For last 5-6 years, the words bioenergy and biofuel are gaining much publicity, but we are still using non-renewable petroleum-based products as fuels. So much research has been done and currently going on the field of bioenergy & biofuels, but still the commercialization of these has not been undertaken. What do you think; Is it economical to make bioenergy & biofuels commercial? Are they more efficient than petro-based products?
Bioethanol is not only interesting as car fuel. You can use it to cook, it can provide smoke-free heating, you can build mini powerstations to make electricity and hot water on small scale in rural areas (to prevent people from burning much larger quantities of wood and destroy forests), it is a clean feedstock to produce ethylene, and from that polyethylene and polyvynil chloride...and it is save to store in a plastic tank in the garden. If ethanol is spilled in the environment, it is bio-degradable within days. And of all the bio-fuel generations, only first generation works, and a carbohydrate crop such as sugar cane is far more productive than any oil crop for bio-diesel, and edible oil is more valuable as food then it is as fuel, so keep all the vegetable oil for the kitchen and focus on ethanol. Lignocellulose conversion to ethanol is inefficient and currently "generation phantasy" , along with biodiesel from algae. The pictures of great algal energy farms in the desert is "generation photoshop", they only exist in computer programs. So what about carbohydrate crops? Sugar cane is great, but it occupies the land for 6 years for 5 harvests and there is onot that much land surface on earth suitable for growing this crop. Potato and sweetpotato are annual crops that produce more starch per surface and time, are easier to harvest, and there is much more land that could be used for these crops. The problem is that some of the best agricultural land is used for animal farming to produce meat. If we want more food and more bio-energy, one should consider converting animal farm land to high yielding crop land. People get carried away with second, third and fourth generation biofuel, but at the end of the day what matters is how much edible calories can be produced and stored by a crop per time and land surface, how easy is it to convert the crop into biofuel, and how easy can it be integrated into crop rotation schemes to keep productivity up, maintain flexibility in business, and minimise the need for fertilisers and pesticides. So if we grow more potatoes, they can be eaten, or they can be converted to glucose syrup or bioethanol, and next year we can grow beans. When you grow poplar trees, eukalyptus, miscanthus...well then you are stuck with them and you can't eat them either. And no, you cannot grow them on non-fertile land in remote marginal areas because how are you going to remotely harvest without spending more energy in transport than you get out of it? There are loads of mis-conceptions circulating the globe, but at the end of the day, the only bio-fuel that will make the market will be a fuel that can be used for many applications, that is safe, that can be profitably produced without subsidies, and the latter only works with an integrated refinery strategy that uses everything and wastes as little as possible.... Brazilian sugar cane yielding ethanol, crystal sugar and electricity is really the best example so far because the harvest index is so high and the bagasse is used as fuel. In contrast, American corn should be eaten, and if you really must, convert the excess to corn syrup for the pancakes, but forget about corn ethanol because the harvest index is too low and the value as food is too high.
And we will use them, as the "oil peak" is nowhere near. The presently available commercial biofuels expensive and are produced mostly from edible feedstocks.
Biofuel crops such as Corn, palm tree and sugar cane addition, require billions of gallons of precious water, and plenty of fertilizer, pesticides, and land management with heavy machinery. They are economical only with massive subsidies. Biofuel plants such as Japtropha tree, Millettia and Camelina are more economical and carbon neutral. Replacing food crops with the energy plantation is for the governments to decide.
http://www.energyfuturecoalition.org/biofuels/benefits_env_public_health.htm
A good discussion is given here: A graphic from the blog. Also read the comments.
http://urbantimes.co/2011/12/synthetic-biology-and-the-biofuel-revolution/
There are some biofuels available in places on small-scale, but the main issues are economics and the use of foodstuffs for the production of fuel.
the huge cost for production is one of the main stumbling block for biofuels. A lot of research are being done to minimise the cost. Algae as the 3rd gen biofuel has a lot of potential but the harvesting and lipid extracting process is still very expensive. There is also the challenge of cultivating them. although the algae grow easily, to have them at optimum lipid condition is challenging, so far the process need to be done in lab instead of open field. For the algae biofuel maybe integration with other system can bring the cost down, for example, the algae can be use in pharmaceutical product as well or we can cultivate the algae as part of the water treatment cycle.
Brazil has shown that bio-ethanol from sugar cane can compete with fossil fuels, without affecting food supply or food prices because less than 1% of Brazil's arable land is used for bio-ethanol. The strategy works without subsidies because sugar cane cell walls are used as fuel to generate steam, to power 3 different processes: 1) evaporation of water to create crystal sugar for retain, 2) evaporation of ethanol in the distillation to separate it from water, 3) generation of electricity with whatever is left. It works because the crop is highly productive, the bio-fuel refining strategy is easy, and the process is integrated so nothing is wasted. One could reduce production costs further if one could increase the sugar concentration in the sugar cane. Another improvement is to go from sugar crops to higher yielding starch crops, but the US maize bioethanol has given the bio-fuel sector such bad publicity that nobody really goes for the best starch crops (just because they are also food crops). If a few good man can muster the courage to simply prove that the best starch crops can yield even cheaper bio-ethanol, then we can also handle the truth about food versus fuel: there is no need for a fuel versus food debate because there is no food production problem, we only have problems to distribute the food and to preserve the food, both of which are dependent on affordable energy. So whoever works on cheaper and more sustainable energy doesn't work against food security (as so often stated in the media), but actually helps to achieve it.
