Triage process for selecting bio-economy projects, Part III

I posted two articles on triage processes back in May 2017. Since then I have come across a very interesting approach for looking at different molecules: plotting these molecules in terms of their oxygen mass fraction (or weight percent) versus their hydrogen mass fraction.

This concept is presented by Farmer and Macal in Figure 4.12 in Chapter 4, Platform Molecules, Introduction to Chemicals from Biomass, Second Edition, James Clark and Fabien Deswarte (editors), Wiley, 2015.

I've created my own so-called Farmer plot with a selection of molecules of interest to folks active in the bio-plastics and bio-chemicals fields:



You can see that the aromatics and straight-chain hydrocarbons all fall on the X-axis, as they have varying amounts of hydrogen but no oxygen. As they come directly from petroleum, and as the petroleum industry doesn't like oxygen, this makes sense.

Bio-based compounds, by and large, are found in the middle of the chart as they contain both oxygen and hydrogen in varying quantities. The interesting part is that a number of petrochemical intermediates, such as mono-ethylene glycol (MEG), polyethylene terephthalate (PET) or phenol, are also oxygenated even though they originate from a pure hydrocarbon such as ethylene. Oxygenating the hydrocarbon precursor presumably requires some effort which may not be insignificant, and presumably occurs as late as possible in the petrochemical process.

So it is worth asking why you would deoxygenate a biobased molecule (lignin or cellulose, for instance) all the way to ethylene, only to oxygenate it back to, say, PET. (You would also have to hydrogenate to get to ethylene, then dehydrogenate.) The alternative, which the various people making furan-based compounds from glucose have figured out, is simply to shift the short distance directly from the bio-based molecule to the target (for example, glucose to PEF, which is the furanic substitute for PET), avoiding a whole lot of de- and re- oxygenation and hydrogenation which would be required if going all the way to ethylene or another of the six platform hydrocarbon molecules first.


The plot above shows phenol from lignin (the red line), as opposed to phenol from a lignin-derived benzene molecule (the two blue lines). Arguably the total distance between two molecules on the graph is an indication of the relative difficulty of converting one molecule to the other. Of course some reactions are going to be easier than others, and more chemistry will be needed to evaluate exactly what effort is needed, but may I suggest that the following equation, which uses Pythagoras' Theorem to calculate the distance between two points in a plane, would be a very quick and dirty first pass at flagging complicated chemistry, with a large value of D an indication of potentially complex chemistry:

where H and O are the hydrogen and oxygen coordinates, respectively, of the bio-based and petroleum-based molecules. So in the case above, we have the following:

• D[SW lignin to Phenol] = 0.0965 (red line)
• D[SW lignin to Benzene] + D[Benzene to Phenol] = 0.2669 + 0.1707 = 0.4376 (two blue lines)

Both approaches lead from SW lignin to phenol, but the first path is shorter by a factor of about 4.5, and (obviously!) must be a lot simpler. Certainly, for the non-chemist managerial type such as myself, it would be a flag to highlight when more questions need to be asked of the chemists.

So a question for the chemists out there: while admitting that this approach is crude, is it a sensible first pass at estimating complexity of a chemical transformation? If not, why not? Discuss amongst yourselves and report back to the plenary session.

2017 World Congress on Industrial Biotechnology

Overview

Held in Montreal on July 23-26, 2017, this was the 14th edition of this well-respected conference. Having attended many of the past editions, I can say that the material presented mirrors the maturity of the bio-chemicals industry well, and that progress towards the current level of maturity has been quite rapid over the last decade. A lot of hard work has gotten the industry to the point where it is actually making and selling commercial bio-polymers and chemicals, rather than just talking about biofuels as was the case just 5 years ago.

With 6 parallel tracks, it was impossible to cover everything. I focused on the renewable chemicals and bio-based materials sessions.

Renewable Chemicals

Several presentations focused on various furanic molecules as substitutes for aromatic molecules. Chief among these was furan dicarboxylic acid (FDCA) which can be converted to polyethylene furanoate (PEF), a substitute for petroleum-based polyethylene terephthalate (PET) in the making of clear plastic bottles.

In the same session, Stephen Roest of Corbion described Corbion's pathway, via a proprietary micro-organism, from C6 sugars to FDCA and eventually PEF. Jesper van Berkel of Synvina (a JV between Avantium and BASF) described their catalytic process to the same PEF molecule. Michael Saltzberg of Dupont described a similar catalytic pathway to a methyl ester of FDCA, called FDME. All three presenters boasted about significantly improved oxygen and carbon dioxide barrier properties when compared to the petroleum-based PET route; improved mechanical properties were also cited. These properties allow for thinner bottles or flexible food packaging, partly offsetting higher costs per kilogram, or a cheaper plastic substitute for cans or glass in high-performance applications. All claimed acceptable recyclability when mixed with PET streams, at least at low addition levels. Only Saltzberg commented on colour as a potential issue, claiming that Dupont's FDME is more stable in shipping and storage than FDCA, and thus less likely to yellow. All are planning or building commercial plants in the kilo-tonne per year range. (Corbion has the advantage of being able to swing a lactic acid plant to FDCA and back with relative ease.) Finally, REACH registration for FDCA is complete in Europe while various EPA registration processes are underway. Essentially this market is growing towards maturity, and we are well beyond the test-tube phase.

Succinic acid was also on the agenda, with mentions made of Succinity (the Corbion-BASF JV) and a presentation by Marcel Lubben, CEO of  Reverdia (a JV between Roquette and DSM). Bio-Amber. was also represented; see the section on the Sarnia Cluster below. This is another product which is reaching commercial maturity, although perhaps not as fast as some of the players might wish.

Other biomass-to-plastics processes were described by Don Wardius and Natalie Bittner of Covestro. This spin-off of Bayer's polyurethane and polycarbonate business has developed proprietary pathways from sugars to phenol and aniline, two major inputs into their production processes. The bio-conversion pathways were not described in any detail, so it isn't really possible to evaluate yields or costs, but the fact that they are willing to discuss this in public is revealing of the company's focus and intent.

