Description:
Please Note that a Letter of Intent is due Tuesday, September 05, 2017
PROGRAM AREA OVERVIEW: OFFICE OF BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES
|
Maximum Phase I Award Amount: $150,000 |
Maximum Phase II Award Amount: $1,000,000 |
|
Accepting SBIR Applications: YES |
Accepting STTR Applications: YES |
Developing technologies designed to close waste loops and optimize resource utility is strategically important, and is viewed by the US Department of Energy as critical to maintaining and advancing sustainable economic growth in a resource constrained world. Viewing wastes, such as traditional wet organic wastes and even inorganic waste gases such as CO2, as resources is a paradigm driving new innovations that will allow higher value fuels and products to be generated from underutilized renewable feedstocks. Beyond simply using waste feedstocks, new systems and strategies for wet and gaseous wastes need to be developed to improve the carbon conversion efficiency of wet wastes and to better manage carbon dioxide emissions. This solicitation therefore seeks proposals for engineered systems that move beyond traditional anaerobic digestion for wet waste conversion, or that couple unique catalytic and biological approaches to manage waste carbon.
Within the constraints detailed in each section, grant applications are sought for the following subtopics:
a. Beyond Biogas: Valorization of Wet Organic Waste Streams
Organic waste streams contain substantial amounts of chemical energy. Since these resource streams, including, but not limited to, food and beverage wastewaters, municipal wastewater, livestock manure slurries, the non-recyclable fraction of municipal solid waste, and other industrial food wastes are biogenic in origin, energy produced from them can be considered renewable, as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has done in granting eligibility to fuels produced from these sources for cellulosic Renewable Identification Numbers(1). While some of the available energy is currently being captured, a significant amount remains untapped(2-4).
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is interested in processes to produce biofuels, bioproducts, and/or relevant precursors from these wet organic feedstocks. One particular focus is to extend the idea of Integrated Biorefineries (IBRs) to wet organic waste streams(5), in support of burgeoning industry interest in “energy-positive water resource recovery” facilities, which produce clean water, energy, and nutrients from municipal wastewaters(6, 7). The DOE’s recent report on Biofuels and Bioproducts from Wet and Gaseous Waste Streams(8) identified several possible technological pathways to achieve these aims; this portion of the solicitation seeks to build on that document. In particular, it targets alternatives to traditional anaerobic digestion that produce products with better value propositions than biogas, such as relevant intermediates to enable the production of jet and diesel blendstocks.
While some specifics vary, the following criteria will apply to all applications:
- Proposed systems must utilize wet organic waste streams as the primary feedstock to produce fuels, or fuel and product mixtures. Wet waste streams are defined in the Bioenergy Technologies Office Multi-Year Program Plan(9). For purposes of this subtopic, biogas is specifically excluded as a feedstock or process intermediate. Note that anaerobic systems that generate and upgrade intermediates other than biogas, such as the carboxylate pathway, will be considered.
- By Phase II, and preferably within Phase I, proposed projects should employ actual (rather than model or synthetic) waste streams as feedstocks.
- Successful applications will propose to develop and run pilot systems by the end of Phase II, at a relevant scale (e.g., 100–1,000 L reactor volume).
- Proposals must include quantifiable phase I objectives, the attainment of which will be a key evaluation factor in the consideration of phase II applications
- Applications must address the energy efficiency of the system. Successful applications will minimize the ratio of required energy inputs to the energy potential of proposed outputs.
- Carbon efficiency is another important metric. Applications will be evaluated on their probability of maximizing the utilization of the biogenic carbon available in relevant resource streams.
- Projects that contribute to and/or leverage the development of fundamental scientific knowledge in areas, including, but not limited to, advanced separation strategies for volatile fatty acids, carboxylic acids or products derived therefrom from heterogeneous aqueous mixtures, improved understanding of product toxicity to heterogeneous microbial and archaeal communities, and advances in toolkit development in terms of proteomics, metabolomics, transcriptomics, and other related areas are of particular interest.
-End products should include at least either three carbon molecules, or at least two carbon molecules with one or more double bonds. Acetylene is specifically excluded.
- Proposals that utilize algae, even if grown on wastewater, and dry waste streams, such as corn stover, or the herbaceous and woody fractions of municipal solid waste, will be considered non-responsive.
