While it’s impossible to say which methods will end up being the most successful (and different methods will probably tailored for the particular feedstock), many techniques that may be successful in the lab have no chance of succeeding in commercial practice. The pretreatments must generate easily fermentable sugars at high yields and concentrations, conserve nutrients in the biomass and be implemented with modest capital costs. They shouldn’t use toxic materials or require too much energy input to work. Most important, they must be cheap.
The most promising approaches right now involve subjecting the biomass to extremes of pH and temperature. One approach that uses ammonia—a strong base—is being developed at a laboratory run by one of us (Dale). In the ammonia fiber expansion (AFEX) process, biomass plant material is cooked with hot concentrated ammonia under pressure. When the pressure is released, the ammonia evaporates and is recycled. The treated biomass gives high sugar yields of 90 percent or more following a final conversion by enzymes. This approach minimizes the side effect of sugar degradation that often occurs in acid or high temperature environments. The AFEX process also is “dry to dry”: biomass starts as a mostly dry solid and is left dry after treatment, undiluted with water. It thus provides high ethanol at high concentrations.
It also has the potential to be very cheap: a recent economic analysis showed that, assuming biomass can be delivered to the plant for around $80 a ton, AFEX pretreatment can produce cellulosic ethanol for around $1.40 per gallon. If we project to a future where a streamlined agricultural infrastructure exists, and assume a “mature” process in which the processing costs are about 30 percent of the overall grassoline production costs (as it is in the oil refining business today), grassoline will be delivered to the pump for around $2 per gallon.
The Cost of Change
Cost, of course, will be the major determinant of how fast grassoline will grow. Its main competitor is petroleum, and the petroleum industry has been reaping the technological benefits of dedicated research programs for over a century. In addition, most petroleum refineries in use today have already paid off their initial capital costs; a lignocellulosic plant built using today’s technology will cost between $300 million and $500 million, a price that will have to be integrated into the cost of the fuel it produces through the years.
Grassoline, on the other hand, enjoys two major advantages over fuels from petroleum. First, the raw feedstocks that go into making the fuel are far less expensive than raw crude. This should help keep costs down once the industry gets up and running.
Second, new analytical tools and computer modeling techniques will let us build better, more efficient biorefinery operations at a rate that would have been unattainable to petroleum engineers just a decade ago. We’re gaining a deeper understanding of our raw feedstocks and the processes we can us to convert them into fuel at an ever-increasing pace. The government’s support for research into alternative forms of energy should help this process to accelerate even further.
Indeed, if we maintain our current national commitment to move beyond oil, we will see an explosive growth in cellulosic biofuels over the next five to 15 years as biomass conversion technologies move from the laboratory to commercial scale. This move towards grassoline will fundamentally change the world. It is a move that is now long overdue.
See what we're tweeting about
36 Comments
Add CommentHigh temperature processes generating gases convertible to most any fuel sound great if it can ever be accomplished economically. Also like the ammonia fiber expansion (AFEX) process, where biomass plant material is cooked with hot concentrated ammonia under pressure. Concentrating solar collectors should be capable of 1200 degree C. using high temperature transfer liquid (sodium?) to point of use.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf intermittent operation is unacceptable, employ ceramic lined insulated storage tanks.
The most practical combination for the near future is Bio fuels supplemented with wind, solar and the nationwide smart grid and nano tech battery hybrid cars.
Use natural gas in trucks and power plants during the development of the above.
C.V. Johnston, P.E.
First let me answer your questions, based on my view of the world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCellulose biomass is required by nature to fertilise our planet, it is what keeps our forests growing without anyone fertilising anything.
Cellulose is best converted into fuel by mimicking nature, microbes in the gut of termites generate about 20 million tonnes methane per year.
If you use biomass, you are still several steps away from the primary source: solar energy. Consider artificial photosynthesis which directly converts solar energy into sugars (fuel).
Raw materials may be cheap now while there is no demand but prices will increase with demand. Then we shall deprive our planet of a much needed source of fertility.