In a separate session on scale-up issues, Cecil Massie of AMEC Foster Wheeler outlined six common mistakes to avoid. They are:

1. Pilot a continuous process to verify how an upset in the first unit operation is handled in subsequent units. This could be problematic. 
2. In biological processes running in very dilute conditions, the water balance will be critical. Water recovery and recycle may require expensive equipment. 
3. Heat integration and energy conservation are as important as water balances.
4. Steady state is one thing but knowing how to deal with upset conditions, especially startup and shutdown conditions, is critical. Cold starts in particular may require a lot more steam than at steady state, especially in cold climates. 
5. An early and iterative Hazop process will identify problems early. For instance, reducing risks of a spill or fire in chemical plants often requires reducing the volume of surge tanks; however this leads to downstream control problems if an upstream unit has an upset, and teh surge tank only has a few minutes retention time.
6. The actual commercial plant may be different from the pilot (e.g. filter press instead of centrifuge). Anticipate the data needed to evaluate a true commercial plant. 

Drop-in versus novel bio-based molecules

One recurring theme was the different challenges and opportunities for a drop-in molecule versus a novel molecule with new properties. The drop-in will fit into existing value chains and production facilities as it will be essentially identical in molecular structure and performance to the petroleum incumbent; the downside is that you can't really command a premium price merely on the basis of being bio-based, so it must be cost-competitive with the petroleum incumbent. This is the downfall of bio-fuels in the absence of robust government incentives (carbon taxes, renewable fuel standards, etc.)

In comparison, a molecule such as PEF, which is claimed to perform better than PET, can claim a premium price for that performance. However, downstream processes to use the molecule are not necessarily well developed, and the end-of-life issues such as recyclability or bio-degradeability may be problematic, so more work may be required to achieve significant market penetration. 

A third option is to use the bio-based material as-is at partial substitution rates. One good example is the use of lignin from kraft pulp mills as a partial substitute for phenol formaldehyde resins in the making of engineered wood products such as plywood. The lignin works well up to about 50% substitution, where failure in tension starts to occur in the glue line and not the wood; current substitution rates are quite a bit lower than this due to lower reactivity leading to increased cure times. However, unmodified lignin is cost-competitive with petroleum-based resins in this application, as long as plywood production rates are not affected by longer cure times. 

There are good examples of each of these pathways becoming commercially viable, however, so it looks like there will be different approaches for different applications.

The pulp and paper sector carries on, but stays under the radar

Representatives of CelluForce (Richard Berry), Domtar (Bruno Marcoccia) and Kruger (Balazs Tolnai) described various activities in which their firms are engaged, in the fields of novel chemicals and fibres. Progress continues and while forest sector players don't feel the need to trumpet success the way the emerging bio-products producers do, it doesn't mean nothing is going on. Celluforce is planning a new 10 t/d CNC plant (up from the current 1 t/d capacity). Domtar's lignin plant in Plymouth, NC, is sold out and they are making a plastic film made of polyethylene and 25% lignin for farm use. Kruger is making cellulose filaments for improved paper properties, polymer composites and concrete and mortar applications. 

The Sarnia Cluster

Sandy Marshall of Bio-industrial Innovation Canada chaired a session that explored the synergies available to the bio-industry in the Sarnia area. Dave Park of the Cellulosic Sugar Producers Cooperative (CSPC) described the incentive for farmers, not only to supply a cellulosic sugar plant with crop residues (corn stover and wheat straw), but also to participate in the financing and operation of the plant. In this context, Andrew Richard of Comet Biorefinery described the rationale for creating a joint venture between Comet, a technology provider, and CSPC, a feedstock provider. The first Comet plant in Sarnia, which is in the planning stage, will consume 60 kT/y of crop residues and produce approximately 27 kT (60 million pounds) of 95% pure dextrose for biochemical production. The by-product, a mix of C5 sugars and lignin, will be sold as a binder to the animal feed industry. Mike Hartmann of Bio-Amber, the eventual purchaser of Comet's cellulosic sugar, described their model for succinic acid: while it is a drop-in and chemically identical to petroleum-based succinic acid, it is cheaper and cost-competitive in North America with oil at $25/bbl. (Bio-Amber has exported to China, where it is competitive with oil at $45/bbl after transportation costs, tariffs and VAT of 17% are included.)

Bio-Amber's Sarnia plant, at 30 kT/y, is the biggest succinic acid plant worldwide, regardless of feed (bio or oil). Nonetheless, competing with an entrenched supply chain is challenging and proving the performance of the bio-based version to customers is time-consuming. However, once a customer has been signed, there is little incentive for the customer to leave due to the environmental benefits and lower cost. 

The current uses of the product, as laid out in the classic 2004 DOE report on top chemicals from biomass, are to replace adipic acid and a variety of esters, or for conversion to butanediol (BDO) and terahydrofuran (THF). Bio-Amber's growth plans include building a second plant making 100 kT/y of BDO and THF and an additional 200 kT/y of succinic acid. Meanwhile, demand continues to grow, although more slowly than hoped for; the Sarnia plant has been run at 75% of capacity, but overall sales (to over 50 companies today) are running at 35% of capacity. So although not as fast as hoped for, the growth of the succinic acid market is positive and ranks with growth of the furanic markets described above.

The Redefinery program and the Ports of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Antwerp

In the fall of 2016 I visited a number of groups involved in a radical and ambitious program to build biorefinery plants, adjacent not to the biomass supply but to the end-user, i.e. the petro-chemical industry. This program, loosely called the Redefinery program and mirroring the Sarnia Cluster described above, is being led by industrial players in Holland, Flanders and Rhine-Westfalia, financed by these governments and by the EU, and supported by a range of R&D providers such as TNO, ECN, VITO and various local universities including Delft, Wageningen and KU Leuven. Portions of this project were described by representatives of Biorizon (Joop Groen) and Bio-Based Delta (Willem Sederel). While Canadian pulp and paper industry players might argue a pulp mill is an excellent site for a biorefinery, with existing steam and effluent treatment plants, logistics for biomass supply and product shipment, all on an existing industrial site with all the required permits in place, the same can be said of the Port of Rotterdam once you realise that several million tonnes of wood pellets flow through the port annually. Essentially the background, provided by Willem Sederel and Joop Groen, starts with a strong political desire to see a bio-chemical industry arise in the Port of Rotterdam or elsewhere in the well-integrated coastal chemical parks around the ports of Antwerp, Rotterdam and Amsterdam.