In India:
Biofuels are globally considered sustainable and ecofriendly source of energy to enhance national energy security and decrease dependence on imported fossil
fuels. During the past one decade, Government of India (GoI) has initiated several measures to augment production and use of biofuels. The National Biofuel Mission launched in 2003 is the frontrunner of such efforts in the country. The ‘National Policy on Biofuels’ released in 2009, foresees biofuels as a potential means to stimulate rural development and generate employment opportunities, as well as aspires to reap environmental and economic benefits arising out of their large-scale use. The Policy aims at mainstreaming biofuels by setting an indicative target of their blending up to 20 per cent with petrol and diesel in the transport sector by the year 2017 (GoI, 2009).
II agree with kunal garg, most of Biofuels production still limited scale and not available commercial.
I agree with György Pölczmann. The biofuels are expensive than conventional petro-fuels.
Lack of efficient production technology and very high production cost are the major limiting factors in popularization of bioenergy and biofuel. But at the same time alternative source of energy and fuel are warrantable looking to the shrinking resource of petro-products and fossil fuels.
The drawback of starch based products is that they lead to food-fuel conflict. But, starch based industrial residues can be utilized as an alternative for bioethanol production. Switchgrass and Miscanthus grass are reported in literature for ethanol production. In India, the following grasses can be utilized: http://www.flowersofindia.net/catalog/grass.html
In the case of the EU, the situation is the following:
Energy security and climate change mitigation are core elements in the current European energy policy. The EU countries are mandated to meet by 2020 a target of 20% renewable resources in the energy supply and 10% renewable resources in energy in the transport sector. The latter corresponds to a replacement of 50 billion liters of fossil transportation fuels. The Energy Strategy 2020 of the European Commission calls for increased use of renewable resources in the energy system and the European Council has presented a long term target for the EU and other industrialized countries of 80 to 95% cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. A cornerstone in renewable energy projections of the European Union is biomass, which is expected to account for 56% of the renewable energy supply in the EU27a by 2020.
Government programs towards increased use of renewable resources for energy are not exclusive to Europe. According to Niclas Scott Bentsen* and Claus Felby in the United States the Energy Policy Act and the Energy Independence and Security Act focus on promoting various renewable resources, wind, solar, hydro, geothermal and within biomass mainly liquid biofuels and sets a target of 136 billion liters of biofuel for transport in 2022, hereof 80 billion liters from advanced biofuels, not based on corn starch. The Brazilian ProAlcool program since 1975 has contributed to an increased Brazilian ethanol production from below 1 billion liters in 1975 to 26 billion liters in 2009/10.
The global perspectives for future energy production are for the use of more renewable resources in general and on biomass in particular. In the European Union the overall target for renewable energy is higher than anywhere else.
Currently energy crops in Europe comprise mainly traditional food crops as rape seed and sugar or starch crops. In future supply scenarios lignocellulosic energy crops are expected to play a larger role. Agriculture in the EU27 countries is characterized by a high proportion of cereal production. In 2007, 56% of arable lands were grown with cereals. Thus, agricultural residues comprise mainly straw, leaves and stalks of grass species (Poaceae family) as e.g., wheat, maize, barley and rye.
The EU27 countries have experienced a steady increase in wooded land of more than 22 Million ha over the past more than 20 years and resources from forestry and forest industries are a main contribution to bioenergy production. At present forest biomass is mainly used to support material demand, however, between 2010 and 2020 energy purposes may take over as the major demand. The potential supply of biomass from forests, stems, felling residues and bark is not expected to change significantly from 2010 to 2030, but the potential for wood industry residues will increase some 30% in the same period.
Development trends
Many of the reviewed studies point to short rotation (1–10 years) energy crops as the main future resource of biomass for energy purposes. Short rotation crops, however, are only some among many options for a future bioenergy supply. Tree species in longer rotation may also show interesting perspectives as energy crops. Crops in short or long rotation exhibit different characteristics in terms of flexibility regarding crop renewal, flexibility at harvest, storability, productivity and growth pattern. Combining the characteristics of different crops may prove beneficial in the development of a secure and productive bioenergy supply.
The scientific challenge is not that different biomass resource assessments return differing results. Resource assessments are used to answer different questions, e.g., on the impact on energy production in general of enacting certain policies; on the availability of specific resources for specific purposes; or on the viability of shifting from one energy resource to another. Consequently, the answers differ. The challenge is rather the lack of reproducibility and transparency. Resource assessments aiming at the same question should preferably return comparable answers.
National renewable energy action plans provide an estimate of domestic and imported biomass resources required to meet the targets of the EU energy strategy. These estimates are reported under different assumptions regarding conversion efficiency and in differing units hampering direct use of data. The biomass demand has been calculated on the basis of national renewable energy projections with the application of conversion efficiency multipliers based on and the assumption that 11% of European electricity generation is based on co-generation of heat and electricity. We find that the amount of biomass required meeting the EU27 targets increase from 3.8 EJ in 2005 to 10.0 EJ by 2020. In 2009 the EU27 countries had a primary production of biomass and waste of 4,2 EJ. The amount of biomass required in 2020 includes the use of ~0.1 EJ of traditional food crops, i.e., cereals and sugar beet for 1st generation bioethanol and oil crops for biodiesel as well as 0.5 EJ in countries outside EU27 as feedstock for liquid fuel. Heat and electricity production make up the lion’s share in all years to 2020, but a transportation increase from 5% of the biomass demand in 2005 to 18% in 2020. In a longer perspective to 2050 or 2100 substantially more biomass must be expected to be converted to energy services in the EU27 countries to meet the long term targets of decarbonizing the electricity and transport sector.
Bioenergy production may be increased through further mobilization of existing resources, intensification of current production or expansion into ‘new’ land. The impact on GHG emissions from an expanded production of energy crops have been widely analyzed, e.g. One main finding is that the conversion of forest, grasslands and wetlands to agriculture results in a loss of carbon in soil and biomass. The type of biomass for energy grown on converted land also affects the carbon balance in soil and biomass. In general perennial species as sugar cane and Miscanthus are favorable to annual species as they sequester carbon in soil. An option for reducing the impacts of bioenergy on land use may be to consider a more integrated approach to land use simultaneously producing energy and food on the same land.
