Sustainability and Biotechnology

Granted, biofuels and biobased bulk chemicals are low hanging fruits (technically speaking), but the economic and ecological impact of biotechnology is estimated to be more effective with higher-value and more complex molecules. The “buzzword” biotechnology has led to different priorities, often without considering long-term socio-economic costs. Even so, biotechnology holds some very promising solutions to some of our problems with benign synthesis, smart products, and waste recycling. The commercial potential of biotechnology is huge, a colossal 1000 billion U.S. dollars, or about an order of magnitude more than today! In order not to disappoint investors and tax payers, however, we need to develop our tools further, especially for complex molecules for various applications. Introduction “Socialism collapsed because it did not allow prices to tell the economic truth. Capitalism may collapse because it does not allow prices to tell the ecological truth” [Øystein Dahle, ESSO Norway]. Economic theories do not explain why alpine glaciers in Europe are melting at an alarming rate, why fishing grounds suddenly collapse, or why the bee population is decreasing to such an extent that pollination becomes a problem for fruit growers. The conflict between economy and the earth’s natural systems is taking a growing economic toll.1 Robert Costanza et al.2 estimated that already over 10 years ago the earth’s ecosystems provided 33 trillion U.S. dollars worth of services per year. However, indicators show that the global economy has expanded far beyond what the natural ecosystem can provide. “Cleantech” and “bio-based economies” are solutions that have been proposed to balance economy and ecology and to stop this destructive overexploitation. The buzzword ,biotechnology. has made it onto the agenda of top-ranking politicians expecting sustainable manufacturing, green house gas reduction, and new jobs based on these new “cleantech” and “biotech” technologies. Bang et al.3 from the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) claim that industrial biotechnology avoids ∼33 million tons of CO2 each year, without taking biofuels into consideration. The same authors have calculated the range of full climate change mitigation potential of industrial biotechnology of up to 2.5 billion tons of CO2 equivalent (tCO2e) per year by 2030.4 This is more than Germany’s total reported emissions in 1990. Without doubt Biotechnology can provide attractive solutions. However, we should avoid a “green bubble” and unrealistic expectations. Let us, for example, consider the chemical market, one of the prime targets for biotechnology. Sales of global chemical markets5 are expected to grow from 2292 billion euros (2950 billion U.S. dollars) in 2007, to 3235 billion euros (4160 billion U.S. dollars) in 2015 and to 4012 billion euros (5160 U.S. dollars) in 2020. Estimates vary, but only about 3-6% of all chemical sales have been generated with some help from biotechnology,6 but this figure is anticipated to grow faster than the average market figures. It is speculated that ∼20% of global chemicals will be derived using biotechnology in 2020 that translates into 1000 billion U.S. dollars! That means about a 1 order of magnitude increase from today’s figures. The share of biotechnologically produced fine chemicals is also expected to grow from 8% to 60% between 2001 and 2010. The estimates of the global sales of industrial biotechnology products vary from 50 billion dollars to 140 billion U.S. dollars, depending on whether biofuels are included. Estimates and definitions may vary, but there is one common denominator and one clear message: the proportion of products manufactured using biotechnology is expected to increase overproportionally. However, if we want to make today’s dreams a reality tomorrow, we need to focus on harvesting the huge commercial potential of about 1000 billion U.S. dollars which biotechnology apparently represents for chemistry. Just for comparison the combined therapeutic protein and monoclonal market, or red biotechnology, was about 70-80 billion U.S. dollars in recent years. There are no shortcuts in biotechnology, and in order to meet the anticipated 1000 billion U.S. dollars derived from biotechnology we need to develop appropriate tools.7 We should not forget that it took 200 years to develop the chemical toolbox. Biotechnology will not take as long, but it is not very probable that we will develop all the missing tools in one or even two decades. We need to move fast but the technological problems are too large for single companies. An African proverb says “If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go * Author to whom correspondence may be sent. Fax +41 27 947 51 78. E-mail: [email protected]. (1) Haberl, H.; Erb, K. H.; Krausmann, F.; Gaube, V.; Bondeau, A.; Plutzar, C.; Gingrich, S.; Lucht, W.; Fischer-Kowalski, M. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2007, 104 (31), 12942. (2) Costanza, R.; d’Arge, R.; de Groot, S.; Farber, M.; Grasso, B.; Hannon, K.; Limburg, S.; Naeem, R.; O’Neill, V.; Paruelo, J.; Raskin, R. G.; Sutton, P.; van den Belt, M. Nature 1997, 387, 253. (3) Bang, J. K.; Follér, A.; Buttazzoni, M. Industrial Biotechnology. World Wildlife Fund: Denmark, Sep 2009 download: www.wwf.dk. (4) CO2 equivalent or mixture of green-house gases that would have the same global warming potential. (5) Perlitz, U. Chemieweltmarkt: Asiatische Länder auf dem Vormarsch. Just, T., Ed.; Deutsche Bank Research: Frankfurt am Main, Germany, June 2008, www.dbresearch.de. (6) Little, A. D. Prism. 