Biomass availability in and around the Port of Rotterdam consists mainly of wood pellets, as much as 8 Mt/y by 2020, imported for use in coal-fired power plants. In particular, the wood to sugar pathway, leading to organic acids such as succinic acid, lactic acid, FDCA and others, has been identified as critical by players such as Corbion, Avantium and others. The Dutch industry players have been smart enough to realize the value of bio-aromatics from lignin to the economics of second-generation sugars, and are aware that new uses for lignin will be critical if the path to sugars is to be profitable. They are spending large sums in Dutch and Flemish R&D facilities to quickly get up to speed on lignin properties and transformation processes. (The importance of bio-aromatics to the petrochemical industry is such that pathways from sugars to aromatic chemicals are also of interest.) The objective is a 0.25 to 1 Mt/y plant making sugars and lignin, probably via steam explosion, by 2019, and multiple plants shortly thereafter; budgets are up to €3.7B in industrial and EU funds over the period 2014-2020. The key players driving this very aggressive agenda are:

• The Port of Rotterdam, which has created a new 80-hectare site on reclaimed land to host bio-chemicals producers;
• RWE, who would look after pellet supply and logistics;
• Corbion, who would take C6 sugars;
• The successor to Abengoa, who would take C5 sugars for ethanol;
• Coal-fired power producers, who would initially burn lignin for fuel.

So where will the world's first million-tonne wood-based biorefinery be located? In my previous life in the Canadian pulp and paper industry, I would have hoped that a Canadian pulp mill would host (if not build and operate) such a plant; given wood supply issues, my second guess would have been Brazil. But the speed at which the Dutch are moving is such that I am now prepared to bet on Rotterdam (although the 2019 timeline is probably excessively optimistic). Stay tuned! The next World Bio-Congress will be in Philadelphia July 16-19, 2018.

Big Data: Getting information from data

Big Data is all around us. But there are pitfalls in converting this growing avalanche of data into useful information.

Two decades ago, we saw the early introduction of data collection and storage systems into industrial settings. My own experience with these systems, such as the PI data historian system from OSIsoft, was in the pulp and paper industry, but the prevalence of these systems crosses sector boundaries. The purpose was to look at trends in all the different sensor readings, control actions and actuator settings in an industrial process, in order to attempt to draw conclusions from the accumulated machine records that might not be immediately obvious to operators or technical staff. These conclusions could then presumably be used to reduce operating costs or improve product quality.

Growth of these systems tracked the decrease in the cost of computer data storage systems. With memory chips and hard drives being expensive early in the computer era, operating data was often overwritten daily if not hourly. A study I ran in the late 1990's [see reference below] had access to 36 months worth of industrial data, collected daily by a mill engineer and averaged monthly. So 36 data points to describe 3 years of operations ... today, a years' worth of industrial process data from a full-scale plant amounts to terabytes of data, but can be stored forever at a cost of a few dollars.

In parallel with the rise of data historians and archiving systems, we saw the growth of analytical processes to try to make sense of this new avalanche of data. A quick Google search yields an enormous list of textbooks and articles on the topic of data mining and so-called 'statistical learning'; some are even sold by Amazon as well as publishers such as Springer-Verlag or Wiley.

Figure 1: Data from Nature, as used to illustrate correlation versus cause and effect by the late Prof. Martin Weber, Dep't of Chemical Engineering, McGill University, ca. 1990.

The problems that I have run into in a couple of cases are due to the data analyst not properly understanding the process in question, and coming up with recommendations which neglect underlying reasons (technical, economic, product quality, environmental permit constraints, etc.) for operating a particular mill in a particular fashion. In the worst cases, the old issue of correlation versus cause and effect rears its ugly head.

Figure 2: In this correlation, each stork is associated with approximately one live birth per working day (5 days per week, 50 weeks per year). 

In one case, data mining applied to an industrial data set was used to show that the value of a particular variable tended to swing over a very wide range. No good reason could be identified from the data as to why the variable should move around so much. A mild correlation with certain operating inputs (feedstock, water, energy, chemicals) was used to suggest that reducing the variability in this particular variable would help improve overall operating costs.

In fact, the variable in question was manipulated by a control algorithm, with the objective being to maintain minimal product quality requirements necessary to satisfy customers in the face of raw material variability, while using the least amount of raw materials and process inputs necessary to do so. Reduced quality meant lost or highly discounted sales and had a much bigger impact on the bottom line than the slight increase in operating costs required on occasion to maintain product quality in the face of the inevitable disturbances. The quality-related variables were not flagged by the data mining process, since they did not move at all and in fact were uncorrelated with any other variable. This was, in fact, a good thing, as it proved the existence of a well-designed control algorithm: yes, the manipulated variable moves around a lot, but the result is that the controlled variable (product quality) is stable.

So this is an example where faulty information was extracted from big data, and shows the importance of understanding the difference between industrial data (where a controller or an operator may have his or her hand on a valve) versus lab-generated data (which covers every possible combination of all variables, even combinations that will never be implemented industrially). The article referenced above provides another example: mill data showed conclusively that using less bleach led to brighter paper, a correlation which is clearly nonsense on its own, but which makes sense in context.

One thing I have learned from helping to develop process control systems is this: it is very hard to find a good process control person. The best approach is to find a good control person (of whom there are many), and pair him with a good process person (also lots of good people out there). I would suggest the same is true of any of the broad new tools for data analysis (mining, process modeling and integration, etc.): there are lots of analytics people out there, but for best effect, they need to be paired with a process expert who understands the underlying chemistry and physics, as well as the business context.

I have focused here on industrial challenges. Today we are seeing data mining and analysis tools applied to any sphere where lots of data exists. For instance, Google (click here) collects staggering amounts of data every second (including data about who reads this blog, and what else those readers might be interested in), and presumably is building analytical systems to extract information about the world from all this data. (Should we worry that Google knows so much about us? For discussion outside this post...)

So while this post has discussed data in an industrial setting, perhaps it is worth asking if the same challenges exist in the social or other applications of data analysis, and if so, how are they being managed? Big Questions around Big Data.


Reference: Browne, T.C., Miles, K.B., McDonald, J.D. and Wood, J.R., “Multivariate Analysis of Seasonal Pulp Quality Variations in a TMP Mill”, Pulp Pap Can 105(10):35-39 (October 2004).

Triage process for selecting bio-economy projects, Part II

I went through some initial triage items last week, covering Technology, Markets and Economics. These are all data-driven and can be established fairly solidly, with numerical values and probabilities. There are some softer, more touchy-feely items that need to be looked at as well:

Partners

Are your partners keen? Do they have cash? Are they known as innovators? Do they have a history of successful partnerships, or do they tend to let the lawyers bog everything down in minutiae? Some very innovative companies also suffer from Not Invented Here syndrome -- outside ideas don't get far. (These tend to be $50 billion companies, with thousands of researchers on staff.)