Burney et al., and Vlek et al., find that in many cases increased agricultural production achieved through intensification is favorable to agricultural expansion in terms of GHG emissions. This conclusion, however, requires land liberated due to intensification are converted into forest of forest land being ‘spared’ from conversion.
Land use, land use change and (environmental) sustainability of energy crop production have become a major issue in European policy on biomass for energy. As a result GHG emissions caused by land use change must now be included in meeting sustainability criteria set up by the European Parliament. Ovando et al., estimate the land required to produce energy crops in EU-25 based on a number of studies. 5–20 Mha is required in 2000–2010 rising to 25–45 Mha in 2100. The European Biomass Association estimates the current (2007–08) allocation of traditional food crops to energy purposes to 4 Mha and additional 85,000 ha to lignocellulosic crops. While area availability is the ultimately limiting factor for expanded production of energy crops, limited access to water and nutrients may also constrain bioenergy potentials.
Biofuels and bioenergy are already real markets at world level, whatever comments were made before this message on the issue. At least 1G biofuels (essentially biodiesel, mostly promoted in the EU at the origin) and bioethanol (hydrated or dehydrated, pioneered by Brazil and later by the USA) from various agro-resources are largely available. A number of issues have been identified, that are not rating the same level of concern according to concerned countries and concerned agroressources like lack of sustainability, non competitiveness, competition of usage of agroresources with food and feed and so on. At that satge, sevferal economical areas have promoted roadmaps for progressive developement of biofuels in the fuel mix, this is the case in the EU with the so-called RED directive (being currently debated) and the RFS in the USA. So called 2nd generation of biofuels from lignocellulosic materials limiting the issue of usage competition with food and feed are not developing as fast as expercted in RED and RFS but progress has been made at RéD and demo levels recently. On the process side, intensification is the key bottelneck to solve to drastically diminish CAPEX and OPEX relating to biofuel production, as to render those future biofuels more economically sustainable compared to fossil fuels. 3G fuels from algae in my view has very limited future unless major breakthrough is achievable and better future for algae seem to be as a source for new high value biochemicals
Bioenergy should be a green option. However, it should be also economically sustainable. Therefore, LOGISTICS is (and will be) a big issue. In order to be more efficient, each bioenergetic agroindustrial chain could be built as part of a more complex system, producing food, agrochemicals, etc., which is known as “BIOREFINERY”. In all cases, the system should be certified using several three dimensional indicators (social, economical and environmental ones).
Kunal and Jürgen Denecke. It is fact that bioenegia and biofuels are sustainable in Brazil: econônico / financial - agrarian suatentabilidade. Adjustments should be made yet. I want to do my placement: This topic is of great impact in the world. The change is not fast. Brazil experienced and still feel the reflexes of a phase transition. In a first stage we do not accept the new fuel - In a second intake was high causing difficulties. Currently we have the flex fuel cars and the choice is with the owner depending on the price of destribuição. Witch respect energy we waste themselves to the raw material, but also have a huge water potential.
Therefore, the energy balance we are not very needy right now - relative to other countries that do not have that agrarian extension or hydric potential. In U.S. it seems to me that is stronger the problems of transition. The fuel comes from corn but basically I feel the aspect that influences more in this transition is the economic / financial. Reportedly, there are quite a stir in the country when to make changes in the content alcohol for gasoline. This is purely economic / financial profile of major oil companies.
Technically appropriate and with small adjustments on engines there will be not difficulties. Concerning the production of corn or other raw material, that depends on the action of E.U. agricultural policy. This is true for all other countries.
Anyway, my point of view on bioenergy and biofuels is as follows:
The world will adjust to the new energy "wave". The countries with large agrarian extension will benefit with enough energy and new jobs. The small agrarian extension (europe and many other first world) will produce reasonable amounts of energy and also jobs and technology at the expense of importing and processing of the oil companies. We must always think in a transitional phase for each country.
Bioethanol is not only interesting as car fuel. You can use it to cook, it can provide smoke-free heating, you can build mini powerstations to make electricity and hot water on small scale in rural areas (to prevent people from burning much larger quantities of wood and destroy forests), it is a clean feedstock to produce ethylene, and from that polyethylene and polyvynil chloride...and it is save to store in a plastic tank in the garden. If ethanol is spilled in the environment, it is bio-degradable within days. And of all the bio-fuel generations, only first generation works, and a carbohydrate crop such as sugar cane is far more productive than any oil crop for bio-diesel, and edible oil is more valuable as food then it is as fuel, so keep all the vegetable oil for the kitchen and focus on ethanol. Lignocellulose conversion to ethanol is inefficient and currently "generation phantasy" , along with biodiesel from algae. The pictures of great algal energy farms in the desert is "generation photoshop", they only exist in computer programs. So what about carbohydrate crops? Sugar cane is great, but it occupies the land for 6 years for 5 harvests and there is onot that much land surface on earth suitable for growing this crop. Potato and sweetpotato are annual crops that produce more starch per surface and time, are easier to harvest, and there is much more land that could be used for these crops. The problem is that some of the best agricultural land is used for animal farming to produce meat. If we want more food and more bio-energy, one should consider converting animal farm land to high yielding crop land. People get carried away with second, third and fourth generation biofuel, but at the end of the day what matters is how much edible calories can be produced and stored by a crop per time and land surface, how easy is it to convert the crop into biofuel, and how easy can it be integrated into crop rotation schemes to keep productivity up, maintain flexibility in business, and minimise the need for fertilisers and pesticides. So if we grow more potatoes, they can be eaten, or they can be converted to glucose syrup or bioethanol, and next year we can grow beans. When you grow poplar trees, eukalyptus, miscanthus...well then you are stuck with them and you can't eat them either. And no, you cannot grow them on non-fertile land in remote marginal areas because how are you going to remotely harvest without spending more energy in transport than you get out of it? There are loads of mis-conceptions circulating the globe, but at the end of the day, the only bio-fuel that will make the market will be a fuel that can be used for many applications, that is safe, that can be profitably produced without subsidies, and the latter only works with an integrated refinery strategy that uses everything and wastes as little as possible.... Brazilian sugar cane yielding ethanol, crystal sugar and electricity is really the best example so far because the harvest index is so high and the bagasse is used as fuel. In contrast, American corn should be eaten, and if you really must, convert the excess to corn syrup for the pancakes, but forget about corn ethanol because the harvest index is too low and the value as food is too high.