2009, Download: http://www.economist.com/ science/tq/displaystory.cfm?story_id)13725783. (7) Ghisalba, O.; Meyer, H.-P.; Wohlgemuth, R. Industrial Biotransformation. In Encyclopedia of Industrial Biotechnology.; Flickinger, M. C., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, United States, 2010. Organic Process Research & Development 2011, 15, 180–188 180 • Vol. 15, No. 1, 2011 / Organic Process Research & Development 10.1021/op100206p  2011 American Chemical Society Published on Web 10/28/2010 together”. In addition to focus, we need new forms of open collaboration within the industry itself and between industry and academia. Industrial biotechnology has made it onto the agenda of politicians, who are looking for a “green image”, quick wins, and additional voters, but we need to make them aware that it will still take some time to make industrial biotechnology a widely used technology that creates many jobs. Today’s reward and recognition schemes in industry and academia are not ideal for a rapid improvement of this situation. Cleantech, Biobased Economy and Its Supply Chain. To solve the conflict between economy and ecology a holistic approach is needed. Cleantech encompasses many different innovative products, processes, and services aimed at optimizing the use of natural resources or reducing the negative environmental impact by their use. Companies and public organisations will adopt the cleantech principle because it can lead to lower costs, improved efficiency, and superior performance. Cleantech applies to all human activities from tourism to manufacturing, and biotechnology is only one amongst many technologies which can be applied for cleantech purposes. The big expectations are, however, in replacing carbon from oil with carbon from biomass and in providing the decisive contribution in CO2 reduction by “decarbonisation“ of the energy system”. Two biology-based technologies are required to reach this goal, agrotechnology and biotechnology. Biotechnology can provide sustainable added value by fermentation (biosynthesis) and/or biotransformation for better products and services, whereas agrotechnology can contribute in other waysseither by fixing carbon dioxide directly in plant material and the targeted product or providing the biobased raw materials needed for biotransformation and biosynthesis, if global land resources and population-supporting capacities are in balance.8 Close to 30 billion metric tons of CO2 were produced in 2006.9 On the other side of the equation is the fixation of CO2 by photosynthesis and carbon assimilation by vegetation. Today this equation is obviously not balanced, as CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere and the stabilisation and reduction of greenhouse gases has become a generally accepted necessity. However, there is great divergence of opinions on how to achieve this goal. Sustainable growth means first of all that we need a different approach for the definition and the handling of waste. Waste, in fact should not exist. There should only be left-over materials that can be used for different purposes. “Industrial Biotechnology is expected to be one of the strongest driVing forces behind the world’s low-carbon reVolution” states for example U.K. Secretary of State. Lord Mandelson.10 The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) estimate of 2.5 billion tCO2e savings would be an important contribution which biotechnology can provide. However, there are several important unknown variables such as available arable land and water resources that are critical to the realisation of this goal. A Danish study assumes considerable cropland expansion, whilst other studies believe that we are facing a reduction of global arable land by 20% by 2030.11 Table 1 on the other hand shows that the use of biomass as a raw material for chemicals was negligible up until now.12,13 For the last 7000 years our economy has been biobased. From the beginning of agricultural society until the 19th century agriculture and nature provided for food, feed, shelter, fuels, and pharmaceuticals for all human beings. We need to return to a biobased economy at least partially and replace fossil fuel carbon by carbon from renewable resources. The reality is that most European countries, for example, are dependent on “ghost acreage” and have to import significant amounts of food to support their requirements. The question is, can we further increase the use of the biosphere without compromising sustainability and massively interfering with the food chain? A biobased economy also needs a reliable biomass supply chain without short-term price fluctuations. Although Table 1 suggests that there seems to be room for biobased bulk products, the following questions still arise. Will we need highly regulated and Soviet-type “collective farm” models to ensure the mass supply of agro-commodities, although Table 1 suggests that there seems to be room for biobased bulk products? Will we need more regulation instead of deregulation in an already overregulated agriculture? Will we need to increase government support payments and agricultural subsidies, which are already in the hundreds of billions of US dollars per year in OECD countries? What about the efforts that have been initiated to ensure biodiversity if monoculture or “green concrete” agriculture will have to prevail? Are we not trading an oil problem for a water problem? About 95 