Be aware of your own blind spots. When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail; I have known people and organisations who tend to see the world through the lens of their own expertise. The control engineer sees everything as a control problem; the sensor designer thinks all that is needed is a new sensor. In reality you need both sensors and control systems. In that context, are there partners that you should have involved early? Finance, equipment vendors, technology providers, research providers, raw material suppliers and (especially) end-users can all provide critical knowledge and support.

Internal capacity

Do not assume you can do it all on your own! Apart from the partners listed above, do you have the specialised know-how to do this? If not, what is needed: hire a post-doctoral fellow (PDF, which is not an acronym for a type of document file in this context), support a university project, work with a research lab, partner with a specialist?

What about infrastructure: do you have the necessary specialised lab equipment, pilot plant space, etc.? If not, can you rent access (for an example, click here)? At what cost? Include logistics (costs for shipping material, travel costs to witness trials, probability trials will be inconclusive and will need to be repeated, etc.).

Path forward

If you've made it this far, set out a timeline and budget. List potential milestones for a rigorous go/no-go approach, and be prepared to kill it if it starts to falter. There are several milestone techniques out there, the best known of which is the stage-gate process put together by Robert Cooper. You can buy the book and implement it yourself if you don't want to pay for consulting (click here for more info). 

Frogs and toads

That's it! Well, OK, there is more, but this is a good start. Building up a set of tools, perhaps in Excel, is a useful and quick approach to keeping track of the triage process, especially if you update it as you go along. As metrics improve or worsen, you need to be nimble in deciding to stay the course, make some significant changes, or ditch Plan A and move to Plan B or C.

One last pointer to help in your triage efforts. This is a frog:

And this is a toad:

Good luck! Let me know how it goes.

Triage process for selecting bio-economy projects, Part I

When I worked at FPInnovations as Research Manager for the Biorefinery program, I had a constant dilemma: Lots of good ideas, but never enough resources (time, money, staff) to explore them all.

John Williams, CEO of Domtar, is fond of saying about diversifying into the bio-economy that he's kissing frogs, hoping to find a prince. I think it's a great analogy, but you can kiss an awful lot of frogs and not get anywhere. Ensuring you have a decent selection of frogs to start with is critical. And you want to weed out the toads, which will only give you warts. So how to sort through all the frogs?

As manager, the frogs came at me from all directions. First and foremost, they came from the scientific and engineering staff at FPInnovations who were (and hopefully still are!) very curious, motivated people who are excited about moving new processes and product lines into the existing Canadian forest sector. I could count on at least one idea per hour from these guys. (OK, OK, I'm exaggerating. Maybe one a day.) Then there were the people employed by forest sector companies, who are overworked and who are constantly approached by start-up firms with a great idea that just needs some cash. Finally there were ideas from university professors, government labs and funding agencies, conversations and presentations at conferences, etc. It can all be a bit overwhelming, and I gather from ongoing conversations with people in the field that it remains challenging.

So are you awash in frogs? Worried you might be stuck with a bunch of toads? I thought I'd outline some of the approaches I developed in partnership with colleagues. Initially the point of view was that of a not-for-profit research institute, but I have tried to rewrite it here so it could also be used by a government agency, a for-profit industrial player, or anyone else interested in evaluating which frogs to kiss.

The overall approach, which led to the LignoForce lignin extraction plant at West Fraser's mill in Hinton, Alberta, involves picking a Plan A (selected by triaging a broader set of ideas), then focusing on delivering. A couple of backup plans (Plan B and C) should be identified in case Plan A falls through, but should only take a small portion of the overall effort. An initial list of criteria for the triage process follows. Note that not all points need to be addressed in detail for all projects, but you should skim through to make sure there isn't a deal-breaker lurking in there somewhere.

Fuels versus value-added 

In my view, the first step is to separate bio-fuels and bio-energy projects from pathways leading to platform chemicals, materials or intermediates that are presently made from petroleum. Hauling wood out of the bush and turning it all into fuels, without a concurrent value-added pathway, is only really economic in very narrow circumstances or in the presence of the appropriate politically-supported carrots (renewable fuel standards) or sticks (carbon taxes). As a result, there are additional criteria for these projects which I will not get into here.

Technology

Do the claims seem reasonable from a scientific basis? Anything that appears to violate laws of thermodynamics or conservation of mass should be looked at with great skepticism. The same goes for paths that seem to ignore the basic chemistry of wood (or whatever your bio-based feedstock is).

Estimate the yield (kg of product per dry tonne of wood consumed). Equally important is what happens to the yield losses (residues). These numbers are essential for subsequent steps.

Evaluate the patent landscape. Are there existing patents out there? Can a deal be made to license the patents from the owners, and at what cost? If we are free to develop and operate this proposed process without infringing someone's patent, might there be an opportunity to build a patent position that would protect all this and give us an advantage? At what cost?

Markets

Most importantly, who would want this? Pushing a new product into the market is like pushing on a rope; far better to have some serious market pull.

Are you replacing an existing product or are you proposing something which is completely new to the world? In the first case you need to worry about incumbents; in the second, it is a major challenge to convince someone with an existing profitable product line that he needs your new material.

If you are proposing some form of drop-in replacement, what is the likely product quality compared with the incumbent? Is it better, the same, worse?

Assuming product quality is decent, what is the likely market in terms of tonnes (NAFTA, world-wide), and at what typical list prices? Given transportation costs and discounts you may need to offer to volume buyers, what is the likely mill-gate price? Will a further discount be needed to account for poorer (or different) product performance characteristics? If so, how big a discount?

At full scale, what percentage of this market would a new plant occupy? If the answer is a large number, you will need to consider what existing players might do to protect their turf (lower their prices, for instance, to drive you out of business). Sneaking into the market with capacity of 0.5% of world demand is safer.

Understand the incumbents: They have a lot to lose and may have sneaky ways to keep you out. Alternatively, in a market with several players, one may be interested in partnering as a way of keeping ahead of the competition. Monopoly markets have their own challenges.

Economics

Given the yields and process details, what are the likely operating costs (chemicals, energy, wood) per tonne of product? Start with variable costs; you'll need to consider fixed costs eventually, but if it doesn't work with your variable costs, no point in digging deeper. 

What are maximum possible gross revenues at steady-state and full-scale? Can you take a crude first pass at capital costs? From this, a crude first pass at internal rate of return (IRR) or Return on Capital Employed (ROCE) can provide some guidance. If it is poor even in an optimistic framework, can the technology be improved to be more effective? Sensitivity analysis to the major costs will show where opportunities might exist. Eventually a pro-forma showing revenue ramp-up over several years will give a more accurate estimate of payback time.

To be continued...