Excellent points Jurgen. Unfortunately misinformation, fantasy and political expediency is ruling rather than reality in energy crops.
If cost effective technologies are developed, Non-edible oil from Tree-borne oilseeds and Lignocellulosic biomass which plentifully available can be viable raw materials for biofuel production. Edible oilseeds and carbohydrate crops should be spared for human consumption considering the present and projected population growth as rightly mentioned by Jürgen Denecke.
Thank you Dr. Jurgen for your nice and explicit answer.
I am highly obliged to have nice discussion with you all.
Sugarcane or any carbohydrate crop or oil yielding crop occupies or needs more land got cultivation. What about algae? Also algal biofuel is of great interest. Can it be compare with plant biofuel in terms of cost effectiveness, efficient and reliable biofuel?
Algae offer a promise and a challenge.
If you talk biodiesel, i.e. oil, then we are talking microalgae (macroalgae accumulate very little oil) and indeed some microalgae were demonstrated to accumulate lipids at 50% of their dry weigh! This is really impressive but there are many issues that need to be solved, economically. These algae grow slowly (as they waste a lot of fixed carbon as storage) and therfore keeping monoculture under current real life conditions (raceway) is tricky. If you have managed this come the issue of harvesting and dewatering - algae biomass make less then 1% of the water mass and up to 40% of the energy is wasted on this stage. There are some species that autofloculate, but not many. Finaly, Once you got you need to crack them open! Not trivial either as many have a cell wall...
If we are talking ethanol then we can start considering macroalgae. Much easier to harvest, and can accumulate ~20% w/dw starch.
All and all, personally I am a great bealiver in algae biofuels, there is just much more research needed (and indeed we are doing some...).
Yoram
All you commented and real experimental facts - each with their experiences and viewpoints. I believe that this forum provides the conclusions and usable ways. I'll make an explanation of how it happened with the specific case of Brazil biocumbustível and bioenergy, and then predicting what might happen with other countries.
When the oil crisis reached Brazil, we already had a sugar industry 100 years, and as a byproduct of alcohol for more than half a century. Partnerships already exist here "of the Bioenergies" to produce various chemical compounds similar or better than those derived from petroleum. he company produces a compound of long, branched chain hydrocarbon molecule called farnesene (trans-ß-farnesene), forms the basis for a wide variety of products ranging from specialty products, such as cosmetics, perfumes, detergents and industrial lubricants, to transportation fuels such as diesel and jet fuel. This all achieved by engineering, ie synthetic biology.
Therefore Brazil had structure built and a huge agrarian area. It not what happens with others countries. These countries with their territorial and Agrarian cacterísticas they should searching for which the raw material and its technical / economic feasibility and the agrarian logistics. The implementation is very laborious.
The world does not produce yet and will not to produce food for its entire population. And yet, as a colleague he said "as we produce polymers and plastics?”
Research centers in each country, as I'm watching, should broaden and deepen research in choosing the best material, the best raw material and best agrarian introduction. In the future, each country will have its energy grid in a certain percentage of renewable.
I see in this forum several participations with indications of different raw materials. Each country should choose the best of them, befitting its agricultural area, development, climate, etc..
I always believe in scientific and technological research. yes there will beother viable renewable sources.
I am thinking cons and pros between biofuels and solar fuel panels. I don't want to buy it because solar batteries also have their own limitations such as low energy density, high cost of battery material, etc., but in term of efficiency it seems that solar panels might be better because they use solar energy directly and cleanly.
With regard to first generation biofuels, the use of resources from agricultural sector induces a lower climate change potential, but can create other environmental issues (e.g.eutrophication, resource depletion,ecotoxicity,biodiversity, …) and generates
competition with food crops for the use of arable land. Therefore, the production of second generation biofuels from the whole plant matter of dedicated energy crops
or agricultural residues, forest residues or wood processing waste,
rather than from food crops should be implemented as soon as possible. However, on local scale, when there is a need for improving a farmers’agricultural budget by means of even a small income or savings from bioenergy production, first generation biofuel could still be considered.
Blends of biodiesel and conventional hydrocarbon-based diesel, for example, are products most commonly distributed for use in the retail diesel fuel market place.
Blends of about 20% biodiesel are the most commonly used biodiesel blend because it provides a good balance between material compatibility, cold weather operability, performance, emission benefits, and costs. In particular, blends of about 20% biodiesel can be used in diesel equipment with no, or only minor
modifications. The use of biodiesel will lead to a reduced engine
power due to the lower heating, as well as its high density and high viscosity value of biodiesel compared to diesel.