If we generate cheaper energy we shall become more wasteful. Evolution made us walk on 2 legs to save the energy equivalent to one biscuit.
The best solution to all our problems is to control our numbers, educate every single individual, and start to live simple, local, sustainable lives. We need to move away from industrial agriculture, restore forest cover, increase biodiversity and above all else reduce greed.
Generations X,Y and Z are the most self centred, self obsessed, energy wasteful bunch of homo sapiens to have walked on earth. Life on earth has fashioned our planet to what it is today, a self sustaining bioactive planet. Over the last 5K years we have slowly destroyed it, from creating the Sahara desert to increasing C14 levels by 900% by nuclear testing, we have brought onto ourselves the cancer epidermic and our early extinction.
The problme not matter what crop is grown it also depends on fertilizer to make the crop grow. This fertilizer usualy comes from a fossil fuel source natural gas , pertrolium. The frist generation of fuel used this as a source to grow the crops so they are NOT truely a clean fuel as they are made out to be.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSwitich grass on the other hand ceulositic biomas can come from any vegatation which is good. I feel the other posts are very pessismistic but I do agree the world is in a mess.
George W. Huber and Bruce Dale are chemical engineers asking for our assistance. They are obviously looking for ideas that will help their efforts. Most of us that read these type of articles are already aware of our dilemma. The important thing is to be positive and attack the problem. It will take a combination of short and long term solutions to wean us off oil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTheir approach speeds up what takes nature a long time to do while using waste products or plant growth that requires little or no fertilizer and produces the least net CO2.
For those that have read the above article, let George W. Huber and Bruce Dale have your ideas about how we accomplish their goals efficiently at low costs, or better yet a specific process that more efficiently accomplishes the same intent.
What is your reaction to their assertion that "huge amounts of cellulosic biomass can be sustainably harvested to produce fuel"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile certainly not an expert on the subject, I recently took a chemistry class in which we made biodiesel...my professor is currently exploring the use of algae in the production of bio fuel. The idea as I recall, is to erect large covered water tanks next to coal fired power plants and other industrial fixtures that release large amounts of co2 into the atmosphere, pumping the co2 into the water increases the growth rate of the algae which can be harvested often.( I have several fish tanks at home and have seen how incredibly fast algae grows) This not only grows vast amounts of "cellulosic biomass" which can be converted into fuel and possibly other products (fertilizer?) but also converts a large amount of the co2, which as we all know is being touted as a problem gas in the amounts we are spewing forth, into oxygen. This is just one idea I have heard that seems to validate the idea that yes we can produce an incredible amount of "cellulosic biomass"...
What do you think are the most promising avenues of exploration in figuring out how to deconstruct cellulosic material?
While I don't know which method works the best, the more simple approach to anything, the better. From what I have read, there has been significant advancements in focusing and amplifying sunlight to unlock hydrogen molecules from water, while not very efficient yet this method could probably be used in certain areas to create the energy needed to break down cellulose. However, I think the most promising idea is to use bacteria or possibly a retro virus designed to break down only certain areas of a compound and leave the rest alone. These processes could be highly effective and mostly autonomous in a closed system like a tank full of algae and would not use electricity or other energy to push the reaction.
Also I have recently hear of using radio waves at varying frequencies to break down hydro carbons it seems very promising and has been used to convert plastic, and rubber products back into oil and gas. Like putting a tire in a microwave and having it come out as oil and gas.
Vehicular propulsion technology is moving away from combustion of liquid fuels and toward electric energy stored in batteries. Efficiency may be gained by converting biomass to electricity. Biomass can be burned to generate steam which can generate electricity. Technology can be applied to obtain clean burning with minimal pollution. Carbon dioxide is not an issue because the CO2 released by combustion is recycled back to fuel, water, and oxygen by the growth of biomass. The source of the energy is solar.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't think we should forget lignin and hemicellulose which do not react in the same way. Lignin I understand converts most directly to oil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, I note that many of the "green" energy alternatives are intermittent (solar, wind, wave, tide etc.) so using these sources of energy to convert bio-mass to more easily used energy may help solve the need for batteries by being a sort of bio-battery.