So far I have covered items where data analysis and research can lead to relatively hard numbers, with reasonably well-understood probabilities and risk factors. Next week I'll outline some approaches to risk factors which can't be so easily quantified in numerical terms, but which are equally important. Stay tuned! 

1st International Forest Biorefinery Conference

I attended the 1st International Forest Biorefinery Conference (IFBC), held in Thunder Bay, Ontario on May 9-10, 2017.

I've been to Thunder Bay regularly from about 2009 until my retirement in 2016, as the pilot lignin extraction facilities that I developed as a manager at FPInnovations were installed there and I had up to six employees onsite. The city is big enough, at over 100,000 people, that there is a critical mass of university and college campuses, government offices and labs, and industrial capacity to get things done, but small enough that everyone knows everyone else. So it was nice heading back to see old colleagues and partners.

It was also nice to see that this conference, organised by Lakehead University's Biorefining Research Institute, featured a broad selection of solid papers, not just from Ontario-based Ph.D. students and professors but also research institutes from Sweden, Finland, Belgium and the US, to name a few. Close to 150 attendees, including close to 50 presenters, made the trek to Thunder Bay. A few highlights follow.

Opening plenary sessions included reviews of the LignoBoost (Per Tomani of RISE Bioeconomy) and LignoForce technologies (Mike Paleologou of FPInnovations). In a later session, Kirsten Maki, also of FPInnovations, described the LignoForce pilot plant in Thunder Bay and installation of the full-scale plant at the West Fraser mill in Hinton, Alberta. I won't get into the details as I am biased -- the LignoForce system, developed by Mike and scaled up by Kirsten when they worked for me, is clearly better, but don't let that influence your decision as to which one to buy for your mill. (See my report on the 7th NWBC, here, for a description of the LignoBoost pilot at Backhammar, Sweden).

Michel Jean of Domtar described the company's move to novel products. Paper, specifically uncoated freesheet where they are a market leader, currently represents 50% of sales, but this is declining at 3% to 5% per year. He mentioned the need to move slowly into novel bio-products or risk failure, and stressed the importance of understanding the markets when doing so. That being said, they have four projects on the go, having triaged a much wider set of several hundred ideas:

• Cellulose nano-filaments made in the CelluForce plant at Windsor, Quebec. This joint venture with FPInnovations now has added investments from Fibria and Schlumberger. 
• Lignin, dubbed Bio-Choice lignin, from the LignoBoost plant at Plymouth, North Carolina. 
• The so-called 'super pulp' cellulose filament additive made in Dryden, Ontario.
• Compounding of lignin with commodity thermoplastics at Espanola, Ontario. 

Interestingly, while 75% of Domtar's manufacturing capacity is in the US, three of the four bio-products plants are in Canada. It is also nice to see a company of Domtar's size prepared to invest at this level, and one can only hope it pays off, if only to prod their competitors to boost their own spending on innovation.

Alan Smith, Director of Business Development at Avantium, described fast-moving developments in this growing company. The company has spun out its core YXY technology, for converting fructose to PEF, into a joint venture with BASF called Synvina. They have also developed a proprietary wood to sugars platform based on patented improvements to the classic high-acid, low temperature process exemplified by the old HCl CleanTech process and many others. The improvements are said to cover acid/sugar separation, material construction, and lignin de-acidification. (If getting sulfur out of lignin from kraft mills is important, I can only assume getting the chlorine out of lignin from a hydrochloric acid process will be no less so.) The process generates three streams (a C5/C6 sugar stream from the hemicellulose portion of wood, a glucose stream from the cellulose, and a sugar-free lignin). All three must be sold; this will be a recurring theme in the world of wood-to-sugars processes. He commented that the cost basis for the glucose will depend on the market value of the other products, which I assume means that the glucose will only be profitable if enough revenue is obtained from the other two streams. This will also be a recurring theme in this space. There are plans for an eventual plant consuming 300,000 to 400,000 dry tonnes of wood per year.

Finally, Avantium is working on a sugar to bio-MEG (monoethylene glycol) pathway which would allow sugar to replace both components in plastic bottles. The pathway is said to be much cheaper than traditional bio-MEG routes, and competitive with petroleum-based MEG. Their partnerships with customer-facing companies like Coca-Cola will ensure that the techno-economic analyses will be thorough. This is one to watch.

On the biofuels front, Jack Saddler of UBC covered pathways to biojet in the plenary session. Later, two entire sessions went into greater detail on various biofuels pathways. I won't cover these here; Jack admitted that kerosene is cheap and bio-jet only works, economically, because there are policy and other non-business drivers that overcome the poor economics. My feeling continues to be that wood in particular is too expensive to make into fuels, and that value-added products must be the route forward when wood is the feedstock. Fuels will come from any left-overs, not the reverse. And since the value-added pathways are more challenging, both technically and economically, this is where the effort needs to be.

A number of academic presenters, PhD students or their supervisors, described early-stage bio-chemicals and bio-materials pathways variously involving glycerol, pyrolysis oils, bio-carbon, PHAs and other intermediates. It is hard to say at this point which ones will do well, because success depends as much on luck or marketing approaches as on technical excellence. (The old folks among you will recall the VHS versus Beta battles.)

One thing is clear: pathways to aromatics remain critical if wood-to-sugars pathways are to be economically viable. Ludo Diels of VITO in Belgium described pathways from sugars (furans via glucose, or furfuryl alcohol via xylose) and from lignin. Low reactivity, high molecular weights and high polydispersity of lignin when compared to petroleum-based aromatics remain problems, according to Diels. An interesting way of looking at different molecules is on a plot of percent oxygen content versus percent hydrogen content, as proposed by Thomas Farmer [1]: petrochemical molecules are all along the x-axis (essentially no oxygen) while lignin and cellulose are to the left and up (lower hydrogen content, but more oxygen). In between are a range of oxygenated petrochemicals, for instance polyethylene terephthalate, (C₁₀H₈O₄)_n. The length and complexity of the track followed by various transformation processes from the proposed feedstock (petrochemical or biomass) to the proposed end product on this graph is an indicator of the difficulty of the process in terms of hydrogenation or de-oxygenation. Given this, going all the way from lignin to one of the BTX molecules is probably not necessary (or feasible), especially if you  are going to re-oxygenate to PET, so intermediate lignin products with new functionalities will be critical.