- Feedstocks that could be processed to inputs for human or animal food or feed products, including waste glycerol from biodiesel processes, are specifically excluded.
- Transesterification of yellow grease to produce biodiesel is also specifically excluded. Brown grease, however, is an acceptable feedstock. Renewable diesel is strongly preferred over biodiesel as an end product.
- In all cases, the DOE is interested in projects that present the possibility of producing commercially relevant and economically competitive higher hydrocarbons from biogenic sources to displace petroleum. Examples include, but are by no means limited to, butanol, 1,4-butanediol, and medium-chain fatty acids, such as succinic, muconic, and lactic acids.
- Additionally, proposals that strive to complete the conversion of relevant feedstocks to jet or diesel blend stocks suitable for incorporation into existing refinery processes by the end of phase II are particularly encouraged.
- Hydrogen, ethanol, and methanol are not allowed as end products, but are acceptable as intermediates, if the proposal is clear how the intermediates will be incorporated into processes to produce biofuels or bioproduct precursors by the completion of phase II.
- Applications that propose to produce only biopower will be considered non-responsive.
Although all topical applications that conform to the above constraints will be considered, there is particular interest in systems that employ either arrested methanogenesis or hydrothermal liquefaction technologies. Some specific considerations for various systems are:
Arrested methanogenesis (production of biofuels and bioproduct precursors via arrested methanogenesis)
One of the clearest participant messages from the 2014 Waste-to-Energy workshop was that anaerobic digestion that produces biogas might not be the most cost-effective pathway to liquid fuels(10). In response to this input, the DOE seeks alternatives to the methanogenesis stage of anaerobic digestion. Production of biofuels and bioproduct precursors from volatile fatty acids is one promising option, and other possibilities will be entertained(11). Applications should address specific mechanisms to constrain methanogenesis, measures to minimize inhibition of valuable product production, and strategies to convert the products of the earlier stages of anaerobic digestion into biofuels and bioproduct precursors(12-15). Successful proposals will articulate strategies to address the challenges of intermediate and product separations, and success will be judged by cost-effective titers and yields of final products, not simply volatile fatty acids. Again, applications that propose to complete conversion of relevant feedstocks to jet or diesel blend stocks by the end of phase II are particularly encouraged, and co-products are welcomed.
Hydrothermal liquefaction (conversion to jet and diesel blendstocks using sub- and supercritical fluids)
Hydrothermal Liquefaction (HTL) of wet organic waste streams using subcritical water to produce biofuels and bioproduct precursors is a promising technological pathway.(16) While BETO is already active in this area, this subtopic solicits additional proposals that utilize the following substances as solvents/reactive participants:
1. Subcritical water;(17, 18)
2. Supercritical water,(19-21) or;
3. Sub- or supercritical organic liquids, including supercritical CO2 .(22)
Other organic substances are also welcomed as solvents, provided that they provide a net benefit in greenhouse gas reduction or cost advantages versus traditional waste disposal alternative such as incineration, anaerobic digestion, or landfilling. In all cases, the goal is to produce jet and diesel refinery blendstocks that align with BETO’s 2017 and 2022 cost targets, as articulated in the office’s Multi-Year Program Plan.(9) Preference will be given to applications that propose a full chain of production for drop-in biofuels, and articulate a clear and credible path to market. Proposals that include co-products, particularly replacements for petrochemical feedstocks, in order to improve their techno-economic argument are also welcomed.
Questions – Contact: Mark Philbrick, mark.philbrick@hq.doe.gov
b. Non-Photosynthetic Carbon Dioxide Reduction and Biological Intermediate Upgrading
The potential environmental and economic benefits associated with carbon dioxide capture and utilization are drawing increased attention across industry, academia, and the general public. By capturing and subsequently utilizing CO2, carbon capture and utilization (CCU) enables greater carbon management and more efficient use of existing fossil resources. Annually, the US transportation and power sectors combine to produce over 5 gigatons of CO2 (1). Utilization of CO2 not only improves the environmental impact of energy production, but it also incentivizes the monetization of a cheap and abundant carbon resource. Carbon capture is an emerging technology with several commercial-scale successes occurring earlier this year (2) (3), indicating that a future infrastructure to enable greater carbon capture and utilization is a real possibility.
