with permission, from CPI.
benefit, which could be an overarching basis for public policy support. Bio-based chemicals policy One of the challenges is to decide which bio-based chemicals merit direct public support rather than indirect incentives, such as R&D tax credits. Should support be given to specialty and fine chemicals with very low global production? The case is not compelling because there is insignificant contribution to GHG emissions reductions or other societal benefits. By contrast, bio-based olefins could contribute to climate change mitigation policies and also energy security, because their production volumes are larger than those of specialties. They would also have higher job creation potential and, therefore, there are various sound economic, social, and environmental drivers for their public policy support. Unlike the production mandates that dominate biofuels policy, individually mandated production of the huge number of chemicals required to replace the oil barrel would be rejected by the industry as unworkable. An alternative approach being considered by Carus et al. uses ethanol as a reference chemical, and other bio-based chemicals that are not derived from ethanol, such as lactic and succinic acids, could be converted to ethanol ‘equivalents’, on the basis of their calorie value compared with ethanol [13]. SME support facilities Perhaps the greatest challenge facing the small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in bio-based production is scale up. In most countries, risk capital is limited,
and the cost of moving from laboratory pilot to demonstration scale is beyond the financial scope of most of these SMEs. As the bioeconomy grows and these applications of bio-based production expand, greater efficiency of public investments could be made through the public finance of regional bio-based production facilities at demonstrator or pilot scale. Models already exist, such as the Centre for Chemical Process Innovation (CPI) in the UK (Box 2). Such facilities could maximize their benefits by offering a range of ancillary business services, such as training, quality management, and certification.
Policy coordination A trinity of important policy developments is emerging: (i) bioeconomy strategies are becoming more numerous at the national and regional levels; (ii) industrial biotechnology and biorefinery roadmaps are emerging; and (iii) the first synthetic biology roadmaps have been produced or are in progress. Governments could look into resourcing coordination for these landmark policies. If the delivery of a bioeconomy strategy by, say, 2030 is a high priority, then the goals of the synthetic biology roadmap will probably need to be aligned with the bioeconomy strategy. Equally, for many countries, the bioeconomy strategy will depend on the delivery of biorefineries. Concluding remarks and future perspectives Although there can be little debate about the long-term need to replace the oil barrel, and that the only viable 499
Science & Society carbon source to do this is renewable, bio-based carbon, the cost of doing it is enormous if the existing (often fully amortized) infrastructure needs to be replaced. The policy frameworks for integrated biorefining are patchy at best, and usually disfavor the very products with highest value added and job creation. Governments could consider redressing this imbalance. More than anything else, what industry wants from governments is policy stability. The plethora of policy support options along the value chain needs close coordination to give this stability but without wasteful lock-ins and contradictions. Disclaimer statement The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), or of the governments of its member countries.
References 1 Peplow, M. (2014) Cellulosic ethanol fights for life. Pioneering biofuel producers hope that US government largesse will ease their way into a tough market. Nature 507, 152 2 LaMonica, M. (2014) Why the promise of cheap fuel from super bugs fell short. MIT Technol. Rev. 5 February, www.technologyreview.com/news/ 524011/why-the-promise-of-cheap-fuel-from-super-bugs-fell-short/
500
Trends in Biotechnology October 2014, Vol. 32, No. 10 3 Bozell, J.J. (2008) Feedstocks for the future – biorefinery production of chemicals from renewable carbon. CLEAN Soil Air Water 36, 641–647 4 Hayden, E.C. (2014) Synthetic-biology firms shift focus. Switch to food and fragrances risks consumer rejection. Nature 505, 598 5 Milken Institute (2013) Unleashing the Power of the Bio-Economy, Milken Institute 6 Bio-based Industries Consortium (2014) Realising the Bioeconomy Potential in Europe. A Public-Private Partnership on Bio-Based Industries, Bio-based Industries Consortium 7 REN21 (2009) Global Status Report. Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century, REN21 8 Scarlat, N. et al. (2013) Bioenergy production and use in Italy: recent developments, perspectives and potential. Renew. Energ. 