On the policy and analysis side, Cooper Robinson of Cap-Op Energy described the processes for getting Renewable Fuel Credits (RFS2) and for certifying a fuel under California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). These are here to stay, according to him, but the animosity of the current US government to the EPA may be a threat, at least to the RFS program. Other issues include how to allocate GHG emissions in the case of multiple products, where not all are fuels, and how to get credit for a bio-chemical that may displace a GHG-intensive petroleum-based pathway to an identical or similar molecule. This is a complex space where money can be made if the right accounting procedures are put in place.

Peter Milley, of Halifax Global and a graduate student at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, described policy issues in the context of his PhD thesis, which is related to commercially viable pathways to a forest bioeconomy. The Canadian track record is not pretty, with a range of relatively uncoordinated approaches, applied reactively rather than proactively and as part of a long-term strategic plan, and with little in the way of follow-up once deadlines expire. He offered the Finnish national bioeconomy strategy (click here) as an example worth reading, along with reports from the OECD (here) and EU (here). That being said, I would argue the Canadian approach has been far more effective than the large grants from the US Department of Energy; Canadian funding has generally gone to successful projects and has not gotten sucked into quagmires such as the KiOR or Range Fuels disasters. As a result, progress has been slow but has tended to generate better results per dollar of taxpayer money than in the US.

Unfortunately, the organisers had similar sessions scheduled concurrently and in parallel rather than sequentially, so that attendees were forced to choose which bio-fuels session, or which policy session, to attend. So I missed an entire policy session with some very interesting papers, as well as some biorefinery talks I would have liked to see. Hopefully this will be changed in future events. Apart from this quibble, the quality of the presentations and the breadth of expertise in the audience was a very nice surprise given the location, and I am hoping there will be a second edition in a year or 18 months from now.

Were you there? Do your recollections and analysis agree with mine, or do you have a different viewpoint? Did you see interesting presentations that I did not discuss? Drop me a note using the Comments box (for public use) or by e-mail (if you want your comments kept private): Tom (at) TCBrowne.ca.

References:
[1] T.J.Farmer, M.Mascal, Chapter 4: Platform Molecules, in Introduction to Chemicals from Biomass 2nd Ed., Wiley, 2014.

7th Nordic Wood Biorefinery Conference

I thought I had posted this but now I see it in the Drafts folder ... Apologies for the delay! 

I attended NWBC 2017 this week [March27-30 2017) in Stockholm. I've attended all but one of the previous six versions, and I am happy to say that this remains a well-focused opportunity to meet and interact with world-class actors in the field of wood-based biorefineries, without having to wade through endless crop residue presentations, or listen to VP Business Development types from dodgy little startup firms with huge promises but no content. Indeed the presence of solid industrial representatives means that there is a strong focus, not just on excellent science, but also on solutions which actually stand a chance of working in the real world where bankers want decent returns. While the location, which swings between Stockholm and Helsinki, ensures a Nordic focus, there were representatives from Central Europe as well as both North and South America, so it is truly international in scope. 

What follows is a hot-off-the-presses viewpoint, written in the lounge at Arlanda as I wait for my flight home; I gather the presentation material will be circulated soon, at which point I may come back and edit this to fine-tune my comments. 

Industrial viewpoints

Perhaps the best part of this conference in the past has been the strong participation by industrial representatives, and this time was no different. 

Niklas von Weymarn of Metsä Fibre described progress on the new mill at Äänekoski, Finland. This million-tonne per year kraft pulp mill will start off by generating 10% of its revenue from non-traditional products, with an eventual target of 20% or more. The Finnish political climate encourages reduced or zero fossil fuel consumption, so all onsite vehicles, for instance, will be electric and driven by the mill's sizable power surplus. More information, as well as links to real-time webcams showing construction progress, can be found by clicking here. 

Matheus Guimarães of Fibria described the very aggressive process the company is taking to diversify. They now have a joint venture with Ensyn and Ensyn's partner, Honeywell-UOP, for a commercial pyrolysis plant at the Aracruz pulp mill. The resulting oil will be fed to a conventional petroleum fluidised catalytic cracker (FCC) plant; given the deep sea port at Aracruz, this could be shipped almost anywhere. Low substitution rates mean that the oxygen content in the bio-oil requires little or no changes to FCC operation; the UOP partnership supports this view. In his view, replacing 3% of total FCC feed in the US would require 18 Modt/y of wood, an aggressive but not a completely unreasonable number. On the cellulose front, they have a joint venture with CelluForce, and a license for the CNF process developed by GL&V and University of Maine. Finally they are actively evaluating lignin precipitation processes. With their purchase of Lignol a few years ago, it is worth pointing out that three of their paths (Lignol, Ensyn, CelluForce) involve Canadian partners or technologies. 

LignoBoost process and uses of lignin

The week began with an optional tour of the LignoBoost pilot facility, which is hosted by the Nordic Paper mill at Bäckhammar, about 3 hours west of Stockholm by bus. This is a process for removing lignin from kraft black liquor through acidification and precipitation, and competes with the LignoForce process developed by the FPInnovations biorefinery team when I was research manager there. (I'll save the details of the differences between the processes for another day, but in my admittedly biased view, the LignoForce system offers some major benefits). 

Back at the conference, Henrik Wallmo of Valmet described progress on two fronts. The first was odor; he claimed that the main source of odour in lignin is guaiacol, which, unlike various reduced sulfur compounds, cannot be removed by washing. A patent pending approach, which reduced guaiacol content in lignin from 1.42 mg/kg to 0.04 mg/kg, is in the works. Valmet also offers its customers access to a range of product development activities with players such as VTT or RISE. 

Tiina Liitiä of VTT described the LigniOx process (for oxidising lignin) which leads to a concrete plasticizer which is said to perform much better than either ligno-sulfonates or kraft lignin. Hanne Wikberg, also from VTT, described making a more reactive lignin for phenols in resins for plywood, but the cure times presented (15 minutes in the best case) seem long to me compared to a classic petroleum-based PF resin. The comparison presented was with LignoBoost lignin, which is not really the true competitor. 

Many papers described lignin depolymerisation processes, but it doesn't look like any of them are going to be economic anytime soon. Processes described included electrochemical approaches and solvents of various types (including deep eutectic solvents). At least one presenter admitted that the added cost associated with his process may not be recoverable in terms of a probable increase in sales price.

Carbon Fibre from lignin

There was enough on this topic to warrant a separate heading. 

