Biofuels growth can take place sustainably, report shows

[jpak]

http://www.agriculture.com/ag/story.jhtml?storyid=/templatedata/ag/story/data/1164141494765.xml&catref=ag1001

A new report from the Biotechnology Industry Organization released Tuesday details the potential of cellulosic biomass as an energy resource and the promise of no-till cropping for greater residue collection.

"Achieving Sustainable Production of Agricultural Biomass for Biorefinery Feedstock" also proposes guidelines and incentives to encourage farmers to produce, harvest and deliver sufficient feedstock to the growing biorefinery and biofuels industry in an economically and environmentally sustainable way.

"As we approach the Thanksgiving travel season, Americans should feel confident that U.S. farmers can produce both abundant supplies of food for people and animals and environmentally responsible biofuels for transportation," said Jim Greenwood, president and CEO of BIO, which sponsored the report.

The report examines considerations for sustainable harvesting of agricultural residues -- such as corn stover and cereal straws -- expected to be the near-term feedstocks for biorefineries. It also discusses the expected economic benefits for individual farmers who invest in the practices and equipment needed for sustainable harvests of these feedstocks. It further points out the need for infrastructure to deliver feedstocks from farms to biorefineries.

<more>

[phantom power]

1. If I understand that report correctly...

it says we can't exceed more than about 10% of the united states current fuel demand with non-cellulose ethanol (including no-till cropping and increased residue collection).

They seemed to shy away from making any fuel yield predictions about cellulosic ethanol, which I suppose is prudent since it hasn't yet been produced on industrial scale and no figures are available. However, their tables of cellulose content seemed to indicate that grain-based cellulose might in theory add another 10% or so. Not including other sources of cellulose.

And I didn't notice anywhere where they take into account the recent trends of drought and crop loss in their projections.

[jpak]

2. US corn yields this season were down

and soybean yields were up relative to 2005 despite the droughts in parts of the mid-West (note: those droughts did not effect corn and soybean yields in most of in Indiana, Ohio and the Eastern US).

And 10% of *current* petroleum consumption includes 2 hour 10 mph bumper-to-bumper LA freeway commutes in SUVs and other such wasteful nonsense that are not going to happen post Peak Oil.

If everyone today drove a Prius and used public transit twice a week (or reduced their commuting distances by 50%) - how much of our transport fuel could biofuels provide???

Lots more than 10%.

and those estimates are for corn stover and wheat straw ethanol only.

Wood biorefineries producing ethanol from xylan and/or cellulose are not included in those figures...

[phantom power]

3. Not to borrow trouble...

but the thing about drought that concerns me is what happens to crop yields if it doesn't let up. Although not all crops have been hit badly yet, I get the impression that crops are being floated with irrigation, and other water sources that don't necessarily have any longevity in an extended drought. In other words, what we're seeing this year in Australia seems disturbingly plausible for North America, Europe and Asia.

Regarding reduced fuel usage, I take it as a given that industrialized nations will be forced to make due with less, but beyond that very generic statement, it's far from clear to me what the implications for people's lives really will be. Biofuel energy plans that involve statements to the effect of "well, we'll all get used to using less" make me queasy. Particularly because I suspect that biofuel yields being quoted are optimistic, for reasons including but not limited to the likelihood of a northerm hemisphere gripped by a new drier climate.

I note that this report is authored by a consortium of biofuel companies. These people are going to put forward the most optimistic numbers they can. I hasten to add that I don't fault them for this. It's how the business game is played. But I do consider it legitimate cause to consider those numbers as upper bounds.

[JohnWxy]

4. the Oak Ridge National Laboratory conducted a similar study which yielded much the same conclusions

http://www.ornl.gov/info/press_releases/get_press_release.cfm?ReleaseNumber=mr20050421-01


News Release

Media Contact: Ron Walli
Communications and External Relations
865.576.0226


Growth in biomass could put U.S. on road to energy independence


OAK RIDGE, Tenn., April 21, 2005 —
~~
The recently completed Oak Ridge National Laboratory report outlines a national strategy in which 1 billion dry tons of biomass - any organic matter that is available on a renewable or recurring basis - would displace 30 percent of the nation's petroleum consumption for transportation. Supplying more than 3 percent of the nation's energy, biomass already has surpassed hydropower as the largest domestic source of renewable energy, and researchers believe much potential remains.

"Our report answers several key questions," said Bob Perlack, a member of ORNL's Environmental Sciences Division and a co-author of the report. "We wanted to know how large a role biomass could play, whether the United States has the land resources and whether such a plan would be economically viable."

Looking at just forestland and agricultural land, the two largest potential biomass sources, the study found potential exceeding 1.3 billion dry tons per year. That amount is enough to produce biofuels to meet more than one-third of the current demand for transportation fuels, according to the report.
~~
~~
"One of the main points of the report is that the United States can produce nearly 1 billion dry tons of biomass annually from agricultural lands and still continue to meet food, feed and export demands," said Robin Graham, leader for Ecosystem and Plant Sciences in ORNL's Environmental Sciences Division.

The benefits of an increased focus on biomass include increased energy security as the U.S. would become less dependent on foreign oil, a potential 10 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and an improved rural economic picture.

(not much more)

[jpak]

6. It's Peak Oil and Gas that will make people queasy - not biofuels

Without biofuels, fuel efficient personal vehicles, electrified public/mass transit and a physically restructured real estate market (living closer to work and shops)...the alternative is???

and trading the Escalade in for a Prius doesn't strike me as a bad thing...