The Fuel of the Future Is Grassoline
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCellulosic biofuel could reduce our reliance on foreign petroleum without the problems associated with ethanol from corn--if we can figure out how to extract its energy economically
By George Huber and Bruce Dale
CELLULOSIC BIOFUEL: Instead of producing ethanol from corn via fermentation, new techniques could produce grassoline from otherwise unused biomass.
�ISTOCKPHOTO.COM/JIM PARKIN
Editor's Note: George W. Huber and Bruce Dale are chemical engineers at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and Michigan State University, respectively.
In this article, a rough draft of which appears below, Huber and Dale point out that biofuels remain one of the most technically promising alternatives to oil. The key will be learning to convert cellulosic biomass (like stalks and stems, and unlike edible cereal corn, which is noncellulosic) into fuel. Please help us edit the following piece by suggesting factors the researchers may have overlooked or refinements to their argument.
Here are some questions to get started:
What is your reaction to their assertion that "huge amounts of cellulosic biomass can be sustainably harvested to produce fuel"?
Only in non-temperate regions- meaning the Tropics, pan-Pacific and South America - or anywhere around the equator where there is high solar levels.
What do you think are the most promising avenues of exploration in figuring out how to deconstruct cellulosic material?
What other viable biofuel manufacturing processes might Huber and Dale want to consider?
Fast Pyrolysis
Do Huber and Dale present a persuasive case that cellulosic biofuels are the most technically promising alternative to oil?
Not at all...The issues are about quantity- as in half a trillion gallons/year for Europe and America alone!
What is your reaction to their assertion that the "raw feedstocks that go into making the biofuel are far less expensive than raw crude?"
As long as we are talking about not setting up farming that does not compete with food crops or move land into biofuel production over food production- than this assertion is correct.
How do you think a "move toward 'grassoline'" would "fundamentally change the world"?
If possible, would create the biggest employment opportunity and new economy ever! And, would bring down and stabilize the cost of energy. These are the two most important economic factors. The political freedom from the enslavement of civilization to the oil cartels and Russia (greatly weakened now due to oil's low price), who dictate the growth of the world economies. The replacement of petroleum as the primary energy source would also help stop feeding terrorism with 100's of billions of black dollars and block many wars from ever beginning...(our real unsubsidized cost of gasoline in America is about $10.50 per gallon when you add the military assistance and tanker escorts. The cost of clean air on the health of its citizens burning fossil fuels that create real cancers, deaths, asthma, etc.; The cost of transport, and energy infrastructure that tax payers subsidize; And; the tax breaks we give to the oil cartels and multi-nationals). Of course this would be directly at the cost to the governments of the world , whom all profit from oil revenues at the pump and all the way up the fuel chain. Look at Italy, that makes $0.75+ USD on every liter of petrol for example!
Your feedback will be considered by the writers and editors as they complete the final draft of this article, which will appear in an upcoming edition of Scientific American magazine.
By now it ought to be clear that we must get off oil. We can no longer afford the dangers that our overwhelming dependence on petroleum poses for our national security, our economic security or our environmental security. Yet civilization is not about to not stop moving, and so we must develop a new way to power the worlds transportation fleet. Biofuels, or liquid fuels made from plant material, remain the most technically promising alternative.
Biofuels can be made from anything that is, or ever was, a plant. First-generation biofuels are made from edible biomass such as corn or sugarcane. Although we already possess the technology to convert these feedstocks into fuels (as evidenced by the nearly 200 refineries currently processing corn into ethanol in the U.S.), there is simply not enough corn, sugar cane or vegetable oil to provide more than about 10 percent of the liquid fuel needs of developed countries such as ours. These first generation biofuels also compete for farmland with crops used for human food and animal feed, which complicates the calculations of the environmental costs and benefits associated with them. We need biofuel raw materials that are cheap, abundant and that do not interfere with food production.