million barrels of oil are used in one day worldwide. Between 5-7% are used for chemistry; the rest goes up in smoke. In fact there would be an oil glut for chemistry if we had the necessary installation for renewable energy generation and efficiency programmes (it is cheaper to save energy than to buy it after all) in place and realised! This gives an entirely different perspective on where to use biobased raw materials and where to continue to use petrochemicals. Thus, Table 2 has also considered this scenario, that the investments into existing renewable energy sources are realised. Biofuels. There are 900 million vehicles running today, and there will be 1.5 billion vehicles running in 2030. With these perspectives and the problem of global warming, liquid biofuels have gained a lot of attention. Even otherwise ecologically indifferent administrations use biofuels to give themselves a (8) Eswara, H.; Beinroth, F.; Reich., P. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 1999, 14, 129–136. (9) www.eia.doe.gov/iea/carbon.html H.1co2. (10) Industrial Biotechnology Innovation and Growth Team. Maximising UK Opportunities from Industrial Biotechnology in a Low Carbon Economy; BERR|Department for Business Enterprises & Regulatory Reform: U.K., May 2009; http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file51144.pdf. (11) National Geographic Magazine; Washington, DC, U.S.A.; Sept 2008. (12) Kamm, B.; Kamm, M.; Gruber, P. R.; Kromus, S., Biorefineries Industrial Processes and Products. Status Quo and Future Directions; Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA: Weinheim, 2006; Vol. 1. (13) Nusser, M.; Hüsing, B.; Wydra, S. Potentialanalyse der industriellen, weissen Biotechnologie. FraunhoferInstitut für Systemund Innovationsforschung: Karlsruhe, Germany: 2007; www.innovationsanalysende/de/ download/endbericht_weisse_biotechnologie_final.pdf. Table 1. Production and use of biomass on a global scale billion tons/year proportion in % annual production of biomass (photosynthesis) 170-180 100 used by humans 6 3.5 use as raw materials for chemistry 0.3 0.5 Vol. 15, No. 1, 2011 / Organic Process Research & Development • 181 green touch without considering the socio-economic costs and consequences for agriculture and forestry. To make things worse, projections on cropland requirements, green house gas (GHG) savings, production costs, and water requirements for the different biomaterials vary considerably as different standards are used. The water demand for biofuels is especially alarming.14 However, the problems do not stop there as there are four obstacles to a biotechnological large-scale liquid biofuel production. (1) the limited arable land and water resources. (2) the low yield of photosynthesis (plants 1%; algae 4%). (3) the recalcitrance of lignocellulosic material to hydrolysis. (4) the low energy density in the biomass. (5) the uneven distribution of the biomass. Although promising pretreatment methods like using ionic liquids such as 1-allyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride have been described,15 biological conversion of lignocellulosic material remains less attractive than nonbiological methods, such as the Fischer-Tropsch (FT) process which was developed in the 1920s and 1930s in Germany to produce liquid fuels from coal via the coal to liquid (CTL) process.16-18 Today this FischerTropsch process can be applied for biomass to liquid (BTL). The rule of thumb states that it takes about 1 ton of biomass to produce one barrel of liquid fuel, but the problems of the low energy density in the biomass and its diluted presence remain. Transport alone is destroying the advantage of a large part of the CO2 sequestrated. Algae. Algae grow an order of magnitude faster than terrestrial plants. When grown phototrophically they have the potential to sequester CO2 from smokestacks of power plants and produce compounds such as unsaturated fatty acids and carotenoids or to be used as dried biomass. Saphire Energy, San Diego, CA, U.S.A. apparently have already supplied algaebased jet fuel for the Continental Airlines and Japan Airlines for test flights.19 However, the large-scale mass cultivation of algae using sunlight is far from being solved, and the calculations are sobering. Algae using CO2 as a carbon source are a theoretically ideal solution but are a long way from being cost competitive20 in practice. However, enterprises with excessively high CO2 emissions, such as coal-powered power stations, may look at the economics in a different way because of CO2 emission trading. The German power company RWE opened a pilot plant in November 2008 to test the use of CO2 sequestration by growing algae on CO2 from the power plant exhaust gases as the only carbon source.21 Methane. The situation is more favorable for biogas from various wastes (municipal, agriculture) in combination with a cogeneration plant (combined heat and power). The yield of the energy recovery can reach 90%. Since 1991, numerous methane plants with varying outputs have gone on stream. In 2006 Bioenergy Co., Ltd., commissioned a methane-generation plant with a planned power generation capacity of 24000 kW ·h/ day using waste from the food industry in the Tokyo metropolitan area.22 The technology has matured to such a degree that the necessary amount of raw waste material for the production of biogas is becoming scarce. “Naturemade Star” for example is a biogas electricity production programme in Switzerland struggling with supply problems and biomass waste