Although there is a large supply of CO2, one critical aspect of its utilization is its low energy content, which makes it relatively difficult for natural biological systems to efficiently reduce CO2 to organic carbon. In fact, even the most robust photosynthetic biological systems are relatively inefficient and slow at utilizing CO2; only about 5% of the energy hitting most plants in the form of light is theoretically used to fix carbon (4). However, once reduced, biological systems can much more easily manipulate simple organic molecules to synthesize more valuable products (5) (6). Leveraging this attribute of biological systems is a staple of the growing bioeconomy.
The US power grid is quickly changing as renewable resources make significant headway in contributing to our generation capacity. By 2018, the electricity generation of solar and wind across the US is projected to be over 870 GWh/day, or about 8% of all our electricity (7). As more renewables are deployed, curtailment of this power becomes a necessity. The power grid in California often sees midday periods where over 40% of the electricity is generated by solar and wind and when electricity supply outpaces demand, that power can be wasted (8) (9) (10) (11). Texas similarly has curtailment issues at times of high wind and low energy demand, setting up conditions where the price of electricity becomes negative (12). The ability to flexibly utilize surplus electricity on the grid during times of high generation could be a valuable grid management tool in a future with high renewable resource penetration and can serve as a strategy to better manage two novel “wastes”: CO2 and electricity.
The Department of Energy seeks grant applications that propose to demonstrate engineered systems that leverage electricity to power carbon dioxide reduction and employ biological processes to convert the reduced carbon intermediate to a final biofuel or enabling bioproduct.
Deployed systems would be required to show that input CO2 will be sourced from either a waste gas point source or the atmosphere (i.e. CO2 feedstock generation for such systems cannot be the intended purpose for consuming biomass or fossil resources). Engineered systems could exploit a catalytic, thermochemical, or electrochemical process to reduce CO2. From there, the process could use any non-photosynthetic biological mechanism to upgrade the reduced form of carbon into a biofuel or enabling bioproduct. Other items for applicants to consider:
- Examples of organic carbon intermediates generated from CO2 include (but are not limited to): formic acid, methanol, carbon monoxide and methane.
- Hydrogen, ethanol, and methanol are not allowed as end products, but are acceptable as intermediates, if the proposal is clear how the intermediates will be incorporated into processes to produce biofuels or bioproducts by the completion of Phase II.
- While the final biofuel or bioproduct is the focus of this study, applicants must source their reduced carbon intermediate from CO2 (i.e. biological processes that simply use a 1C organic feedstock are not in scope). This can be accomplished by a) acquiring the intermediate from a producer/partner who specifically generates the CO2-derived intermediates or b) having the development of CO2 reduction technology as a part of the scope-of-work. Ideal applicants will already have some previously demonstrated capabilities in either the CO2 reduction or biological upgrading portion of this effort.
- Successful applications should propose technologies that, by the end of Phase II, could operate at a significant throughput of CO2/intermediate per day at 100L reactor volume and preferably greater.
- Applicants should consider the robustness of any catalysts/biocatalysts used for the CO2 reduction and upgrading.
- While applicants can assume that the electricity used for the reduction of CO2 is both cheap/surplus and low-carbon, applications must address the energy efficiency of the system. Successful applications will minimize the ratio of required energy inputs to the energy potential of proposed outputs and justify greater electrical requirements with greater carbon efficiencies.
- By the end of Phase II, projects must present a preliminary technoeconomic analysis (TEA) which associates minimum fuel selling prices (MFSPs) to various electricity and carbon prices, and specifically what prices (perhaps even negative electricity and carbon prices) that offer fuel products at or below $3/GGE. Successful applications will outline how such a TEA will be performed and highlight data to be obtained in Phases I and II that would enable the needed analysis.
- Proposed systems should eventually (end of Phase II) function as modular units which can be deployed to defined sources of CO2.
Questions – Contact: Ian Rowe, ian.rowe@ee.doe.gov
c. Other
In addition to the specific topics listed above, the DOE invites grant applications in other areas that fall within the scope and align with the objectives of the topic descriptions. We welcome other engineered systems which address the utilization of organic wet waste and inorganic gaseous waste streams.