I think still there are lots of pros and cons in this area. But we should consider the fact that we are using the fossil fuels while our ancestors didnt and it remained for our use...but we can not ignore the time needed for this source to be reserved . By the high rate of extraction, we will have a generation that will blame us not caring about them, while our past did it. There shouldnt be competition between these type of fuels. Every had its own application that can not be replaced by another. Consider our body's required foodstock, bread is a cheap type that any body can susrvive on it, but how long? for sure there should be a variety sources of energy to keep the body safe, I mean sources, not alternatives. alternative is not a good word to describe other sources of fuel, when all are needed at the same time. And the same goes to our land, investing on first and second generation biofuels and other types are inevitable while the life style has high energy consuming rate.
There is a lot of ideas being passed along in this blog. I enjoy Jurgen's enthusiasm and Yoram's comments regarding biofuel from algae. Daniel has hit an excellent point regarding solar panels (I have 36 of them on my house that feed the electric grid). Daniele makes some excellent points regarding the environmental issues.
There are an number of issues that have gone unattended and form the basis of the applied research I have been doing for the past 4 years. Waste water is loaded with nutrients (some of which are in short supply globally and all of which are finite). The initial phase of the treatment program revolves around the use of aerobic bacteria to "digest" the raw influent. This phase is followed by pumping the partly processed effluent into a second pond for complete processing by algae. This has a number of benefits: 1.) Aerobic bacteria from the first phase are killed; 2.) The treated waste water is ready for use on irrigated crop fields; 3.) The nutrients are recycled; 4.) Exposure to UV kills most bacteria present in water irrigated via rotating pivot irrigation systems; 5.) Water is transpired through the crops into the atmosphere where it precipitates out within 200 km. 6.) Algal harvest provides alternative products.
Presently, the focus is on inexpensive algae harvesting techniques as well as researching the most efficient and durable psychrophilic algae to allow for more efficient cold weather processing.
The recycling of nutrients, will stop the practice of sending these valuable nutrients to the landfills, by producing algae for fish food or biofuel. The harvesting processes is the present hurdle for most of us working on when algae production is in lagoons. Polymers appear to be the least expensive system and they can be reused.
What do you think the potential of microbial fuel cell to generate electricity from waste water? It has been studied for a long time and the main limitation for MFC is the low power output. To address the problem, several fields are needed such as developing low resistance devices, optimizing bacterial biofilm formation on anodes. If we can improve the power output, it will be very good for both energy saving and pollution prevention.
Waste water treatment and recycling of nutrients is indeed a key-topic in sustainability. Nutrient recycling is also one of the steps that can lead to more sustainable bio-ethanol production. Currently, high alcohol yeast fermentations require significant input of nutrient supplements which are expensive, and subsidies have not stimulated bio-fuel producers to think about recycling. But the fermentation yields alcohol and yeasts, and those yeasts have a considerable value too. They can be used for retail in the form of yeast extract (taste/flavour amplifier, similar to soy souce), but they can also be used to regenerate the nutrient broth itself for subsequent alcohol fermentations. This principle of multiple products from one type of feedstock and an integrated process has not yet been explored in a systematic fashionOne should always try to determine the cost-limiting factor in the overall process, and if inexpensive algae harvesting and cold-weather processing are limiting factors in waste water treatments, then this is what one should work on. Also we don't really have a choice, waste water IS produced in large quantities and we have to deal with it, so we might as well get something out of it as well. :)
There are many bioenergy routes to convert raw biomass feedstock into a final energy product. Several conversion technologies have been developed that are adapted to the different physical nature and chemical composition of the feedstock, and to the required energy service e.g. heat, power, transport fuel. Conversion of bulky raw biomass into denser and more practical energy carriers for more efficient transport, storage and convenient use in the production of heat by the direct combustion of biomass is the leading bioenergy application throughout the world, and is often cost-competitive with fossil fuel alternatives. For sludges, liquids and wet organic materials, anaerobic digestion is currently the best-suited option for producing electricity and/or heat from biomass, although its economic case relies heavily on the availability of low-cost feedstock. Liquid biofuels like first-generation ethanol have been heavily criticized for both as a fuel source and as a “greener” fuel alternative owing to a host of environmental problems associated with the related technology. Potential issues with ethanol produced from sugarcane, biodiesel produced from oil palms, soya bean, and other crops, and with “second-generation” ethanol produced from cellulose, have received far less scrutiny and regulation so far. Hence, a second generation advanced technological approach involving abundantly available lignocellulosic forest biomass coupled with effective regulatory measures is required so as to make biofuel production a feasible proposition.
Gentlemen,
Excellent comments. Thank you.
Yogesh, one of the changes we (a small group of us here in Ontario) have discovered with processing waste, is the need to combine in series both anaerobic and aerobic processing. For example, we found the use of anaerobic digestion used for methane production was not comprehensive enough in its utilization of waste. It did produce methane (subsequently electricity) as well as allowed for separation of the sulphurs. However, anaerobic process generated too much post-digestion liquid, "liquor" and CO2 when the methane was used to generate electricity. So we decided to place the anaerobic process in the first position of a longer process for cleaning up waste. The extraction of the methane is important component of the entire process. But it also produced a surprise. During the production of electricity an equal amount of heat produced by the generator. So for every 100 KW of electricity we also got a 100 KW worth of heat. (This is good in Canada). The second step is to actually place the "liquor" into a process where aerobic bacteria are injected along with O2 to eliminate obligated anaerobes and kick-start the assimilation of remaining nutrients (to include the bodies of the obligated anaerobes). This process then follow the aerobic process outlined in my earlier comment. Eventually, the CO2 generated by the methane burning will be directed at the algae pond to simulate growth.
In this fashion the anaerobic phase has produced electricity, scavenged heat, produced CO2 for later use in the process, and a sulphur by-product. The aerobic phase captures additional nutrients from the waste, produces algae for collection while cleaning the water for use on crop fields and its return to the ecosystem in the form of dew or ground water returning to the lakes or aquifer.