The winner in all three categories is cellulosic biomasswoods, grasses and inedible stalks of plants. Fuel made out of this biomasswhat well call grassoline could come from dozens, if not hundreds, of potential sources, from wood residues such as sawdust and construction debris, to agricultural wastes such as corn stalks, to energy crops fast-growing grasses and woody materials that are grown expressly for their energy content.
Huge amounts of cellulosic biomass can be sustainably harvested to produce fuel. According to an upcoming study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Department of Energy, the U.S. can produce at least 1.3 billion dry tons of cellulosic biomass every year, and all without decreasing the amount of biomass available for our food, animal feed or exports. This much biomass could produce more than 100 billion gallons per year of grassoline, or about half the current annual consumption of gasoline and diesel in the U.S. Similar projections estimate that the global supply of cellulosic biomass has an energy content equivalent to between 34 billion to 160 billion barrels of oil per year, numbers that exceed the worlds current annual consumption of 30 billion barrels of oil. And unlike biofuel made from corn, cellulosic biomass can be converted to any type of fuelethanol, ordinary gasoline, diesel or even jet fuel.
The use of expensive enzymes is not going to work at this volume of production ever- (let alone a trillion gallons a year needed for world supplies)- so we need to develop new chemistry to break down cellulose- the most durable material ever invented by man of Mother Nature! The more we promote this non-starter- the farther away from a real solution we go!
Beautiful!! Keep up the good work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan't wait for my copy.
As with so many of the articles about grassoline, I keep wondering what's the hold up. I'm afraid that none of the articles I've read, this one included, make it completely clear why it's taking so long.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThree years ago, I bought a used flex-fuel vehicle. Then a year later, I learned to my dismay that the E-85 I was buying displaced food production, so I went back to gas. I'm impatient to be able to return to grassoline derived from cellulosic stock.
The authors write: "It also has the potential to be very cheap: a recent economic analysis showed that, assuming biomass can be delivered to the plant for around $80 a ton, AFEX pretreatment can produce cellulosic ethanol for around $1.40 per gallon."
OK, if that's true, that we can get cellulose ethanol at $1.40, then I'm baffled why people are still writing and talking. You'd think there would be a huge effort moving forward on this. Why isn't there? The authors should answer this question.
"Yet civilization is not about to not stop moving, and so we must develop a new way to power the world’s transportation fleet."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne of our problems is embodied right their in the first paragraph. It is the notion that we have to, and we will, find ways to keep business as usual going. It is the complete inability of most people to understand that business as usual is not usual and is an anomaly in the history of humans, and is impossible to sustain indefinitely?
I read somewhere that the rate of energy captured from the sun for ALL of the biomass in the US is less than the rate at which the US uses energy. I suggest that the authors look into this aspect and consider whether fuel from biomass will ever have more than a tiny impact.
The authors should also examine more closely claims about the sustainability of harvesting 1.3 billion dry tons of cellulosic biomass every year. What is the definition of sustainability here? What quantity of nutrients and organic matter is lost from the soil by such harvesting, and how does it get replaced? What resources go into the growing and harvesting of this material?
Near the end of the article, the authors write, "Cost, of course, will be the major determinant of how fast grassoline will grow." Notice that environmental impact is never mentioned once in the article. Such an omission is reprehensible. Monetary cost should never override environmental impacts. We need processes that are environmentally sustainable; only then should we consider whether they are cost effective. The authors need to tackle environmental impacts head on before suggesting ways to imitate what took nature hundreds of millions of years to achieve (crude oil from biomass).
It's noticeable that this magazine has increasing numbers of articles and blog entries on energy issues. It gives the impression of a mad scramble to keep powering our present way of life. At least the energy problem appears to be getting proper recognition but I wonder when natural limits will get that recognition also.