Questions – Contact: Mark Philbrick, mark.philbrick@hq.doe.gov on organic wet waste systems or contact Ian Rowe, ian.rowe@ee.doe.gov on inorganic gaseous waste systems
References: Subtopic a:
1. National Archives And Records Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, 2014, Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: RFS Pathways II, and Technical Amendments to the RFS Standards and E15 Misfueling Mitigation Requirements, Federal Register, Vol. 79, Issue 138, pp. 42128-42167.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/2014-16413.pdf
2. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2017, Materials and Waste Management in the United States Key Facts and Figures. http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/2012_msw_fs.pdf
3. Shen, Y., Linville, J.L., Urgun-Demirtas, M., Mintz, M.M., and Snyder, S.W., 2015, An Overview of Biogas Production and Utilization at Full-scale Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs) in the United States: Challenges and Opportunities Towards Energy-neutral WWTPs, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 50, pp. 346-362. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032115003998
4. Tarallo, S., ENV-SP Black & Veatch, 2014, Utilities of the Future Energy Findings, Final Report, Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF), IWA Publishing, Alexandria, VA, pp. 86. https://www.americanbiogascouncil.org/pdf/waterUtilitiesOfTheFuture.pdf
5. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, 2015, Bioenergy, Integrated Biorefineries. http://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/integrated-biorefineries
6. U.S. Department of Energy, Energetics Incorporated, 2015, Energy Positive Water Resource Recovery Workshop Report, P. 58. https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/10/f27/epwrr_workshop_report.pdf
7. Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF), 2011, Energy Production and Efficiency Research - The Roadmap to Net-Zero Energy, WER Foundation, p. 8. http://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/20159
8. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, 2017, Biofuels and Bioproducts from Wet and Gaseous Waste Streams: Challenges and Opportunities, p. 147. https://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/1342171-biofuels-bioproducts-from-wet-gaseous-waste-streams-challenges-opportunities
9. U.S. Department of Energy, 2016, Bioenergy Technologies Office Multi-Year Program Plan, p.258. https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/03/f30/mypp_beto_march2016_2.pdf
10. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, 2015, Waste-to-Energy Workshop Summary, Bioenergy Technologies Ofice, Energetics Incorporated, p. 53. https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/08/f25/beto_wte_workshop_report.pdf
11. Lee, W.S., Chua, A.S.M., Yeoh, H.K. and Ngoh, G.C., 2014, A Review of the Production and Applications of Waste-derived Volatile Fatty Acids, Chemical Engineering Journal, Vol. 235, pp. 83-99. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258839335_A_Review_of_the_Production_and_Applications_of_Waste-Derived_Volatile_Fatty_Acids
12. Vajpeyi, S., and Chandran, K., 2015, Microbial Conversion of Synthetic and Food Waste-derived Volatile Fatty Acids to Lipids, Bioresource Technology, Vol. 188, pp. 49-55. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272518422_Microbial_conversion_of_synthetic_and_food_waste-derived_volatile_fatty_acids_to_lipids
13. Yun, J.H., Sawant, S.S., and Kim, B.S., 2013, Production of Polyhydroxyalkanoates by Ralstonia Eutropha from Volatile Fatty Acids, Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering, Vol. 30, Issue 12, pp. 2223-2227. http://www.springer.com/chemistry/industrial+chemistry+and+chemical+engineering/journal/118
14. Gaeta-Bernardi, A., and Parente, V., 2016, Organic Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) as Feedstock for Biodiesel Production: A Financial Feasibility Analysis, Renewable Energy, Vol. 86, pp. 1422-1432. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148115302251
15. Tice, R.C., and Kim, Y., 2014, Methanogenesis Control by Electrolytic Oxygen Production in Microbial Electrolysis Cells, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 39, Issue 7, pp. 3079-3086. http://www.eng.mcmaster.ca/civil/facultypages/Tice-Kim-2014-IJHE.pdf
16. Kaushik, R., Parshetti, G.K., Liu, Z. and Balasubramanian, R., 2014, Enzyme-assisted Hydrothermal Treatment of Food Waste for Co-production of Hydrochar and Bio-oil, Bioresource Technology, Vol. 168, pp. 267-274. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24709530