I believe we need to reuse everything.
Jon, I really like this example of cascade processing. There is still so much room for improvement in many processes that I am hopeful for the future.
Yogesh, with respect to lignocellulose, I find that there is too much focus on turning wood into fuel, when this is so complicated, whilst the value of lignocellulose to produce fibres for composites, textiles, paper and soft tissues is higher than its caloric value. Furthermore, most types of wood have a much higher value as material (construction, furniture, decoration) than as a source of fuel. Plant research in Europe and the US is dominated by model plants (Arabidopsis thaliana, tobacco), but in vitro propagation of valuable hard woods and generating new hybrids and cloning of elite Eukalytus trees is really a discipline where India and Brazil lead the way ahead. I would love to learn more about this type of work because it is likely to have more impact on sustainable life than the mainstream research on model plants. Whenever a building is not built with steel or concrete, but instead uses engineered timber for structural work and beautiful timber cladding for flooring, wall decoration and insulation, it is not only nice to look at, but it is an indirect way of using bio-fuel, simply by avoiding to use fossil fuel to extract metal from ores and produce cement for the building industry. Sustainable forestry and controlled harvesting of high quality wood as material does not only save fossil fuels, it provides the world with a better climate through water circulation (cooler during day time, warmer during the night). Everybody always talks about carbon dioxide and the climate, and water is ignored because it is treated as a constant, but large forest areas and water evoration are the key to our relatively constant climate.Let's not try to make poplar trees with less lignin so we can digest the wood better to make liquid fuels,instead let's see if we can increase natural resin content so we don't have to paint the timer and it is naturally protected from fungi and bacteria... We need more reasons to plant more trees, and rather than using them as fuel, I say we should use them as materials.
Some of the main challenges for biofuels in most developing countries is availability of sustainable feed-stock supply, lack of supportive policy and regulatory frameworks and the Land Tenure systems. The benefits of biofuels are clear but their use has not been widely implemented due to lack of sustainable supply. There is also a general fear on impact of growing of energy crop on food security.
Biofuels from micralgal biomass are more interesting as alternative to petroleum-based fuels even if highly productivity algal strains must be identified.
Microalgae are not a common food source and algal cultivation for fuel is unlikely to interfere with food production like for other feedstocks, such as corn. Because algae grow in many different environments, they could be produced on not agriculturally productive land. Several types of water as fresh, brackish, saline and wastewater could be used for algal cultivation.
However, new and reliable algae-cultivation methods must be developed. Most efficient systems for extracting lipids and any other commercial products grown in algae must be applied too. If innovative processes can be realized, there is still one potential success. All of this must be done at a cost that makes algae-derived biofuel competitive with petroleum-based fuels.
The theory is well known. The problems are well known, The solutions are more elusive. We have some solutions. For instance we know which species are high in lipids. We know how to grow algae (photobioreactors, lagoons) but we have not developed efficient methods of harvesting. Extraction still has much room for improvement in cost effectiveness. The post-lipid extraction algae meal has identified markets. So the use of "by-products" is an important financial contributing force.
I am not a mystical biomass scientist. I am an applied scientist where we get covered with the blood, sweat and tears of figuring out how to achieve tangible results. Once we have tangible results we improve upon them. We are only beginning to discover methods of harvest capable of low cost sustainability. Cost effective oil extraction is a more difficult undertaking.
For a sense of the domestic sphere of bioenergy R&D, you can check out the website of my office, the U.S. Department of Energy's Bioenergy Technologies Office (http://bioenergy.energy.gov). In particular, we put out several annual updates, our Multi-Year Program Plan which highlights the major technical barriers to bioenergy production, as well as annual State of Technology reports (http://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/key-publications). For more information on the coversion pathways Yogesh mentions, visit this link:
http://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/technology-pathways
Kunal,
It was in the past that no commercial biofuels were available but at present there are many companies such as Beta Renewables, Abengoa, Clariant, Dupont, Inbicon producing biofuels. And one thing I would like to say here that today we might not be in a very hurry to have these technologies as petroleum based fuels are available but technologies cannot be developed in a day or two... we need these technologies to be developed so that can be employed when needed. In India we urgently need commercial plants for biofuels as we need to reduce our dependency on petroleum based imported fuels.
And Biofuels are equally efficient or sometimes even more than petroleum fuels, but the most important thing is that most of these are carbon neutral and hence ecofriendly.
There was a larger interest of petroleum industry in what one call bio-fuel 5-6 years ago. Petroleum industry does not interesting in this anymore nowadays, even if we still see a lot of activity around. I really do not know about the Beta Renewables, Abengoa, Clariant, Dupont, etc market, which mentioned above in Reeta answer, but this is not the real petroleum (gasoline) market. Nowadays almost every petroleum company has division that is developing direct petroleum production from different biological substances, and their goal is to develop petroleum, not bio-fuel, like methanol, ethanol etc.
The above mentioned companies are not based on petroleum fuels but are based on biofuels. For example, Beta Renewables are based on cellulosic ethanol production via cellulosic feedstock and a variety of feedstock can be employed based on availability. It is based on versatile technology. Cellulase will be employed for biomass (feedstock) hydrolysis and sugars generated will be further fermented into ethanol.
I do not consider greatly biofuels passing through the ethnol way. The costs o its distillation are too high.
Aiming at liquid fuels for cars and trucks (but they can be used for heating too) I am more favourable to bio-diesel oil, which can be (and is currently) obtained easilyfrom any vegetable oil (e.g. palm oil) by a simple chemical treatment with methanol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel
Personally I do not see a real discrepancy between bio-diesel an bio-ethanol. The feedstock is different and the end use is different. If you produce vegetable oil you are left with much lignocellulosic waste, why not utilize it? Furthermore, ethanol has many uses in the chemical industry beside fuel...