Surely cellulose conversion to bio-fuel is a laudable goal. But the attendant difficulties (including very expensive refineries) begs the question (political, not practicable) of why cannabis both as a source for cellulose, and directly from seed into a biodiesel, is not utilized. The Germans in WWII fueled their Panzers with this fuel. Approximately three hundred gallons per acre with little or no tillage and scant fertilizer should make it a crime (like it once was) not to produce this crop on marginal land. I believe the Speaker of the House in North Dakota (a full time large scale farmer) found the problem was in the Federal Government, and not with farmers or local government. Certainly serious research should be continued on cellulose fuel, but the real problem is "not in the stars, but ourselves."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVern Johnston:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo where are your ideas? At least I gave them my answer to all their questions.
I also took the time to look at the down side. Not doing this has got us in our current mess.
The current rate of extinction of species exceeds the rate during the fifth extinction.
Did you know how much methane is produced by termites? I find most people who claim to be green are just being fashionable without a clear understanding of the issues.
A biodiversity imbalance caused by a massive human population is the principal cause of rapid climate change.
The fuel of the Future?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCellulosic biofuel could reduce our reliance on foreign petroleum without the problems associated with ethanol from corn--if we can figure out how to extract its energy economically.
Mother Nature, has shown us the way to extract and use the same, since time arrived, it also has proved to us that, the fuel we can extract could be used more efficiently, by refreshing the product we extract after it is being used to an in definitive long time.
However, we humans are greedy (especially the Manufactory, which builds such, motorised vehicles)
We have computers being used in Cars to control useless gadgets (with some exceptions) of sensors to control the engine, instead of reclaiming the exhaust and adding nutrient percentage of oxygen, (a system may run without adding new fuel for a longer period)
But why should they, once they full their belly with jelly beans, they dont care about Mother Nature.
Just another story that tells us, the green people are wonderful and would never lie to you. Just ask A G. We can add this to our fuel systems, but is not the single answer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWHAT ABOUT HARVESTING THE BIOMASS FORM ALL THE HOMES IN THE US THAT ENDS UP IN LANDFILLS, GRASS CUTTINGS, LEAVES WEEDS COULD BE COLLECTED BY TRUCKS THAT COLLECT THINGS LIKE OUR RECYLED MATERIALS, WHICH MY TOWN WILL NOT PUT IN THE LANDFILL WHICH GIVES ME A HUGE STORE OF MULCH WHICH ENDS UP ON THE BORDER OF MY PORPERTY, ALL CAN BE USED.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO USE YARD WASTE, GRASS CLIPPINGS TREE AND SHRUB CUTTINGS, EVEN LEAVES AND HAVE THE COMMUNITY COLLECT IT LIKE THEY DO WITH RECYCLED MATERIAL.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fuel of the Future?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCellulosic biofuel could reduce our reliance on foreign petroleum without the problems associated with ethanol from corn--if we can figure out how to extract its energy economically.
Mother Nature, has shown us the way to extract and use the same, since time arrived, it also has proved to us that, the fuel we can extract could be used more efficiently, by refreshing the product we extract after it is being used to an in definitive long time.
However, we humans are greedy (especially the Manufactory, which builds such, motorised vehicles)
We have computers being used in Cars to control useless gadgets (with some exceptions) of sensors to control the engine, instead of reclaiming the exhaust and adding nutrient percentage of oxygen, (a system may run without adding new fuel for a longer period)
But why should they, once they full their belly with jelly beans, they don’t care about Mother Nature.
1) it's helpful to have the authors up front declare any financial interests they have in these specific technologies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2) There are literally dozens of other approaches to liquid biofuels and even more options for alternative energy approaches that are probably equally competitive with the proprietary processes discussed here.
3) As engineers they focus on the specific conversions of cellulosic into alcohols or hydrocarbons. There are a host of other huge technological, logistical and economic hurdles for the production, harvest, storage, pre-processing of biomass. All of those problems need to be solved simultaneously for any of these technologies to be successful. That is a very very difficult cumulative task, and any of the hurdles may limit the ultimate success.