57, 448–461 9 CEPI (2011) Unfold the Future: the Forest Fibre Industry 2050 Roadmap to a Low-Carbon Bio-Economy, CEPI 10 Keegan, D. et al. (2013) Cascading use: a systematic approach to biomass beyond the energy sector. Biofuels Bioprod. Bioref. 7, 193–206 11 House of Lords (2014) Waste or Resource? Stimulating a Bioeconomy. Report of the Science and Technology Select Committee, HL Paper 141. The Stationery Office Limited 12 USEPA (2009) EPA Proposes New Regulations for the National Renewable Fuel Standard Program for 2010 and Beyond, USEPA 13 Carus, M. et al. (2014) Proposals for a reform of the Renewable Energy Directive to a Renewable Energy and Materials Directive (REMD). Nova paper #4 on bio-based economy, Hu¨rth 2014-05. www.bio-based.eu/ policy 14 Erkman, S. (1997) Industrial ecology: an historical view. J Cleaner Prod. 5, 1–10
Trends in Biotechnology October 2014, Vol. 32, No. 10 10 FAO (2013) Advancement of Pesticide Regulatory Management in Asia, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific 11 European Commission (2009) Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC. Official J. Eur. Union L 309, 1–50 12 Alabouvette, C. et al. (2006) Biological control of plant diseases: the European situation. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 114, 329–341 13 Borriss, R. (2011) Use of plant-associated Bacillus strains as biofertilizers and biocontrol agents in agriculture. In Bacteria in Agrobiology: Plant Growth Responses (Maheshwari, D.K., ed.), pp. 41–76, Springer 14 Cotes, A.M. (2011) Registry and regulation of biocontrol agents on food commodities in South America. Acta Hortic. 905, 301–306
Biorefining policy needs to come of age Pierre-Alain Schieb1 and Jim C. Philp2 1
NEOMA Business School, 59 rue Pierre Taittinger, 51061 Reims, France Science and Technology Policy Division, Directorate for Science, Technology, and Industry, OECD, 2 rue Andre´-Pascal, Paris 75775, France
2
After significant delays, the first commercial cellulosic biorefinery is open in Europe and three more are due this year in the USA, with others soon to follow. Although biofuels might be the mainstay, there has been a significant shift in emphasis towards bio-based chemicals. A major bio-based public–private partnership has launched in Europe, but obstacles to biorefining remain, and public policy is not yet directed at enabling the integrated biorefineries of the future.
The importance of 2014 The arrival, albeit on a small scale, of cellulosic biorefining heralds a landmark achievement that could enable more future success. However, it has arrived late and, with high capital costs compared with first-generation ethanol plants, cellulosic biorefining in the USA will rely on the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) for some time before subsidies can be removed [1]. Meanwhile, there is a significant industry and government shift in emphasis from biofuels to bio-based chemicals. For example, the 2014 US Farm Bill has changed the USDA 9003 program title from the ‘Biorefinery Assistance Program’ to the ‘Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Program’. The small companies in the vanguard of bio-based production have encountered challenges in making biofuels on the large scale required to influence the market [2]. It has long been known in the fossil industry that the small proportion of crude oil used for chemicals and plastics production represents a disproportionately high Corresponding author: Philp, J.C. ([email protected]) 0167-7799/ ß 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2014.08.006
496
percentage of the profits earned from integrated fuel and petrochemical complexes [3]. A mature biorefining industry is likely to display the same economics. However, integrated biorefining models, although often discussed, are not as mature as single-feedstock, singleproduct models. In late 2014, the commercialization of 1,4-butanediol (BDO) will happen in Italy (a joint venture between Genomatica and Novamont) and, early in 2015, the largest-scale bio-based succinic acid plant of BioAmber to date will open in Canada. Work is also moving apace in France (Global Bioenergies) to commercialize bio-based olefins, the building blocks of the petrochemicals industry. Fermentationbased vanillin from Evolva first entered the market in 2014 [4]. A group of second-generation companies is working on high-value food and fragrance molecules, such as resveratrol, astaxanthin, and cis-3-hexenol. Public–private partnerships and loan guarantees: the mainstay of biorefinery public policy For the USA to replace approximately 20% of its petrochemical consumption with bio-based products over the next decade, as many as ten commercial-scale bio-based production plants would be required. This would need approximately US$50 billion in capital, mostly from private investors [5]. However, these are very high-risk plants, and public–private partnerships are seen as central to derisking these investments. Loan guarantees can be used to give investors confidence that governments are willing to create a long-term stable policy regime. Both the US Department of Energy (USDOE) and US Department of Agriculture (USDA) have used loan guarantees extensively, and all three cellulosic biorefineries due to open in late 2014 are supported this way. The bio-based industries initiative (Bio-based Industries Consortium) is a major, newly launched public–private