Reeta, thanks for feedback and explanations, I agree- its a huge market once the price-efficient technology will be on the market, and it might drive the whole bio-field one day.
Shalom Yoram - let put my 3 cents: in petroleum industry nowadays nobody is interesting either in bio-diesel and bio-ethanol, I mean not interesting at all. The petroleum companies still employ bio-fuel to get an environmental points, but they will not spend any resources on this topic. The only thing that is in development nowadays in petroleum industry is direct production of gasoline from bio-materials.
bio-diesel an bio-ethanol can be used in many other applications of coerce including chemical industry
Jürgen. You attacked correct and deep discussion bioethanol biofuel-production. I have already stated my point of view on the subject. To summarize: The equilibrium in coexistence and global composition with renewable must go through proper land availability and economic production of the raw material. Each country he has to browse, search, and discover the advantage.
We must search any renewable raw bench and mostly in pilot scale. All material must go through it. I agree with all the research material placed on the forum. With the success in research, increase research and development of agricultural production also logistics. I think this is a reasonable way.
Biofuels are really worth to pursue only if population is controlled. In the times where there is huge population growth biofuels are not a solution. They require lot of land, water and eat into the food supply. The land requirement to produce unit power is very high for biofuels, so are issues like water requirement and competition with food supply. An alternate and more interesting biofuel is ABB (Algae Based Biofuels) as these can be cultivated at sea, the water and land-use does not pose a sustainability problem. Refer - http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/aquaticbiofuels/docs/0905_FAO_Review_Paper_on_Algae-based_Biofuels.pdf
There is some introspection needed in exploiting energy crops. Processes like hydrogenation or transesterification require further energy. Also to boost energy crops farmers may overuse fertilizers , which is made from natural gas. A longterm future plan requires cautious approach.
First population growth should be controlled, then the rest of the issues may seem trivial.
Fossil fuels are biofuels not renevable in short time. All primary fuels ( wood, petroleum, coal) originate from CO2 conversion in biomass, thanks to sun and chlorophyll.
When we burn fossil fuel we are giving back CO2 to the atmosphere.It's like to go back in the Earth time.
CO2 is food for plants. No CO2, no food for plants, no plants growth.
Vegetation ate all the CO2, reaching a steady state between CO2 and CO2 converted to biomass.
Animals are a food generator for plants. Plants balance the CO2 as a buffer solution, but this need time, it's not a high speed reaction.
It is not important what has produced the CO2 for plants
A problem is reduction of forest surface, Burn fossil fuels or animal's growth need extend forest surface to convert CO2 in biomass.
In Iran, we are at the first way. I no have Idea abot your question(Dear Kunal garg). but I think we have a lot of potential for bioethanol production. I think ,we can insert Biofuel instead of fossil fuels if collected all of our sources. our source in IRAN waste of corps . this is superabundant than
some body wants to think about it . more than 4.9 GT......
I have investigated about bioethanol production from Azolla Fern in Anzali Wetland , but it was not practical and commercial. i need more information about methods change lignocelulosic sources.
Dear Giorgio,
Thank you for the undergraduate lesson in the CO2/O2 cycle. I would point out the model you suggest is extremely inefficient. Algae are capable of more rapid uptake of CO2 than the seasonality uptake of CO2 by trees. Additionally, carbon uptake by trees is dependent and directly related to available water. Transpiration, and the side benefit of carbon accumulation, is directly related to the transpiration rate of a plant. Individual plant transpiration rates are directly tied to the optimum availability of water. Accumulation of carbon by trees is impacted by rainfall (refer to growth rings). Biofuel production would can take captured smokestack CO2 without having to place the CO2 in the atmosphere. Your tree model, with all due respect, requires polluting the air we all breath in order to supply the trees with CO2. I can not support such a model. \
So, algal biofuels have two benefits over trees: 1.) They capture and utilize CO2 directly at the source without contaminating the atmosphere; 2.) They are not dependent on yearly rainfall and seasonality to capture carbon.
Hi Kunal,
Whether its economical to produce biofuels is a great question. First generation biofuels are already at price parity to non-renewable fuels (ie. corn-based biofuel) if taken on a price per volume comparison, since biofuel prices are higher if considering the price per unit of energy (due to their lower calorific value). Price parity (price per volume) is also achieved with subsidies in the biofuel market. The prices for the feedstock (ie. the corn or sugarcan itself) accounts for the majority of the costs. Whether this is these are truly sustainable and the best options is up for debate.
I can't say I agree with Jurgen's assessment that algae fuels are only a fantasy of photoshop. I think there is strong potential for an economically sound future for that technology based on some of its operational characteristics such as high lipid values, amount of oil per land area that can be produced, its ability to grow in saltwater and wastewater, coupling CO2 flue gas into the production, etc. Advances in algae genetics, photobioreactor technology and oil extraction and conversion techniques lead some to a more sanguine view of this fuel pathway.
However, this topic can also be viewed from a more theoretical viewpoint by flipping the question around: how economical is petroleum? Begging the question, what is the true cost of petroleum after considering all of its direct and indirect costs. Many soft subsidies, costs of environmental clean up, and international affairs are not considered in the actual per barrel price of oil.
Michael
This is a good flipover Michael, as a self-cost of petroleum production increases every year. In USA for example we are producing oil from the depth of 3 miles from the surface of the sea nowadays in Golf of Mexico. and it cost $300 million just to drill the borehole (without cost of platform). And 1/3 of these boreholes are found dry (no oil). So the self-cost of oil became more and more expensive every year. I would restrain however from generalizing a BP Horizon accident contribution to petroleum self-cost production.
