Cashing In on Carbon 2016 Algae Summit Plenary Session October 25th 2016

ABO Meeting October 2016 1 Algenol Corporate Highlights

Advanced Industrial Biotechnology Company Leading Edge Capabilities . Started up in 2006 . Extensive algal laboratory facilities for advanced product R&D . Headquartered in Fort Myers, Florida . Over 140 employees (~100 in Florida and ~40 in , ) . US DOE 2016 Algal Biomass Grant ($5 million) . $285 million investment to date . Multiple recognition awards over the years

. Outdoor 4.5 acres Process Development Unit to scale up for commercial production

Strong Investor Base and Collaborators

. QC and Analytical chemistry capabilities as foundation for GMP compliance

2 Offices and Labs Process Pavilion

Process Development Unit (PDU)

2-Acre Array for Algal Production

Headquarters and Development Campus Fort Myers, FL

3 Carbon Budget and Distribution

Carbon Distribution Main Interacting Reservoirs (GtC)

600 5000 750 1600

40000

Atmosphere Ocean Soil Vegetation Fossil

How can algae farming help?

• Algal products can help lower CO2 emissions through fossil fuels displacement

• Algae can increase the carbon content of soil via land reclamation

• But, must avoid unintended consequences (land use change, water consumption) Source: Global Carbon Project, 2015

4 CO2 is a key input to algae based products

CO and Embedded Climate 2 nutrients Energy

Commodities and Water, carbon and High value nutrient recycle products Solar Irradiation

Algae biomass Harvesting and Processing and production dewatering conversion

Embedded energy Byproducts and Water Energy and water co-products

Land

Source: National Algal Technology Review, June 2016 (Modified).

5 CCU value depends on scale

Facility Product type CO2 Flue gas Captured Food grade CO2 type needs CO2 CO2 CO2 options (tonne/yr) cost cost cost (% of rev.) (% of rev.) (% of rev.) (1) (2) (3)

Large Biofuels 150,000 7.5 25.0 87.5 Flue gas or Facility: captured

2,000 acres CO2

Medium Ag 15,000 1.9 6.3 21.9 Wide range Facility: Commodities of options – 200 acres based on location

Small Niche, 1,500 0.4 1.3 4.4 Commercial

facility: premium CO2 20 acres products easiest

 Only large facilities (biofuels) can have a material impact on carbon emissions.

 These facilities need incentives such as a RINs, carbon tax and CCU incentives to be viable.

 Without incentives, flue gas economics dictate scarce co-location options with emitters.

 Medium-size facilities (Ag, feed) need more CCU access than CCU incentives.

 Small algae facility focused on premium products do not benefit as much from CCU.

(1) Based on $15/tonne. (2) Based on $50/tonne. (3) Based on $175/tonne

6 Algenol DTE Technology re-uses CO2 Algenol's Direct to Ethanol® process has three key components:

High Productivity Algal Energy Efficient VIPER™ Photobioreactors Platform Downstream Processing

Proprietary Cyanobacteria are grown in Energy efficiency is critical make ethanol and biomass saltwater contained in for economics and for low

from CO2, water, nutrients, PBRs with engineered carbon footprint and sunlight. supply of sun, CO2 and . Algenol has developed and . Ethanol productivity in Florida nutrients. patented its own technology for upgrading dilute ethanol streams ranges from 4000-8000 gal/acre- . Designed for fluid dynamics yr (gepay) dependent on season, consistent with required mixing . Spent algae can be processed process conditions, reactor into a bio-crude that can be for nutrients, CO2, and cells. spacing refined into diesel, , and . PBRs are manufactured at an jet fuel . Target is >7,000 gepay Algenol facility in Florida

7 CCU: Beneficial but not so easy

Initial Case*

90% Heat Exchange Efficiency

1 wt % Ethanol Feed

Algenol Process Pathway

GHG: 16 g CO2/MJ Ethanol

83% GHG Reduction vs. Gasoline Coal Case Natural Gas Case Extend the CO2 capture emission** CO2 capture emission** +43 gCO2/MJ Ethanol boundary +13 gCO2/MJ Ethanol

CO2 Supply from Coal Power Plant CO2 Supply from Natural Gas Power Plant Same Algenol Process Pathway Same Algenol Process Pathway

Total GHG: 59 g CO2/MJ Ethanol Total GHG: 29 g CO2/MJ Ethanol

35% GHG Reduction vs. Gasoline 70% GHG Reduction vs. Gasoline

* D Luo, et al, Env. Sci. & Tech. 44, 8670 (2010). Note; the paper had boundary at Algenol battery limits with pure CO2 available at that point. ** R. Lively, et al, Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 9, 72 (2015)