Science & Society
Trends in Biotechnology October 2014, Vol. 32, No. 10
partnership for the bio-based industries in the European Union (EU) [6]. Currently, there are approximately 70 private industry partners and over 100 public partners, and it has leveraged almost three times as much private finance as public finance. Is rural biorefining viable? The logic is clear: build biorefineries near the biomass feedstocks, because biomass energy density is relatively low and, therefore, its transportation is inefficient and expensive. However, with commodity chemicals, cost drives everything, and policymakers should pay careful
attention to the petrochemicals trend of integration at massive facilities, which makes it hard for small-scale production to compete. Additionally, policymakers should weigh the benefits and costs when extra transport and energy infrastructure may be required. On occasions when there is an obvious viability for rural facilities, bringing together research, training, business services, and pilot, demonstration and full-scale production at a biorefining hub makes sense for a variety of reasons. From a regional public policy perspective, attracting research and development (R&D) and business services brings added value to rural regions, as well as
Box 1. Agro-Industrie Recherches et De´veloppements and Bioraffinerie Recherches et Innovation ARD is a mutualized private research structure, owned by major players in the French agribusiness as well as by regional farming cooperatives, the latter being a particular strength of this facility. It was created in 1989 by exploiting the notion of value creation through nonfood applications to find new opportunities from the produce of its shareholders (e.g., cereals, sugar beet, alfalfa, and oilseeds). Subsequently, ARD set up two subsidiaries: Soliance (molecules for cosmetic products), and the largest-capacity demonstration platform in France, BIODEMO, which has hosted Amyris and BioAmber, and will host Global Bioenergies in the future. The innovation hub BRI is an open hub in the field of biorefining. BRI brings together various biorefineries at Bazancourt-Pomacle (Figure I), the R&D centre for ARD, as well as the French engineering schools Ecole Centrale Paris, Agro Paris Tech, and NEOMA Business School. Therefore, it covers the value chain from fundamental research to the pre-industrial prototype. BRI is supported financially by the Ministry of Industry of France, the General Council of the Marne De´ partement, the Region Champagne-Ardenne, and the city of Reims. The combination of farming cooperatives, private industry, and backing through regional and national public policy and funding is perhaps the optimal model that can be reproduced in many locations.
Chamtor Wheat transformaon
Procéthol 2G FUTUROL project-second-generaon ethanol
Further added value can be created through an industrial ecology network (Figure II). It has become clear that the end-of-pipe philosophy is insufficient in pollution prevention. Equally, cleaner production has its limits. The industrial ecology approach [14] considers, in the absence of a viable cleaner production alternative, using waste as a marketable by-product. Using waste from one process as an input to another process at the same site removes transportation and waste disposal or treatment costs. Examples of synergies include: Water synergy: recovery of condensate: Chamtor uses 50 000 m3 of surplus condensate during the beet season. This results in energy recuperation and less groundwater pumping; Steam synergy: reciprocal steam use; Effluent synergy: purification, storage and agricultural use; Products synergy: products and by-products from one plant are used as raw materials in another; R&D synergy: research programs are conducted in cooperation with the ARD stakeholders; Energy synergy: use of steam from cogeneration to drive industrial processes e.g. in bioethanol production using sugar beet or wheat; Organizational synergy: in cooperation with the Industries et AgroRessources (IAR) cluster (http://www.iar-pole.com/?lang=en), synergies such as construction, operation, and training occur; and Drilling synergy: production of raw water for industrial use.
BioDémo Industrial demonstraon
ARD–research centre Soliance
Cristal union Sugar producer
Cristanol First-generaon ethanol
TRENDS in Biotechnology
Figure I. Business units at the Bazancourt-Pomacle site. Reproduced, with permission, from www.agrodistribution.fr, and Benoit Tremeau. Abbreviation: ARD, AgroIndustrie Recherches et De´veloppements.