17. He, C., Wang, K., Giannis, A., Yang, Y. and Wang, J-Y., 2015, Products Evolution During Hydrothermal Conversion of Dewatered Sewage Sludge in Sub- and Near-critical Water: Effects of Reaction Conditions and Calcium Oxide Additive, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 40, Issue 17, pp. 5776-5787. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319915005431
18. Malins, K., Kampars, V., Brinks, J., Neibolte, I., Murnieks, R. and Kampare, R., 2015, Bio-oil from Thermo-chemical Hydro-liquefaction of Wet Sewage Sludge, Bioresource Technology, Vol. 187, pp. 23-29. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274400412_Bio-oil_from_thermo-chemical_hydro-liquefaction_of_wet_sewage_sludge
19. Akizuki, M., Fujii, T., Hayashi, R., and Oshima, Y., 2014, Effects of Water on Reactions for Waste Treatment, Organic Synthesis, and Bio-refinery in Sub- and Supercritical Water, Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering, Vol. 117, Isssue 1, pp. 10-18. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389172313002302
20. Hung Thanh, N., Yoda, E., and Komiyama, M., 2014, Catalytic Supercritical Water Gasification of Proteinaceous Biomass: Catalyst Performances in Gasification of Ethanol Fermentation Stillage with Batch and Flow Reactors, Chemical Engineering Science, Vol. 109, pp. 197-203. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009250914000463
21. Zhang, L, Xu, C., and Champagne, P., 2010, Energy Recovery from Secondary Pulp/Paper-mill Sludge and Sewage Sludge with Supercritical Water Treatment, Bioresource Technology, Vol. 101, Issue 8, pp. 2713-2721. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/40821487_Energy_recovery_from_secondary_pulppaper-mill_sludge_and_sewage_sludge_with_supercritical_water_treatment
22. Huang, H-j, Yuan, X-z, Li, B-t, Xiao, Y-d and Zeng, G-m., 2014, Thermochemical Liquefaction Characteristics of Sewage Sludge in Different Organic Solvents, Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, 2014, Vol. 109, pp. 176-184. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263774934_Thermochemical_liquefaction_characteristics_of_sewage_sludge_in_different_organic_solvents
References: Subtopic b:
1. U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2017, U.S. Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 2015; p. 18. https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/
2. Archer Daniels Midland Company, 2017, ADM Begins Operations for Second Carbon Capture and Storage Project. http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20170407005436/en/ADM-Begins-Operations-Carbon-Capture-Storage-Project
3. U.S Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, 2017, Petra Nova, World’s Largest Post-Combustion Carbon-Capture Project, Begins Commercial Operation. https://energy.gov/fe/articles/petra-nova-world-s-largest-post-combustion-carbon-capture-project-begins-commercial
4. Zhu, X-G., Long, S.P., and Ort, D.R., 2008, What is the Maximum Efficiency with Which Photosynthesis Can Convert Solar Energy into Biomass?, Current Opinion in Biotechnology, pp. 153-159. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0958166908000165
5. Leonhartsberger, Susanne, Korsa, Ingrid and Bock, 2002, The Molecular Biology of Formate Metabolism in Enterobacteria, Journal of Molecular Microbiology and Biotechnology, Vol. 4, Issue 3, pp. 269-276 https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-molecular-biology-of-formate-metabolism-in-ent-Leonhartsberger-Korsa/a02c2f0720a1ebb0abf7f211446c86c95c1d77da
6. Tonge, G.M., et al., 1974, Metabolism of one Carbon Compounds: Cytochromes of Methane- and Methanol-utilising Bacteria, FEBS Letters, FEBS Press, pp. 106-110 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0014579374803169
7. U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2017, Short-Term Energy Outlook. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/
8. California Independent System Operato, 2014, Renewables Integration, State of the Grid, A Review of 2014. http://publications.caiso.com/StateOfTheGrid2014/RenewablesIntegration.htm
9. Golden, R., and Paulos, B., 2015, Curtailment of Renewable Energy in California and Beyond, The Electricity Journal, pp. 36-50. http://www.powermarkets.org/uploads/4/7/9/3/47931529/calif_curtailment_as_published.pdf
10. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Bloom, A., Townsend, A., Palchak, D., et al., 2016, Eastern Renewable Generation Integration Study, p.234. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/64472.pdf
11. National Renewable Energy Lab, Bird, L., Cochran, J., and Wang, X., 2014, Wind and Solar Energy Curtailment: Experience and Practices in the United States, p. 58. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/60983.pdf
12. Gross, D., 2015, The Night They Drove the Price of Electricity Down, Slate, The Juice. http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_juice/2015/09/texas_electricity_goes_negative_wind_power_was_so_plentiful_one_night_that.html