8 Algenol studied 13 scenarios

GHG reduction Equivalent CO Cost Case # (fossil fuel 2 CO2 Delivery System Description $/tonne CO ** reference)* 2

1 Coal Flue Gas Transport and no Power Generation 23% 45

2 Coal Flue Gas Transport with Power Generation 85% 50 Example

3 Coal Flue Gas with CC and no Power Generation 27% 60

4 NGCC Flue Gas with CC and No Power Generation 73% 70

5 CHP unit for CO2 no Refrigeration 62% 96

6 CHP unit for CO2 with Refrigeration 84% 50 7 NGCC Flue Gas with CC and Power Generation 89% 70 CHP System with CC and refrigeration vent absorber 8 81% 35 exhaust 9 Pure CO (no burden) + NG Power generation** 81% 0 2 Reference**

10 Pure CO2 (from Coal plant CC) + NG Power generation 30% 55

11 Pure CO2 (from NG plant CC) + NG Power generation 65% 65

12 Biomass (wood chips) CHP System and CO2 capture 116% 46 13 Biomass (wood chips) CHP System flue gas 113% 38

* GHG reduction includes total energy produced with a 1 MJ reference to fossil fuel (gasoline plus surplus electricity supplied to natural gas power plant).

** Techno-Economic Analyses (TEA) quoted as effective cost of CO2 with respect to a reference Algenol plant with a 10% IRR and zero CO2 cost (Case 9).

Note: For all these cases, spent biomass injected (sequestered).

9 Favorable: Coal Flue Gas with Power Generation

Flue Gas transported from coal power plant to Algenol Facility

(one of 13 CO2 delivery scenarios studied in detail)

Daytime Operation

2 miles from Power Plant to Algenol Coal FG Grid Electricity CO2 from NG NG for Turbine and HRSG Nighttime Operation

CO2 from NG (emitted)

HRSG = Heat recovery steam generation

NG for Turbine and HRSG 10 Life Cycle Benefits Coal Flue Gas Transport with Power Generation

This scenario yields a GHG emissions of 85% compared to fossil fuel

Total

-85% Total CO2 uptake

14.4 eq/MJ) 2 EtOH ALGENOL Petroleum Fossil fuel Total fossil fuel Ethanol LCA production LCA combustion Offsite

(gCO refining

GHG Emissions Emissions GHG Emission Fuel Biomass combustion

Plant Emission

Fossil Fuel Algenol DIRECT TO ETHANOL®

11 Algenol Recommendations

RESEARCH AND PROGRAMS • Cost reduction of carbon capture, concentration, transport and short-term (industrial- scale) storage.

• Detailed engineering designs for integration of CO2 sources with algae production facilities.

• Demonstration of system integration for CO2 sourcing and algae production, including "stand-alone" systems. • Interagency support for promising, innovative algae systems and products, e.g. regulatory and funding agencies.

ST/LT POLICY INCENTIVES • Regional carbon pricing schemes through EPA Clean Power Plan (CPP). • Expand CCS production tax incentives to CCU. • Investment incentives for emitters to deploy carbon capture facilities.

• Incentives for CO2 pipelines linking carbon sources to optimal algae siting regions.

12 Conclusions

• “Cashing in on Carbon” is a real economic and environmental opportunity for algae based production, but… • Economics of large scale production remain challenging • Algal-based fuels face the toughest economic hurdles and additional technical challenges

• Carbon Capture and Utilization (CCU) in an algae operation is capable of yielding low carbon footprints with innovative use of known engineering systems

• The deployment economics and environmental incentives for CCU are best targeted toward biofuels and other large scale production, but policy-makers should keep in mind that smaller facilities are a stepping stone to validate larger commodity production systems in the future.

• For higher value products (than fuels) to have an impact, policy should support broad applications to the largest amount of products that are economically viable

13 Acknowledgements

Key Algenol Collaborators Georgia Tech

(CO2 and Modeling work) Matthew Realff (ChBE) Yanhui Yuan Teresa Fishbeck Valerie Thomas (ISyE) Sathvik Varma Howard Hendrix Ryan Lively (ChBE) Ron Chance

Reliance Industries Limited University of Toronto Makarand Phadke Professor John Coleman Nikhlesh Saxena Roshni Bahekar Avnish Kumar

Accelergy Corp National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) Rocco Fiato Phil Pienkos John Rockwell Jianping Yu

14