[JohnWxy]

5. Some factors not considered in study - Technological and political - -

There have been interesting technological developments regarding ethanol production that were (i'm sure) not considered in their study.

The University of Iowa this summer filed for patent protection on process their researchers have developed and tested using ultra-sound to boost alcohol yield from starch based ethanol feed stocks. They have achieved a 30% increase in alcohol yield (while reducing energy inputs and costs) by reducing the particle size.

A researcher at Purdue University recently presented his alternative method of producing ethanol from starch based feed-stocks which reduces water required by 90%. http://www.terradaily.com/reports/New_Ethanol_Process_Offers_Lower_Costs_Environmental_Benefits_999.html I note, however that most of the new ethanol plants being built today are dry mill because they are much more efficient than wet-mill. Wet-mill has an advantage if you are building a facility next to a cattle operation where you can send the un-dried distillers grain (a cattle feed supplement) to the cattle operation WITHOUT drying (at great energy savings). Two new plants are being built to take advantage of the closed loop design.

M.I.T. Engineers have built an ICE using Turbo-charged engine with direct injection of ethanol which they indicate will produce a 30% reduction in gasoline consumption using a ratio of 5% ethanol to 95% gasoline. The higher octane rating of ethanol enables using higher compression from the turbo-chager. This means you can produce more power from a smaller engine. What this means is if all the cars on the highway were using this engine you would get a 30%% reduction in gasoline usage only using an amount of ethanol that would be only 5% of the total fuel supply. Any ethanol production above the 5% could be blended with the gasoline further reducing gasoline usage.


lfee.mit.edu/public/LFEE_2005-001_RP.pdf

"Ethanol biofuel could play an important role in meeting these goals by enabling a
substantial increase in the efficiency of gasoline engines. In this paper, we discuss an
ethanol boosted engine concept where a relatively small amount ethanol is used to
increase the efficiency of use of a much larger amount of gasoline by approximately
30%. Gasoline consumption and the corresponding CO2 emissions would thereby be
reduced by 25%. In combination with the additional reduction that results from the
substitution of ethanol for gasoline as a fuel, the overall reduction in gasoline
consumption and CO2 emissions is greater than 30%. This approach involves only modest
changes to the present gasoline engine systems and fueling infrastructure. The increase in
vehicle cost could be modest (approximately $600). This leveraged use of ethanol could
substantially increase its energy value and help to alleviate concerns about a low energy
output/ input ratio (energy provided by the ethanol/energy need to produce the ethanol)."

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/05/ethanol_direct_.html

Ethanol Direct Injection as an Enabler for Aggressive Engine Downsizing
3 May 2006
MIT scientists are exploring the use of ethanol direct injection (DI) to support the use of small, highly turbocharged engines with substantially increased efficiency as a downsizing strategy to reduce fuel consumption and emissions.

The researchers project that ethanol DI could result in a part-load efficiency increase of 30% relative to conventional port-fueled injection engines. The proposed direct injection approach could thus potentially provide a more cost-effective alternative to current generation gasoline-electric hybrids and turbodiesels.


Turbocharged boosting of an engine can contribute to engine efficiency, and thereby support the use of a smaller engine. The application of turbocharging, however, is limited by the occurrence of knock under higher cylinder pressures.

The ethanol direct-injection concept uses the high octane rating of ethanol coupled with the evaporative cooling from direct injection to support the higher-pressure, more efficient engines. For example, a 3.0-liter engine could potentially be replaced by an engine of about half its size, resulting in a 30% increase in fuel efficiency over a typical driving cycle, according to the researchers.

Political considerations - (IMPORTANT) After the World Trade Organization found that the United States was guilty of unfair trade practaices in using Export Subsidies for it's Cotton producers - Congress passsed a bill terminating our export subsidies of cotton (Cost: $4 BILLION per year). This bill has been on Bush's desk since February of this year waiting for his signature.

Now, if Bush signs the bill and export subsidies for cotton are terminated, cotton producers would find it no longer profitable to grow cotton and look for another crop to grow. Given the exploding demand for ethanol, it's quite likely the most promising crop would be feed lot corn for ethanol. (NOte that cotton is one of the most deleterious crops to the soil to grow. Also,unless I'm wrong cotton is not a food crop.)

Given that the amount of acres planted to cotton is almost equal to the number of acres planted to feed lot corn sold for ethanol production - if most farmers currently planting cotton switched to corn you would get almost a doubling of the supply of corn for ethanol - without affecting food production. That would immediately change the estimate of 10% (I've heard 12% without affecting food production, too) to something more like 19%- 20% (note in the some of the South East U.S. conditions might be better for planting sugar cane than corn which would yield more ethanol than corn does).

Now if you considered the adoption of the IOwa State ultra-sound technique (which is likely, in time) that would mean 20% becomes 26%. Considring MIT's direct injection engine using 5% of the ethanol (as a percentage of total fuel supply) to achieve 30% reduction in gas consumption that still leaves 21% (of the total fuel supply) of ethanol left over. Adding that to the 30% reduction in gas consumption due to adoption of the MIT engine, results in a 51% reduction in the consumption of gasoline.

THis is what can happen when smart, committed people set about to work on problem. OFten you find improvements coming from a number of different directions.


these are some things to consider which did not enter into the estimate in the referred to study.