Like many areas of the Green Supply Chain, development of biofuels for use in both consumer and commercial transportation offers both substantial promise to reduce use of oil and the level of carbon emissions, but has been plagued by many false starts and a series of technical and societal concerns (the latter largely around the impact on food prices and supply).
Still, both private and government investment continues apace, and the stream of news is greater than almost anyone can keep up with.
Given all that, it was good to see a new report on the state of biofuels from The Minnesota Project, which provides an excellent summary of where the nascent industry stands.
In this article, we look at the status of the main alternatives for biofuel production. To download a copy of the full Minnesota Project report, go here: Transportation Biofuels in the US.
The report notes the somewhat uncertain status of biofuels today, saying the decidedly mixed news and progress have led to major questions about the industry’s future: “Will the uncertainty of biofuel goals, impacts, and results act as a rocky shore to the biofuels wave, breaking up the growing momentum and scattering the industry in several directions, perhaps delaying for years the growth of a stable, formidable, and sustainable biofuels sector that could truly begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and our reliance on fossil fuels?” the report asks.
Below, TheGreenSupplyChain.com summarizes the report’s detailed overview of where each of three major technology approaches to biofuels stand.
Cellusolic Ethanol
Due to a variety of concerns about corn-based ethanol (see below), support for production of biofuel from any of a variety of “biomasses,” ranging from the switchgrass made famous by former president George W. Bush, to wood chips, to a plant called “mithscanthus” is increasing on many fronts.
According to the report, much government money is flowing to cellulosic ethanol projects. In January, an $80 million government grant was given to a company called Range Fuels to build a biofuel factory in Georgia based on the use of wood chips as the feed stock. The Department of Energy will invest up to $385 million for six additional bio-refinery projects.
 However, the expected annual capacity of these plants will total only about 130 million gallons – hardly enough to make a dent in US energy needs.
There are a number of competing approaches to the core processing used to refine cellulosic ethanol. For example, Range Fuels has invented a two-step thermo-chemical process in which the feedstock is converted to synthesis gas (syngas) through heat, pressure, and steam. The syngas is then passed over Range Fuels’ proprietary catalyst as it is changed to alcohol.
Another approach is called Consolidated Bio-Processing (CBP), developed by a company called Mascoma Corporation. With this technology, genetically modified bacteria and microbes hydrolyze and ferment the sugars into ethanol. Mascoma’s new facility in Rome, NY is now producing cellulosic ethanol using the CBP process, and the claimed advantage is that it allows natural processes to do most of the work.
The report notes that on June 10 of this year, a Canadian Shell service station became the first in the world to sell gasoline blended with cellulosic biofuel (from wheat straw), using a 10% blend.
Algae Biodiesel
Under the right condition, algae can be coaxed to create “lipids” that can then be relatively easily converted into diesel fuel, gasoline, and possibly even advanced hydrocarbons (used to manufacture plastics and chemicals). For more insight, see How Important will Algae be to Bio-Fuels Efforts?
The report notes that “Current estimates for the oil yield of algae are around 10,000 gallons per acre. This potential compares quite favorably to other plant-oil crops.”
As a result, algae-based biofuels could drastically reduce total acreage requirements and increase biofuels’ ability to meet market demand. It also has the advantage of eliminating issues around “food versus fuel” that constrains interest in corn-based ethanol and to some extent cellusolic biofuels.
Algae-based biofuel research is needed to establish “effective growing and management systems—a task complicated by researchers’ unfamiliarity with aquaculture, or water-based agriculture,” the report notes.
Again, there are a variety of different technical approaches to the issues, being pioneered by such companies as AlgaeVenture Systems, Algenol Biofuels Inc., and Solix Biofuels.
Algae-based biofuels have great potential, but understanding of how to develop this source is immature, the report says.
“Obviously research and development are still needed to increase the cost-effectiveness of algae biofuels for large-scale production,” it notes. “The main concern with algae is that some are invasive species—a concern held with some cellulosic ethanol crops, such as miscanthus. Algae biodiesel remains a horizon technology with great potential, essentially requiring more scientific advancements before it can be considered for commercial production.”
Corn Ethanol
Making ethanol from corn was the first biofuel process to see widespread development, and has led to widespread investment in the technology in many areas of the US – as well as a growing number of concerns.
On average, the report notes, existing corn ethanol facilities can produce 2.75 gallons of ethanol per bushel of corn. That, in turn, means corn ethanol facilities can produce about 400 gallons of ethanol per acre of corn – which many view as an unfavorable use of that land, though there have been efforts in recent years to extract more ethanol per bushel of corn. Most seem to offer improvements only in the 10% range, however.
There have been a number of concerns relative to corn-based ethanol. One is “energy efficiency.” Depending on the analysis, “corn ethanol has been shown to have anywhere from a slightly negative energy balance (meaning it takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than the energy contained in that gallon of ethanol) to a fairly positive ratio (meaning there is more energy in a gallon of ethanol that the energy required to produce it),” the report notes.
The other major concern is that demand for corn to produce biofuel raises the cost of corn itself, a major food source, and diverts farm land to corn production, thereby increasing the cost of other crops as the supply drops.
“The 2008 food inflation scare created a difficult time for the biofuels industry. At a time of record high gas prices, but with rising commodity prices, namely corn, corn ethanol and soy biodiesel took considerable public relations hits,” the report says.
Of course, the recession and relative collapse of oil prices has thrown many biofuel projects off course, versus the $147 per gallon price per barrel of oil at the peak in 2008.
The report says, however, that to make biofuels really take off, new accounting and measurement systems are needed.
“Programs must be established to easily and clearly differentiate between (1) the value of a ton of biomass produced from marginal lands using fewer carbon-intense inputs and having little negative impact on the natural resources, and (2) the value of a ton of biomass produced from highly productive agricultural lands using a large amount of carbon-based inputs and having mixed natural resource impacts,” the report concludes.
What is your reaction to The Minnesota Project report? Are you bullish on the future of biofuels? Which approach do you think will ultimately succeed? Let us know your thoughts at the Feedback button below.
TheGreenSupplyChain.com is now Twittering! Follow us at www.twitter.com/greenscm
|