A number of years ago, Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, did some pioneering work in this area. RISE appears to have taken up the torch here, and Darren Baker described current state of the art. The primary issue, in his view, is the need for a sufficiently high-quality lignin as a feed -- everything else will work out fine if this can be addressed. Purity levels of 99.8% or better are needed, which is likely to be expensive; but with PAN representing half the €20/t production cost of carbon fibre, there is a lot of room to manoeuvre. In private conversations with a range of people, I got the impression that estimates of future growth in the area range from 2X to 10X or more over the short term (3-5 years). This is worth watching, in my view, but the volumes are not going to save the pulp industry -- today, any one of the three operating lignin plants could probably meet close to 100% of world demand for carbon fibre with capacity to spare, if the quality was there. 

Bio-Fuels

Also at Bäckhammar, Joseph Samec of Renfuel described their lignin-to-biocrude process which is piloted onsite. Using an esterification process, lignin is linked to a fatty acid (provided by tall oil in the typical pulp mill) to make a liquid that is soluble in hexane. This can apparently be deoxygenated and hydrotreated in conventional petroleum refineries.  

Once back in Stockholm, Valeri Naydenov of SunPine described their bio-Diesel process which is in operation just down the road from the SCA pulp mill in Piteå, Sweden. While the process initially consisted of a fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) process applied to tall oil, today they convert most of the tall oil into a fuel precursor for conversion to a hydrocarbon in the Preem refinery in Gothenburg. The process involves some distillation and other steps, but no longer relies on FAME processes. The plant makes 100,000 tonnes of this so-called RTD liquid per year, enough to provide 2% of the total Swedish demand for Diesel. The process also makes about 50,000 tonnes of a bio-oil that is burned by the pulp mill (presumably in the lime kiln), and is being converted to make an additional 24,000 tonnes of tall oil rosins for value-added products. I recall the SunPine folks and the representative of Arizona Chemicals engaging in some barbed exchanges at past editions of NWBC as well as the old Solander series of meetings in Piteå; it seems that SunPine is doing well and perhaps moving into Arizona Chemicals' turf. 

Tom Granström of St1 Biofuels described their softwood-to-ethanol process. The parent company, St1, operates a petroleum refinery and a chain of retail gasoline and Diesel stations in Finland, Sweden and Norway. The demonstration plant, costing €40M, produces 10 million litres of ethanol per year at the former UPM mill site in Kajaani, Finland. The approach is relatively standard: steam explosion, enzymatic fermentation and fermentation. Lignin is burned for heat and power. No comments were provided on the enzymatic process which has proven difficult on softwood, as is the case here: the feed will be a mix of spruce and pine sawdust. The next step, a 50 million litre plant costing €150M, will include value-added uses for lignin. This is likely to be a challenging task; so-called biorefinery lignins will include a lot of other material such as remains of enzymatic or fermentation organisms. To be continued... Granström claims there is enough sawdust in the Nordic countries, combined with Germany and Austria, for annual ethanol production of 579 million litres. Policies play a major role here. 

Marie Anheden of RISE reported on a lignin to jet fuel process. Lignin is removed from black liquor by membrane-based ultrafiltration, then the permeate is depolymerised using a hydrogenolytic process. This all seems like an excessively complicated process, leading to low yields and possibly high contaminant levels. Lignin cost is said to be the largest component, although numbers were not provided.

Overall, biofuels still have a future in Sweden, and perhaps in Finland, due to political considerations that are absent in other jurisdictions. In a conversation with Joseph Samec of Renfuel over lunch, he agreed that this works in Sweden, which has a very strong political commitment to a fossil-free future, but may be less effective elsewhere. The Swedish policy approach is supported by political parties of all stripes, so is unlikely to change as elections lead to swings from liberal to conservative and back. Meanwhile, back in the USA, the future of the Renewable Fuel Standard is looking increasingly tenuous...

Cellulose and derivatives: Nano, Micro, Macro

Eva Ålander of RISE, the former Innventia, described in some detail their micro-fibrillated cellulose (MFC) process. This includes 2-stage refining with an interstage enzymatic stage; the final freeness is SR 80 or about 55 CSF, so energy levels are likely to be high. In an economic analysis of the use of this MFC as a wet-end additive, MFC production costs estimated at €794/t led to reductions of 5% to 10% in board production costs due to increased filler and lower grammage at constant strength, both contributing to reduced BKP consumption. Addition rate of MFC was 5%. This was all fine but it was mentioned that it is difficult to ship this material, as it is a very viscous liquid even at 4% concentration; the suggestion that every paper mill should invest in its own MFC plant is not really realistic in my view. On the other hand, RISE has a mobile unit, consisting of a pair of 40-ft containers, which can produce 100 kg/h, so machine trials are relatively easy, at least for Nordic mills.

Sugar production and use

The usual approaches to sugar extraction and use were presented. This remains challenging when the feedstock is wood, in part due to yields, and uses of lignin are more important in my view -- these will be lignin plants with sugar byproducts, not the reverse. The uses of lignin are described above. In terms of sugar production and uses, Florence Gschwend of Imperial College London described an approach with ionic liquids; Matti Siika-aho of VTT described an approach using recycled construction waste; all face the usual yield, quality and economic issues facing any other wood to sugar process. None, in my view, represent a game-changer. Mother Nature still makes this challenging.

A range of people also suggested the usual soda or organosolv processes, but again the probability of anyone building a full-scale soda or organosolv plant, if the main product is sugar, is pretty low in my view.

Among the more interesting approaches to using sugars, once you've made them, was a catalytic process from glucose to FDCA described by Juha Linnekoski of VTT. This is claimed not to require fructose, as does the Avantium process; it is also claimed that production costs for FDCA can be below €1000/t. This is thus worth looking at in greater detail, although the underlying sugar price was not broken out. The preprints include a full paper and I will read, review and report at a later date.

Of course the FPInnovations TMP-Bio process, described by Luis Fernando del Rio, is a winner in my view, but then my name is on the patent, so of course you may consider my viewpoint to be somewhat biased.

Summary

So, there you have it. Were you there? Do your notes differ from mine? Did you pick up an added bit of detail I missed? Drop me a line using the comments box, or privately at tom (at) tcbrowne.ca.

8th NWBC

This will, as usual, be hosted by VTT in Helsinki. Mark your calendars for October 23-25, 2018, at the Scandic Marina Conference Centre just around the corner from the fish market. Unfortunately, the garlic restaurant on Frederikinkatu at Uudenmaankatu is closed, but there are plenty of other opportunities for fine dining in Helsinki, including the brew pub which has replaced said garlic restaurant. See you there!

Government policies and the bioeconomy

Policy stability is a critical component of building any kind of industrialised society. When evaluating a proposed investment into a new plant, bankers and other investors all want to see a detailed business plan, with a decent proforma over 20 or 30 years, showing capital repayment and eventual profits. This is especially true in capital-intensive industries. A key part of policy stability is stable taxation rules.