4) Their 'analysis' of FTS capital costs shows the limits of their biomass options. It would take at least 10 cellulosic plants producting 50 million gallons / yr to provide the same fuel as their Qatar example plant. The optimistic capital costs for that amount of production would be at least $3 billion, or 2-3 times greater.
5) Biomass prices are likely to increase, not decrease in the future. Congress will soon pass a renewable energy standard for power plants that will increase demand for forest and crop 'wastes' or 'energy crops'.
6) CO2 reduction is >4 or 5 times cheaper when you simply burn biomass to displace coal rather than use lot of energy to convert it to liquid fuels. That is the brightest future for 'biofuels' in the near term (5-10 years).
7) The authors should answer the questions Mark Pine raised in his comments on this string, that there is a lot of hype about how great this technology is, but it is moving very very slow, even with massive government support. Why? My answer is that technology advocates like Huber and Dale were promoting how close we were to cellulosic fuels 2 years ago. Now they say we will see 'explosive growth' in next 5-15 years away! What do they mean by that? Are we 5 years, or 15 years away, it makes a big difference.!
8) During that 5-15 years, other technologies for transportation (for example, batteries for electric cars) will also be improving dramatically and may become a more viable option than biomass fuels.
One major factor that has only been mentioned once above is the need to supply biomass crops with nutrients. Probably the most productive biomass per acre is young growth wood. But if you harvest wood continuously, you impoverish the soil. One solution is to harvest only water, as I will explain. Our industrial revolution has been mainly carbon-based. If we pyrolyse wood, it gases off carbon monoxide and hydrogen. If we harvest theses gases, we are converting to a largely hydrogen-based society, where the biomass is fed by water. The Carbon remaining is in the form of charcoal which can be ground down and used as a soil ammendment, so the biomass does not impoverish the soil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis agricultural practise has existed in the Amazon basin for thousands of years, and the technology is actively researched by a small group of dedicated scientists and in particular at www.EPRIDA.com. On a practical level, this 'Biochar' technology actively sequesters CO2 pumped into the atmosphere from fossil energy sources! Charcoal production was employed on a vast scale in France until the 1950's to supply the organic chemistry industry with pure feedstock, and vehicles were powered by CO and H2 from the process. Sweden still heats its steel industry with charcoal.
Research teams are currently awaiting the results of appraisal of this technology by the UN and EU to see if it will be exploited by third-world farmers paid with carbon credits.
Current research is investigating the effects of biomass distillates and condensates on soil organisms to evaluate their effect on increasing soil fertility by several hundred percent in tropical biotopes as is recorded. Biochar could be the simple solution everyone has been waiting for.
Good morning,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI live in Jamaica and am currently doing some feasibility work on using " the bamboo plant" among others as our feedstock,to establish on mined out bauxite lands.
We think that in addition to the expected favorable economic impact, this would be environmentally and ecologically very beneficial .
I am interested to have your critique of this project.
Sincerely
Eddie Wright
Morning,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA FEW FOLKS here in Jamaica are looking at feasibility of using "the bamboo plant" amomg others as feedstock for a proposed cellusic ethanol plant.
We intend to establish forests on restored mined out bauxite and lands, expect the project to be economically,environmentally and ecologically favorable.
What is your opinion as to likely success of this bamboo plant?
Please provide any advise and or suggestions.
Regards
Eddie Wright
PS.Keep up the great work
Biomass can be used directly as fuel. For example, take a 19th century steam locomotive, and instead of burning coal in the firebox under the boiler, burn switchgrass. Now design a scrubber to handle the soot, and you have a clean, efficient mode of transportation, using a renewable fuel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only stuff I have read up on that seemed feasible are fast growing woods like bambo and there was this other type I read in SciAm like 5-6 years back. Then you burn it. Essentially it is a efficient "solar cell".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI did like bluegreens pumping CO2 into a nearby lake for fast algae production.
And it seems from the above that in Jamaica they are testing bamboo for a number of uses already.
As for 1.40$ a gallon for ethanol that is absolutely incorrect. Ethanol is just not going to work as the corn farmers propose. I'd only make ethanol from excess corn that couldn't be sold as food (which already happens anyways).
