Biofuel Industry Hopes to Recover with Next Generation Fuels
Scientists know how to make fuel from prairie grasses growing on marginal land.
They know how to make fuel from fast growing trees with root systems that extend 25 feet into the ground, sequestering carbon emissions and enriching the soil. They even know how to make fuel from algae. They do all this in their labs every day. The problem is making cellulosic and algal fuel in large quantities at costs that compete with fuels from petroleum such as gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel.
This is my second article (previous article) from the 31st Symposium on Biotechnology for Fuels and Chemicals sponsored by NREL (also see the liveblogging from the event). 800 global bioscientists gathered in San Francisco to share their research and showcase their progress.
- » See also: BP Could Start Selling Biofuels By 2010
- » Get Gas 2.0 by RSS or sign up by email.
Their progress with biofuels from cellulosic sources is important. Some corn ethanol plants have closed. Once promising corporations, such as VeraSun, are now bankrupt. Lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions for fuel-from-food are being scrutinized. Industry would benefit greatly from biomass that can be grown at much higher yields per acre than corn. Industries such as agriculture, wood, and paper would benefit from making money from waste and from having added revenue sources.
At the conference, cellulosic ethanol pioneer Verenium shared their progress. In Jennings, Louisiana, they are producing 1.4 million gallons per year of cellulosic ethanol. The fuel can be mixed up to 10 percent with our current gasoline, saving us from needing almost 1.4 million gallons of foreign oil each year. Some might be delivered as E85. Instead of using corn, which requires high inputs of energy, nitrogen, fertilizer, and water to produce, Verenium is using a crop that produces eight times the energy required to process it – energy cane, a hybrid of sugar cane optimized as a fuel source not a food source.
Sugarcane and energy cane are part of Brazil’s energy independence, being the source of over 40 percent of their fuel. Now energy cane is being grown in some of the more tropical places in the United States. At a time when project financing is difficult, major partners are critical to financing larger commercial plants. In a joint-venture with BP, Verenium plans to build a 36 million gallon per year plant in Florida.
Is energy cane as water-hungry a crop as sugar cane, and as labor-intensive to harvest? If so, scratch that one off for US energy independence; we didn’t just buy the Everglades back from the sugar industry in order to wreck them again growing overpriced fuel. So, thank Prime someone’s doing research into alternatives to corn ethanol and cane ethanol.
“The plant should be able to compete with oil at today’s prices by also producing other valuable outputs, such as chemicals which can be used to make detergents.”
For 25+ years we’ve been hearing statements like that from the solar power industry — SHOULD BE ABLE TO.
This article ignores economic comparisons. That leads me to believe it’s very far out in the future, if ever.
Brad, you raise valid issues. Water intensity and growth in areas of biodiversity are important concerns in the use of sugarcane and to a lesser degree energy cane and a number of feedstocks. During the next decades the shift to electric rail and passenger vehicles will moderate the demand for biofuel and petroleum fuel, as water scarcity and land use grow in importance. Energycane goals:
1. Minimizing water use and negative impacts to the quality of drainage waters, including exploring wastewater reuse technologies to support biomass energy production.
2. Maintaining soil fertility and maximizing soil carbon storage and carbon neutrality of biomass energy production systems in humid temperate and subtropical environments.
3. Minimizing sediment and nutrient loss and potential erosion and/or subsidence of associated coastal ecosystems.
4. Improve biofuel production to 1,200 to 2,100 gallons per acre per year.
USDA Energy Cane Research:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/projects/projects.htm?accn_no=412816
What’s wrong with biofuels is that the are hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons produce carbon dioxide and water, two greenhouse gases that the most highly respected scientific organizations in the world believe are causing irreversible, cataclysmic climate change! Let’s not kid ourselves, biofuels are not a solution to carbon in the air!
Here are some basic facts on fuels per acre: 1) bio-diesel (50-100 gallons per acre) 2) ethanol Brazil (727-870 gallons per acre) 3) ethanol USA (321-424 gallons per acre) 4) cellulosic ethanol (1000 gallons per acre) 5) bioelectricity (1500 gallons per acre) 5) photovoltaics (100,000-300,000 gallons gasoline equivalent per acre) The numbers are so wide and in favor of photovoltaics or solar that using crops for fuel should be abandoned. Another waste of government money that can easily be discerned by using elementary mathematics. Ethanol might be use to control emissions. Furthermore these numbers don’t include the fuel to plant the seeds and process the plants. USING CROPS FOR FUEL SHOULD BE ABANDONED! All government monies on biofuels should be eliminated.
All this depends on getting electric cars on the road ASAP.
Glenn,
Yes, biofuels create CO2 when burned, but it’s the same CO2 that was sucked out of the air when they were grown.
Bill,
One advantage to the biofuels is that they are their own convenient storage system that integrates right into the current infrastructure. Solar and wind require a storage system such as batteries (which have their own environmental problems and have a much lower energy/kg than biofuels).
Is your 100K-300K GGE/acre including the energy and resources required to manufacture the photovoltaics (PVs). Since PVs are so expensive, I’m assuming the price reflects an energy-intense manufacturing process as I don’t believe any of the elements are rare enough to warrant the high cost. Price-wise, PVs take ~2 decades to pay for themselves (not including tax breaks), so, energy-wise, it’s probably not too far off to assume it takes at least 10 years to break even.
The thing about all these “advancements” (and please don’t get me wrong - I am totally for the production of all “alternative” fuels, the problem is - they never talk about costs per gallon. Where they are now in terms of what it is costing them in $/gallon. I mean.. the bottom line is precisely that. But then again - the whole pricing system is out of whack with respect to biofuels - because conventional fuels get to dump as much carbon in the air as they like - so that too needs to be addressed.
Tim,
“…part of Brazil’s energy independence, being the source of over 40 percent of their fuel…”
Ethanol is only contributing 16% to their transportation energy.
Source:
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2009/04/more-brazilian-ethanol-whoppers.html
Cellulosic is not affordable, and will probably always be just five years away from being affordable.
Energy cane makes ethanol the same way as regular cane–feed sugars to microbes that pee ethanol, burn the bagasse to make energy for the refinery. It is only more efficient because it grows taller and has more bagasse to burn. And it can only be grown in tropical climates, and Brazil can grow a lot more than we can.
A recent study has shown that burning biomass to make electricity is a far more efficient use of land area that turning biomass into liquid fuels, regardless of type of biomass.
Source:
http://biodiversivist.blogspot.com/2009/05/electric-cars-get-81-better-miles-per.html
The commenter above was referring to this graphic:
http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/Graphics/img19.gif
You are talking about photo voltaic panels. The solar energy will be captured and stored using molten salts as shown below:
Source:
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/solar-thermal-which-technology-is-best-6091/
The comment about carbon was referring to land displacement. If you displace a food crop for fuel someone displaces a carbon sink to grow the food you displaced.It can take decades to centuries to recoup the carbon with the crop.
The ethanol production process has an energy demand in the order of 60% of the final energy yield. Any process that has extra processing on top of this will likely consume even more energy.
Bio methane from anaerobic digestion consumes in the order of 20% of the energy produced in the conversion process. Most of this is electricity which is used or compression of the biogas to remove the non CH4 gasses, and as such can be scheduled to run on off peak electricity.
Digesters can use cellulosic grasses and waste products together and produce a nutrient rich slurry for use as a fertilizer.