497
Science & Society
Trends in Biotechnology October 2014, Vol. 32, No. 10
TRENDS in Biotechnology
Figure II. Synergies at the Bazancourt-Pomacle site. Reproduced, with permission, from Benoit Tremeau. Abbreviation: ARD, Agro-Industrie Recherches et De´veloppements.
enabling business service efficiencies that would otherwise be fragmented. An excellent example is the AgroIndustrie Recherches et De´veloppements–Bioraffinerie Recherches et Innovation (ARD/BRI) hub in northern France, where farming cooperatives are key stakeholders (Box 1). Policy gaps and conflicts Level the playing field between bio-based chemicals, biofuels, and bioenergy Generous policy incentives for ethanol and biodiesel abound in many countries [7]. More recently, there has been bounteous support given to bioenergy projects. The importance of wood pellets for large-scale power generation, driven by the EU Renewable Energy Directive, is increasing dramatically, and many European countries have become net importers [8]. Mandated targets, green electricity schemes, investment grants, and feed-in tariff policies have led to a situation where biomass is being systematically allocated to the biofuels and bioenergy sectors. Given that the pellets market is not constrained by demand but by supply, sharp increases in pellet prices can be expected. Biomass is available for bioenergy at prices that are lower than those for materials applications. The Confederation of European Paper Industries (CEPI) has predicted that, partly due to the demand for wood for 498
energy consumption by 2020, there will be a wood supply gap for material use between 2015 and 2020 [9]. This also conflicts with policies that relate to the cascading use of biomass [10]. Policies to secure sustainable feedstock supply chains Securing feedstocks is a policy area ripe for conflict with agricultural policy (e.g., food versus fuel), and this needs careful attention and consultation to avoid expensive and contradictory policy lock-ins. A related issue is the nascent realization by some governments that waste must begin to be treated as a resource [11] and that domestic waste contains large amounts of fermentable carbon that could be utilized in biorefineries. One huge advantage is that the infrastructure for collection of waste is almost universal and, in many countries, there is separation infrastructure for the purpose of recycling nonputrescible materials. Greenhouse gas emissions standards for bio-based chemicals To date, there are no standards for greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions for bio-based chemicals and plastics similar to those that exist in the RFS for biofuels [12]. These standards could help to steer both public grant applications and private business plans towards the bio-based production that is of greatest societal and environmental
Science & Society
Trends in Biotechnology October 2014, Vol. 32, No. 10
Box 2. The Centre for Chemical Process Innovation (CPI) model for industrial bioprocess development The CPI (www.uk-cpi.com) in the UK uses an open innovation model to derisk process development by providing proof-of-concept testing at scale to accelerate commercialization. The model is: To carry out market analysis with businesses or partners that have technology or a defined market need; To set up a team of technology, market, and commercial professionals to design assets to develop a range of technologies that meet the market need; To find a combination of private and public investment to build and operate the development assets;
(A)
(B)
Private companies (both SME and large companies) use the assets and CPI expertise to prove, develop, and scale up their technology until it is ready for commercialization; Companies then invest their own funds to take the technology to market and create value; and The development assets are retained and developed by CPI for use by other companies and projects to build a national capability in the sector. CPI has a facility dedicated to industrial biotechnology that large and small companies can use to develop a bioprocess from laboratory definition through the pilot to the demonstration scale (Figure I).
(C)
TRENDS in Biotechnology
Figure I. The Centre for Chemical Process Innovation (CPI) industrial fermentation facilities: (A) laboratory, (B) 750 and (C) 10 000 L fermenters. Reproduced, with permission, from CPI.