Anyways, I wish you 2 luck since it is a difficult problem. I think niche applications are the way to find good uses. Like in NH and vermont the wood pellet burning stoves are a huge success and in such high demand that the wood pellets became way overpriced. Mass cost effective production of wood pellets for this new type of wood stove could allow millions in the US and around the world to heat their homes efficiently.
Of course, since you two are chemical engineers maybe you should look into how to use bacteria to speed up methane production in garbage heaps (for storage and use).
Problems are everywhere, heh.
One thing the authors do not address in the article is the total energy budget for any of the processes. Current edible biomass ethanol production is often critized for using almost as much energy to make as is produced when used. How efficient are any of these processes when compared to current corn based ethanol production?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy bio-chem. is not up to seeking enzymes etc. but I
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswould caution that to be sustainable, the process must
include some method for recapture and conservation
of soil nutrients, most notably fixed nitrogen, for return
to the source.
This is normally done by recycling the cellulose biomass
that we wpould be removing.
We are already losing/depleting topsoil at a worrisome rate.
"Monetary cost should never override environmental impacts. " - Wrong!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCosts are usually related to amount of energy used. Ethanol is expensive mostly because it takes so much energy to produce (fertilizer, transport, distilling). I bet if you calculated the amount of energy required to mine, refine and re-re-refine solar cells, it wouldn't be all that carbon neutral either.
Smart environmentalist need to realize that economics mean something to get to workable solutions.
First, I applaud the authors commitment to search for alternative sources of energy. Clearly, fossil fuels, if left unchecked, will do us in. In response to their questions, yes it is possible to harvest large amounts of crop residue, but is not nearly as easy to do as many in the Departments of Energy and Agriculture as well as academia think it is. The logistical realities are almost overwhelming. The sheer mass of biomass feedstock material needed to fuel a large bio-refinery is massive. For example, how will the millions of tons of biomass material required be; harvested, handled, transported, cleaned, preprocessed and made easily usable by the bio-refinery and all in a cost effective manner. These issues are too lengthy to discuss in a response to this article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the article's authors wish to discuss any aspect of the biomass feedstock value chain issue further, please feel free to contact me via e-mail.
In the version of the Huber & Dale article that I have, there is an "editorial insert" on page 39 that says High Plaines Bioenergy will use 30million lbs of pork fat (lard) to make 30 million gallons of biodiesel annually. The math does not support this. 30 million lbs of lard can convert to perhaps 30 million POUNDS of biodiesel which is nominally 4.2 million GALLONS
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnvironmental degradation of soil with resulting water and ocean pollution is largely about the organic matter removal. Agriculture has very little organic matter to spare. The only crop of any size with some organic matter to spare would be corn. And there obviously is no land available for energy crops without very significant environmental costs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen we cannot produce sufficient calories to feed humans; how can we expect these same resources to produce the many times greater liquid energy for our machines? Corn grain is something in the neighborhood of 0.1 % efficient in net energy conversion of an acre of sun light energy into ethanol energy. Sugar cane is about 1%. Just one SUV 25 gallon fill of ethanol takes the corn calories to feed one person for a year.
Solar, concentrated solar in the form of wind, geothermal and even nuclear are quite environmentally clean and much cheaper energy sources. Subsidizing ethanol or bio-diesel does not allow for efficient resource allocation. Rather levy a fee on fossil energy commiserative to environment and social damage.
Huber and Dale as chemical engineers naturalput a chemical spin on the problem of imported petroleum fuel. They lack an understanding of agriculture. The cellulose is not "waste" it is vital to soil health. Surely the US experience of the Great Dust Bowl cannot be completely forgotten.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgriculure can provide solutions. The cheapest and most efficient is biofertiliser. Produced right there in the soil it requires no fuel to transport it, process it, distribute it or apply it. It has one great disadvantage - less business for the chemical industry.
