Interesting biofuel article

[jimg]

For your enjoyment:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060710180310.htm

 

[California]

Excerpts:

"...study, which was funded in part by the University of Minnesota’s Initiative for Renewable Energy and the Environment, ... will be published in the July 11 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The first comprehensive analysis of the full life cycles of soybean biodiesel and corn grain ethanol shows that biodiesel has much less of an impact on the environment and a much higher net energy benefit than corn ethanol, but that neither can do much to meet U.S. energy demand.

Soybean biodiesel returns 93 percent more energy than is used to produce it, while corn grain ethanol currently provides only 25 percent more energy.

Soybean biodiesel produces 41 percent less greenhouse gas emissions than diesel fuel whereas corn grain ethanol produces 12 percent less greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline.

Soybeans have another environmental advantage over corn because they require much less nitrogen fertilizer and pesticides, which get into groundwater, streams, rivers and oceans. These agricultural chemicals pollute drinking water, and nitrogen decreases biodiversity in global ecosystems. Nitrogen fertilizer, mainly from corn, causes the 'dead zone' in the Gulf of Mexico.

Dedicating all current U.S. corn and soybean production to biofuels would meet only 12 percent of gasoline demand and 6 percent of diesel demand."

 

[SkyPup]

"There are major technological challenges in realizing these goals. Genetic improvement of energy crops such as switchgrass, poplar, and jatropha has barely begun. It will be important to increase the yield and environmental range of energy crops while reducing agricultural inputs. Plant development, chemical composition, tolerance of biotic and abiotic stresses, and nutrient requirements are important traits to be manipulated. The combination of modern breeding and transgenic techniques should result in achievements greater than those of the Green Revolution in food crops, and in far less time."

"The cost of biomass transport determines the supply area of a biofuels processing facility and thus its scale and economics. But unlike most food crops, there is no need to keep biomass intact. That means that in-field densification, pelletization, drying, and pyrolysis are among the technology opportunities to reduce transport costs. Fuel production from the lignocellulosic component of biomass will be a very important improvement. Its particular challenges of chemical recalcitrance and utilization of the constituent sugars to produce optimal fuel molecules and co-products are not intractable to current biotechnology. Similarly, process integration comparable to that of a modern petroleum refinery is a plausible chemical engineering goal."

"In a sophisticated journal such as Science, we expect the topic of energy policy to be illuminated by use of arithmetic and other analytical tools. The Review "The path forward for biofuels and biomaterials" (A. J. Ragauskas et al., 27 Jan., p. 484) presents its most important datum, 1020 joules per year of sustainable biomass energy, without any attempt to relate it to energy consumption. The United States uses more than 400 million kilowatts of electrical power, or a little more than one kilowatt per capita. If we multiply this quantity by the number of seconds in a year (3600 24 365), the result is 1.26 1019 joules per year. Production of one unit of electrical energy requires three units of fuel energy; thus, the corresponding demand on biomass energy would be 0.38 1020 joules per year. For itself, the United States would use approximately 40% of the world's biomass energy just for electricity. The remainder of the energy, and more besides, would be consumed by transportation, space heating, and manufacturing. Nothing would be left over for the rest of the world."

"Harvesting our Fields and Meadows for Transportation Fuels" - 10.1126/Science.1124886

 

[slowrev]

The issue of how much energy is used to produce the biofuel products is not really much of an issue since Gasoline and diesel from petroleum uses far more energy than either one of the bio fuels to produce per gallon/BTU. At least according to articles I have read.

No one source of renewable energy is going to wean us off oil, it will take a combination of sources. But the weaning will happen , sooner or later....

Ben

 

[dmccarty]

Dueling articles!

Here is the link to an article that Blackstone labs sent me regarding biodiesel.

http://www.blackstone-labs.com/newsletter.html

If you are using or making your own biodiesel you might want to check out the article.

On tidbit in the article that caught my eye was the statement that soybeans produce 60 gallons of biodiesel per acre. But that algae can produce up to 15,000 gallons per acre. That is not a typeo on my part. Now I don't know how/what they are growing the algae in or if its makes money sense but it sounds danged interesting...

We have a spare acre or two. If I make $1 a gallon at 15K gallons per "crop" and I can get a couple "crops" pre year I can quit my day job!

Later,
Dan

 

[joerocker]

I'm calling BS on this.

There is no way that ANY of these bio crops are going to give back 90% MORE energy than they consume TOTALLY to grow and convert to biodiesel...NO WAY!

 

[TheKid]

Do you have any idea how dangerous algae is? The toxins given off from it through the air and water can kill exposed animals, not to mention the high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus required for its bloom.

The only water that algae grows in is stinking POLLUTED water.