benefit, which could be an overarching basis for public policy support. Bio-based chemicals policy One of the challenges is to decide which bio-based chemicals merit direct public support rather than indirect incentives, such as R&D tax credits. Should support be given to specialty and fine chemicals with very low global production? The case is not compelling because there is insignificant contribution to GHG emissions reductions or other societal benefits. By contrast, bio-based olefins could contribute to climate change mitigation policies and also energy security, because their production volumes are larger than those of specialties. They would also have higher job creation potential and, therefore, there are various sound economic, social, and environmental drivers for their public policy support. Unlike the production mandates that dominate biofuels policy, individually mandated production of the huge number of chemicals required to replace the oil barrel would be rejected by the industry as unworkable. An alternative approach being considered by Carus et al. uses ethanol as a reference chemical, and other bio-based chemicals that are not derived from ethanol, such as lactic and succinic acids, could be converted to ethanol ‘equivalents’, on the basis of their calorie value compared with ethanol [13]. SME support facilities Perhaps the greatest challenge facing the small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in bio-based production is scale up. In most countries, risk capital is limited,
and the cost of moving from laboratory pilot to demonstration scale is beyond the financial scope of most of these SMEs. As the bioeconomy grows and these applications of bio-based production expand, greater efficiency of public investments could be made through the public finance of regional bio-based production facilities at demonstrator or pilot scale. Models already exist, such as the Centre for Chemical Process Innovation (CPI) in the UK (Box 2). Such facilities could maximize their benefits by offering a range of ancillary business services, such as training, quality management, and certification.
Policy coordination A trinity of important policy developments is emerging: (i) bioeconomy strategies are becoming more numerous at the national and regional levels; (ii) industrial biotechnology and biorefinery roadmaps are emerging; and (iii) the first synthetic biology roadmaps have been produced or are in progress. Governments could look into resourcing coordination for these landmark policies. If the delivery of a bioeconomy strategy by, say, 2030 is a high priority, then the goals of the synthetic biology roadmap will probably need to be aligned with the bioeconomy strategy. Equally, for many countries, the bioeconomy strategy will depend on the delivery of biorefineries. Concluding remarks and future perspectives Although there can be little debate about the long-term need to replace the oil barrel, and that the only viable 499
Science & Society carbon source to do this is renewable, bio-based carbon, the cost of doing it is enormous if the existing (often fully amortized) infrastructure needs to be replaced. The policy frameworks for integrated biorefining are patchy at best, and usually disfavor the very products with highest value added and job creation. Governments could consider redressing this imbalance. More than anything else, what industry wants from governments is policy stability. The plethora of policy support options along the value chain needs close coordination to give this stability but without wasteful lock-ins and contradictions. Disclaimer statement The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), or of the governments of its member countries.
References 1 Peplow, M. (2014) Cellulosic ethanol fights for life. Pioneering biofuel producers hope that US government largesse will ease their way into a tough market. Nature 507, 152 2 LaMonica, M. (2014) Why the promise of cheap fuel from super bugs fell short. MIT Technol. Rev. 5 February, www.technologyreview.com/news/ 524011/why-the-promise-of-cheap-fuel-from-super-bugs-fell-short/
500
Trends in Biotechnology October 2014, Vol. 32, No. 10 3 Bozell, J.J. (2008) Feedstocks for the future – biorefinery production of chemicals from renewable carbon. CLEAN Soil Air Water 36, 641–647 4 Hayden, E.C. (2014) Synthetic-biology firms shift focus. Switch to food and fragrances risks consumer rejection. Nature 505, 598 5 Milken Institute (2013) Unleashing the Power of the Bio-Economy, Milken Institute 6 Bio-based Industries Consortium (2014) Realising the Bioeconomy Potential in Europe. A Public-Private Partnership on Bio-Based Industries, Bio-based Industries Consortium 7 REN21 (2009) Global Status Report. Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century, REN21 8 Scarlat, N. et al. (2013) Bioenergy production and use in Italy: recent developments, perspectives and potential. Renew. Energ. 57, 448–461 9 CEPI (2011) Unfold the Future: the Forest Fibre Industry 2050 Roadmap to a Low-Carbon Bio-Economy, CEPI 10 Keegan, D. et al. (2013) Cascading use: a systematic approach to biomass beyond the energy sector. Biofuels Bioprod. Bioref. 7, 193–206 11 House of Lords (2014) Waste or Resource? Stimulating a Bioeconomy. Report of the Science and Technology Select Committee, HL Paper 141. The Stationery Office Limited 12 USEPA (2009) EPA Proposes New Regulations for the National Renewable Fuel Standard Program for 2010 and Beyond, USEPA 13 Carus, M. et al. (2014) Proposals for a reform of the Renewable Energy Directive to a Renewable Energy and Materials Directive (REMD). Nova paper #4 on bio-based economy, Hu¨rth 2014-05. www.bio-based.eu/ policy 14 Erkman, S. (1997) Industrial ecology: an historical view. J Cleaner Prod. 5, 1–10