Another is fibre. Instead of spending all that energy in breaking down fibre to create gasoline it would be simpler to use fibre to replace the chemical fibre that consumes such a large amount of petroleum. Again I can see difficulties for the chemical industry if such a cheap and simple solution was adopted.
Brian Chatterton
Ladies and gentalmen, you forgot the most important part about biooil...It's carbon negative. Big selling point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe shall go to any extreme to perpetuate the notion everyone on earth has a right to a private vehicle at puberty!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCertainly, if things grown are the subject of this car feeding exercise, let's talk about water. We need to recharge the Ogallala Aquifer. Also, out west, the Central Valley Aquifer is running dry. Low water tables in California invite salt water intrusion, so this is more than just a problem calling for more electric power over time. Pumping energy requirements do certainly bring up the new EIOER figures for old water supply engineering proposals, though! Can't grow grass with salty water!
As a youth employed with California's Department of Water Resources, I had occasion to study papers on "North American Water & Power Alliance". NAWAPA brings water from McKenzie River watershed and Columbia River outflow south and eastward. Many hydropower generation sites enroute help shorten amortizing time.
NAWAPA as a water pipe runs eastward to the Great Lakes, recharges Ogallala Aquifer, and Salt Lake Basin. Southward flows reach Shasta, Lahontan, and ultimately, Mexico via the Rio Grande system. It seems anyone touting grass-fed motor transport would be interested in Water Resources Engineering. Farmers with big electric bills, Hello! Senator Grassley...
This geezer's take on things leans more to the rethinking of the transport mode mix: more railway, mains expanded in capacity & reach, dormant branchlines rebuilt with updated container handling enroute. Renewable power grown in step with added railway prime mover consumption. Goes with donatselkirk letter (5-10-09) -logistics- of bulk transport.
Bible story in Daniel Chapter 4 is interesting, notes downfall of a kingdom of great world importance, reduced to "eating grass". It gets better: Dan. 4: V15 gives us railway sounding phrase: -the kingdom (allegory of a tree) is preserved from complete destruction by "bands of iron & bronze". Electric railways run on iron (steel rails) and have phosphor bronze overhead power cables. This is not scientific, call it a coincidental item from Judeo Christian writings. I saw it because #1, I am a Christian, and #2, Study rail transport extensively.
Rail projects helpful with grassoline, in NAWAPA electricity country shall include Kaiser Engineer's Rail electrification proposal of Oct. 1945, seen in John Signor's "Sierra Crossing" pages 156 & 157. Christopher Swan wrote "ELECTRIC WATER" (New Society Press, 2007), helpful and topical.
See (peakoil.net) articles 374 & 1037, please
You won't have room to grow anything with the way the population keeps growing. Cities keep getting larger. People grow more careless by the minute mostly due to poor education and parents that were just to busy, to selfish, or to damn lazy to take an interrest in their childrens future. Due what you must, but in the end???
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The best solution to all our problems is to control our numbers, educate every single individual, and start to live simple, local, sustainable lives. We need to move away from industrial agriculture, restore forest cover, increase biodiversity and above all else reduce greed."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood heavens. I think the request was for ideas that had at least a microscopic chance of happening.
The existence of a few too many "we" really means everyone but you need to do all that; socialism in other words where you can tell 7 billion people how to live, whether to live, where to live, and so on.
I trust that you have controlled your number, educated yourself, grow your own food and live "off the grid." Otherwise you are not subscribing to your own ideas and neither are very many other people.
But this is not efficient. The United States, for instance, has vast regions where it simply is not possible for very many people to live local sustainable lives -- Los Angeles, Phoenix, Anchorage and so on.
"I read somewhere that the rate of energy captured from the sun for ALL of the biomass in the US is less than the rate at which the US uses energy."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile I have no information on that specifically, it seems likely given that vast tracts of the United States do not produce much cellulose. However, sugar cane produces enormous quantitites of cellulose and the stalks are a waste product of sugar manufacturing. Hawaii, Central America and the Phillippines represent areas where cellulose production is likely to exceed local consumption.