In my expert opinion the self-cost and efficiency of petroleum still overwhelming any other energy resources at least in factor 100. The other note: Petroleum industry is not interesting in biodiesel, biobutanol etc nowadays.The only pathway which petroleum companies pursue is direct production of petroleum from bio, e.g. aglaia. The aglaia itself can be consumed as a food and this bi-functionality is a big advantage of this technological pathway. However all these bio-tech are extraordinary expensive and many problems have to be solved prior to real industrial applications.
Thanks Vlad
The biodiesel is still in laboratory scale or less economical feasibility
Biofuel is the way of the future. How distant that future is has yet to be determined. With 50% (many various estimates) of the oil remaining in the ground we will most likely develop innovative extraction scenarios to remove more of what is left behind. The efficiency of these yet undeveloped methods will drive the need to delay or accelerate the industrial supply of biofuels. The question is not, "If biofuels will be used in the future?" But "When will biofuels be used in the future?"
Firkat, I wonder how can you state "The biodiesel is still in laboratory scale"... According to the US EIA (see link) ~692 million barrels of biodiesel were produced in 2011 worldwide, and I believe the numbers are growing (although in the recent years more slowly).
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=79&pid=79&aid=1
Kunal,
I would like to clarify a large misconception held by most people and stated in your original "call for discussion." Petroleum is in fact a natural and renewal product. Starting about 3.4 billion years ago the Earth's production of algae began in earnest. The algae contained varying percentages of oil within their bodies. The dead marine algae drifted to the bottom of the oceans and form sediments. Once the sediments reached 4,000 feet in depth the oil had been squeezed out and collected in the sponge-like rock structure of the sedimented material.
So, petroleum is actually from algae and diatoms produced billions of years ago. The processes used by biofuel production is simply an acceleration of this process. How can we then say petroleum is not renewable. In fact it is being renewed as we speak.
Dear Cloud
Obviously, technically you are right. Petroleum is indeed bio-based, BUT the rate of its formation 'as we speak' is so slow we can basically ignor it at renewability... Simply put, the time scales of formation and consumption are much to different.
Yoram
Yoram, I agree totally with the points. The efforts in biogas and biofuel are leading results in other areas as well, animal and human feed ingredients. The greatest "by-product" of algal potential rests with the massive area on earth available for production, the oceans.
The Earth's surface available for tillable crops is only 3.34%, with an added 8.7% usable for pasture land. The use, of this very limited space, for ethanol or bio butanol crop production seems inappropriate faced with the potential of 10 billion mouths to feed by 2050. The utilization of the waste from these mouths does make sense. The rapid recycling of nutrients, the cyclic economy, first for food and then for energy (bio gas), followed by purification and nutrient extraction for algae production and application for bio fuels, with the remaining wastewater being applied locally through irrigation systems to agricultural crops. This resulting transpiration precipitates the water out of the atmosphere in the form of dew within 200 km retaining the water in the bioregion. Crop benefits are enormous from the increase availability of water and the resulting carbon enormous increase in carbon production results in increased soil fertility as the carbon drives biomass in the fields. This process is driven by the treatment of wastewater via aerobic bacteria and secondly anaerobic bacteria combined with allgae. I have been doing this for three years.
I'm agree with Cloud, and I think that ethanol is a tendance nowadays, butanol will be more attractive because of its chemical properties. I can add an overview from France: first there is methane and methanization development, secondly syngas with pyrolysis of the biomass and then ethanol from alimentary biomass like sugarbeet. Cheers
Sustainable energy supply is one of the major challenges that mankind will face over the impending future, mainly due to the need to tackle climate change. Biomass can make a substantial contribution to supplying future energy demand in a sustainable way. It is presently the largest global contributor of renewable energy and has significant potential to expand in the production of heat, electricity, and fuels for transport. Biomass based power production is still relevant today especially in the Indian context. This is mainly because of its potential to provide distributed power at the rural level, especially for small remote villages that have good access to biomass but no access to grid power, and which require only small scale power production. Biomass based power being net carbon neutral is relevant in the context of climate change and global warming.
Jeremy,
I agree totally with the processing stages you have outlined. As an applied scientist I know what has worked for us. I would add one more item of research focus that needs to occur: I just returned from 17 days in your lovely country. I had a great time in the tidal pools of the Atlantic Coast.
The ability to process "waste" is limited to the geographic regions capable of employment of mesophilic species. The problem I have been working on is the identification of functional psychrophiles capable of processing waste and producing energy in < 10C environments. Brazil and India are lovely examples of where the temperature is very suitable for biogas and biofuel production. However, it is those of us in the northern climates that struggle with year round temperature shifts. I would like to see far more research being directed at psychrophilc bacteria and algae. Presently, I have identified 6 strong algae candidates for cold production.
Note:
I have submitted another ResearchGate question to challenge scientist to reframe the word Wastewater into a more positive and descriptive term in order to facilitate a paradigm shift in the wastewater treatment industry.
Dear Kunal,
Removal of subsidies from fossil fuels would go a long way to help the economics of bioenergy as it provides a level playing field that covers environmental externalities associated with fossil based fuels.
However in the absence of subsidies removal, bioenergy can still be profitable especially in remote communities or localities that are cut off from main land during rainy season when roads are un-motorable and biomass a readily available resource offer a good alternative to fossil fuel that is also economically viable especially in case of scarcity of fossil based fuels.
I have enclosed a list of publications which you might find useful.
Regards,
Dr. Emmanuel Ackom
UNEP DTU Partnership
Denmark
Article Modern bioenergy from agricultural and forestry residues in ...
Book Bioenergy: The potential for rural development and poverty alleviation
Book Backgrounder: major environmental criteria of biofuel sustainability
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Energy