When governments change, even in swings from one extreme of the political spectrum to the other, the incoming finance minister or treasurer will usually be very careful about making sudden, sweeping changes to taxation policy, even if the party campaigned on the flaws of current policies. Any changes made will be gradual, and will be telegraphed well in advance through conversations with business leaders and the press. Stability here is absolutely critical to preventing capital from moving elsewhere. 

The current uncertainty around Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS) in the US, and around carbon pricing in general world-wide, is a major obstacle to the development of a bio-fuels industry. New governments will tread carefully around taxation, but see no problem making radical changes to carbon pricing policies early in a new mandate. 

Why is this? One reason is that carbon pricing is driven by environmental considerations, not the views of Treasury or Finance people. The folks at Environment have their hearts in the right place, but one's position on the environment is more of a visceral reaction ('right', 'wrong'), while Finance is run by accountants and economists with a basic set of rules to go by - 'right' and 'wrong' don't come into it, it is all supposed to be a science. (I am aware of the science which shows that climate change is real and man-made; I am also aware that many do not consider economics a 'science'. I am making the point that one's response to environmental issues is more likely to be emotional, and tied to one's political affiliation, than one's view of the tax act.)

In public, large players in the petroleum and petro-chemicals industries will applaud carbon pricing schemes, and will imply that the adoption of these schemes will accelerate the implementation of novel bio-products. The reality is that the only business plans that depend on carbon pricing come from start-ups. Large industrial players want a business plan that works under current taxation rules (which they assume will remain stable even with a radically new administration) but with no benefits assumed from carbon pricing (which they assume will NOT remain stable from one administration to the next).

To be fair, a more subtle and perhaps more realistic view is that business wants stability. Whether that involves carbon pricing or not is immaterial; what matters is that once it is decided and implemented, it can be incorporated in a proforma that you can take to the bank, with a reasonable expectation that it will remain stable over 20 years. 

What needs to be done? Make carbon pricing part of the tax act, and give it to the bean counters at Finance to manage. Make it simple but effective; base it on solid accounting procedures; make sure it is revenue neutral by clearly identifying other changes to the tax act that will compensate; most importantly, build on the idea of new jobs, generating new tax revenues, from this new industry rather than focusing on the costs and on the potential for environmental disaster. Oil and gas exploration credits are based on the idea that a large oil and gas industry will generate lots of taxable economic activity; carbon pricing should be based on the idea that a large bio-industry will do the same, with potential environmental benefits thrown in as a bonus. And like Brazilian support for ethanol from sugar cane, you can make it clear from the outset that support will decline as the industry reaches a point of standing on its own.

Meanwhile the bio-chemicals industry, which may be less reliant on carbon pricing than bio-fuels, is a better bet moving forward. Bio-fuels, especially second generation bio-fuels, are really only cost-competitive with petroleum-based fuels at oil prices well above $100 per barrel, while some bio-chemicals stand a chance at oil prices closer to $50 per barrel. I am not alone in this opinion; the French giant Total agrees. To read more, click here.

Comments? For public discussion, please use the comments box below, or write to me privately at tom (at) tcbrowne.ca. Thanks for reading!

Growth of the bio-industry

There is a family legend about my grandmother's brother Leo, which says that he was involved in the first airplane trip across the U.S. In order to find out more, and to try to verify the legend, I've been reading up on the early years of the airplane industry and its close cousin, the automotive industry. I have been struck by the similarities between these industries in their infancy, and the current state of the bio-plastics and bio-chemicals industries.

Wikipedia lists operating American automotive manufacturers and the years in which they operated. Copying all this to a spreadsheet allowed me to add up the number of operating companies in any given year, adding existing manufacturers to startups and subtracting failed or merged companies.

There were some surprises.

The number of automotive companies in the U.S. (bearing in mind that Wikipedia's definition of an 'operating company' may be a bit loose) peaked in 1913, at 165. The decline that followed was most likely due to World War 1, and a new increase in startups is apparent beginning in 1920, peaking at 158 in 1921.

But then something happened. By 1929, the total number of companies had dropped to 57. (Another 30 disappeared during the Depression.) However, this isn't the whole story: industry production increased from about 320,000 vehicles in 1913, to just over 4 million in 1929. And given that Ford and Chevrolet, between them, made 2.8 of those 4 million vehicles, the remaining 55 companies really only made about 1.2M units between them.



US auto companies in operation (left scale) and units produced (right scale). Data from Wikipedia. Up to 1942, Wikipedia provides production data by company, for the largest 8 firms only; data for smaller firms is probably not available or reliable. After 1946, production figures in the chart above are for the entire American industry. 

So clearly the industry was growing even if the number of companies was declining. Consolidation, mergers and acquisitions were matched with production efficiencies and increasing levels of standardisation and commoditisation, critical requirements for consumer acceptance. (If you are the proud owner of, say, a 1929 Stearns-Knight, but the only place to get spark plugs or tires for it is the Stearns-Knight factory, which has just gone out of business, your next car will probably be a Ford.)

What can this teach us about the bio-products business? and where are we on the curve?

Jim Lane's excellent Digest covers all the news in this area much better than I can, and is a great source of information on all the various companies out there. For every success (BioAmber), there are many failures, some of them catastrophic (KiOR). But we are beginning to see the development of mature technologies by companies with sensible business plans who are making progress towards being cash-positive without government support. There will surely be more failures along the way, but total tonnage of bio-chemicals and bio-materials produced from second generation biomass supplies is heading for the 7-figure mark.

So is the bio-industry at a point comparable to the automotive industry in 1910? 1929? For discussion ... I would say 1913. Lots of churn, lots of activity, and tonnage is low, but we are beginning to see that inflection point on the curve. Your comments please!

Oh, and Great Uncle Leo? I have no evidence yet that he actually participated in Cal Rodgers' epic transcontinental trek in 1911. The trip took 49 days, 25 of them on the ground rebuilding the Wright Model B after crashes. In fact, Rodgers crashlanded (twice) in the area where Leo was born, at a time when he would have been 25 years old, so it is not impossible that he saw Rodgers' plane, and may even have helped to get it airborne again. Leo went on the serve in the US Air Force as Second Lieutenant in World War I, and the fact he survived to tease an impressionable nephew in the late '60s is remarkable given the life expectancy of Air Force fliers in Europe in 1915 was about 3 weeks. Leo passed away in 1970 at the age of 84.