Algae exists in every body of water on the earth, with the possible exception of the Dead sea. Kelp/seaweed is one example of algae that is grown and harvested for food and other uses.

The only time there are dangerous toxin levels is when there is a bloom. Not all algaes bloom. Blooms occur naturaly, without high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus in the ocean, as in the red tide.

 

[SkyPup]

So, the question then is, are we talking about growing algae for biodiesel extraction from dilute wildly scattered natural sources around the world or from man made highly enriched high density sources?

Seems pretty difficult to extract wild algae from the open oceans around the globe compared to just turning the Great Lakes into a septic tank and growing it there for extraction.

 

[dmccarty]

Skypup,

I ain't got a clue as how biodiesel is made from algae. I just said what was in the article. I was kinda hoping someone would know more on the subject. I have read passing mention of it before but not details.

Is it made in a tank? A big pit like the pig poo pits in NC? Or a rice paddy like structure? Does the algae emit gas that is collected? Or is the algae itself converted to the fuel? Taint got a clue how it works....

Later,
Dan

 

[SkyPup]

A monster pig poo pit or municipal waste facility would work for a little algae farm with allot of water added, but you collect the algal mass itself for the extraction of the cellular membrane phospholipid components using organic hydrocarbon solvents like hexane and benzene, similar to the oil extraction process from soybeans.....

 

[TheKid]

Here's a site that has a lot of information the algae to oil process.

From what I've read the plans are to create algae farms in areas that aren't suitable for growing conventional crops. Other options include farms near existing power generating plants. Filtering the emissions from the plant through the algae ponds reduces the NOX and CO2 pollution, while providing the food, so to speak, that the algae needs to grow.

According to some figures I saw based on the projected construction and operating costs for a 250 acre farm the price per barrel looks pretty good. Algae is supposed to be able to produce from 5000 to 20,000 gallons of oil per acre.

5000 gal per acre = $55.XX per barrel of oil
10000 gal per acre = $27.XX per barrel of oil
15000 gal per acre = $18.XX per barrel of oil
The cost of processing into biodiesel would have to be added.

 

[Chris_T]

I'm calling BS on this.

There is no way that ANY of these bio crops are going to give back 90% MORE energy than they consume TOTALLY to grow and convert to biodiesel...NO WAY!

You're absolutely right, based on conservation of mass and energy, but most of that energy is free (sunlight), so it probably doesn't figure into the calculations.

It's all a cost/benefit analysis anyway. Think of it this way: I take one soybean seed, plant it in my yard, don't water it, don't fertilize it, don't do anything besides put it in the ground and the only energy I've expended is bending over to plant it and I get a return in oil (seeds). (Not counting any energy used to get me the seed, but we have to start somewhere).

Now my total yield is pretty pathetic and I can choose to use machinery, fertilizer, irrigation, etc, BUT as soon as the yield benefits don't outstrip the costs, it's not in my best interests, but I might have to do that for scale anyway.

Keep in mind too that soy for biodiesel only has to be grown for one characteristic (oil content) vs. soy grown for animal or human consumption which needs to balance oil with other factors (protein levels, minerals, phytate, etc.)

 

[SkyPup]

The cool thing about it is that South America and China will be supplying the algae and biodiesel for much cheaper than what can be homegrown here, since the labor is so much cheaper and the pollution and stench associated with growing the algae is not such a big a problem as it would be here in the States.

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/toxicalgaeposter.pdf

 

[hilld]

Also keep in mind that South America (mainly Brazil) uses sugar cane to produce their bio fuels, much more efficient than corn for bio fuels. It is said that the yield can be up to 3-4 times as great using sugar cane vs. corn.

They are sure doing it right down in Brazil.

Derek

 

[coffeeman]

Also keep in mind that South America (mainly Brazil) uses sugar cane to produce their bio fuels, much more efficient than corn for bio fuels. It is said that the yield can be up to 3-4 times as great using sugar cane vs. corn.

They are sure doing it right down in Brazil.

Derek

Good point. If they can do a good job on this stuff, what the heck is wrong with the US. When it becomes cost effective to make this stuff I'm sure we will have folks gearing up to do what's needed. Naturally, for a profit.

How about Ford and GM with their flex fuel cars. ( I think that's what they are called.) Do they really want to waste the extra cost to make these cars? However, maybe the US automakers might not be a good example of smart business thinking?

Cheers.....Coffeeman

 

[LTEnterprises]

you know who MAINLY builds the ethanol vehicles for Brazil?....FORD.."were working on energy effecient alternatives for the future"....why are they still WORKING on it..it's here...not in the states. I would imagine that the oil companies have something to do with the delay here. call me a conspiracy theorist...but BIG BUSINESS runs this country anyway...just look at the laws and SUBSIDIES ( sp?) that we give the poor oil companies...and of course, no sunset provision was even considered