Next Generation Biofuels

The NSF (National Science Foundation) in conjunction with the DOE has unveiled what it believes is the roadmap to hydrocarbon biofuels production. Hydrocarbons are chains of carbon with hydrogens attached and you might commonly know these mixtures as gasoline, diesel, or jet fuel. Science and scientists have been unable to bridge the gap between plants and gasoline production on a large scale like what they've done with ethanol. NSF hasn't answered the problem, but it lays out in a concise form how hydrocarbons could be produced using biological and engineering techniques, (some of which they anticipate the pathways being elucidated or refined in order to maximize production ability). This announcement is good news for scientists, such as myself, who are already looking into the problem as it signals a new round of interest, and possibly funding, for projects dealing with next-generation biofuels. This is not to say that the age of ethanol is over, far from it, this is merely the gearing up of what might amount to several years of research to hopefully uncover the answer. What NSF provides is an umbrella of support to bring scientists and engineers together to solve a problem that will probably take a little of both.

Here is a layout of what they see as a "Roadmap to Hydrocarbon Biofuels Production"

For the full article, follow the link below:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/02/nsf-publishes-r.html#more

Hydrogen/Fuel Cell Update

Although I haven't ventured far into a discussion on the merits of hydrogen powered transport, (or lack thereof), I'll save that for another day. However, there is an interesting report coming out of Santa Clara Valley, California, where a test fleet of hydrogen--fuel cell driven buses are being tested as part of California's "zero-emissions" research. They report that the buses cost $51.66 dollars to drive per mile compared to $1.66 per mile for conventional diesel fuel. To be fair, hydrogen production technology and fuel-cell technology are still in their infancies and so I think it's great that there are tests underway to indicate whether hydrogen is a viable fuel and what improvements might need to be made. At the same time, I think this demonstration should show people that for all the beautiful talk of cars that run on hydrogen and pure, clean water gently wafting out of the tailpipe is not a reality by any means. The fuel itself cost 4 times that of diesel per mile and the parts cost nearly 160 times more per mile because of the large expense involved in fuel-cell technology.

The photo shows the zero-emissions bus pulling up to a hydrogen fueling station.

http://www.vta.org/projects/highres_buswpump.jpg

For the full article, follow the link below:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/02/transit-agency.html#more

Ethanol Distribution

The Renewable Fuels Association, a trade group set up to monitor and promote the distribution of ethanol in the United States, released its ethanol outlook for 2008. In later posts I plan on going into some of their projections, but for this post I wanted to look at a couple of cool tables and graphs. The first is seen below, which is a report on the current production levels of ethanol in millions of gallons, the second column is the capacity about to come online, and the third column is the projected total capacity for 2008. Although I knew that Iowa led the United States in ethanol production, I had no idea we were head-and-shoulders above any other state. This of course will change as soon as the cellulosic ethanol industry kicks in in the next few years and we see states like Georgia taking a larger role in ethanol production.

The second table is a map of the US showing the areas where ethanol plants exist and where plants are being built. I think it's very important to keep track of where these plants are being built because it shows the state of the industry better than most numerical values can. What I mean by this is that since most of the plants are centered in the Midwest, we can see that the ethanol industry is still very much dependant on corn for ethanol. However, notice the ethanol plants coming online in California, Idaho, Texas, and Georgia. These trends will signal the conversion between the corn-based ethanol industry that we see today and the cellulosic-based ethanol of tomorrow.

Biofueled Aircraft

Over the weekend, Virgin Atlantic became the first airline to test its aircraft using a mixture of gasoline and biofuel. A flight from London to Amsterdam was loaded with 20% coconut and babassu oil into one of its four fuel tanks, making the flight a 5% biofuel blend. Although the numbers and distance traveled are small, it is encouraging to see that this idea is being tested. Richard Branson said that the flight was "historic" and while I think the enthusiasm should be downplayed a little bit, the fact that this type of blend could be used in the airline industry could be a sign of something major occurring in a few years. I say this because just last week Boeing announced that they would like to see more research going into aircraft capable of running on biofuel blends and more research into making these types of fuels.

The fact is that airplanes use a large amount of energy separate from the conventional gasoline loaded into our cars. With technology being developed right now to convert several feedstocks into fuels, such as trash, corn, switchgrass, and others, it will only be a matter of time before the capability exists for large-scale aircraft fuel. Recently the United States Airforce also stated that they would be interested in exploring biofuels as an alternative in their fighter jets. And the fact is, as far as I know, there is no way to use BEV (battery electric vehicle) technology in airplanes and so regardless of the direction cars go in, airplanes will still require an upgrade in their transportation fuels.

http://www.finfacts.com/irishfinancenews/article_1012696.shtml

Pipeline Study: Continued

I was able to get my hands on the proposed pipeline route as laid out by Magellan partners. Skirting the Iowa/Minnesota boarder it will emerge out of the ethanol plant dense region and head towards the Northwest.

http://bioage.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/02/19/magellan.png

Pipeline Study

A lot of what is fun and exciting, on one hand, and frustrating on the other is the fact that the ethanol industry is still very 'young.' This isn't to say that ethanol production is anything new; it isn't, but production of ethanol on this scale has never been done before. What we are experiencing now is the transition and growing pains that the industry is experiencing -- from feedstock production, ethanol plant design, production efficiencies, and so on. One of the biggest impacts is on transportation. Because ethanol can not flow through a pipeline with gasoline, it is being moved by boat, train, or truck. This has put a strain on the transportation industry and led to prices of ethanol that could be lower if a more efficient mode of transportation existed.
Enter Magellan Midstream and Buckeye Partners, two companies that will undergo feasibility studies over the next few months to determine whether a pipeline dependant on ethanol might be in the future. Although they caution that even if the pipeline is built, it would take several years to build the 1,700 mile proposed pipe at a cost of nearly $3 billion. This pipeline would run from somewhere in the Midwest up to the Northeast where it would end at a distribution terminal and trucks could go the rest of the distance, much like gasoline does right now. The group claims that the pipeline would be able to pump 10 million gallons of ethanol per day from the production sites in the Midwest to the consumer hubs in the Northeast. If this were to occur, it would be a big step in making ethanol cheaper and more available to the entire United States. Since one of the main ideas of producing ethanol is to decrease GHG emissions, a pipeline would only help make ethanol more attractive.

Scientific Clarification

After last week's proclamation from Searchinger et. al that ethanol emits twice as much GHGs as gasoline does because of the release of soil carbon when turning grassland/forests into farmland, the real truth behind the numbers has been announced. Unfortunately for many, Searchinger's blatant disregard for scientific fact and wanton desire to generate a headline grabbing argument will probably sway a lot of people that are only slightly familiar with the problem towards a dislike and distrust of ethanol. What they will fail to see is that although the United States and the world needs to be constantly vigilant towards the deforestation or other environmental changes that might occur with large increases in biofuels production, this simply is simply not happening because of corn-based ethanol and it takes a person divorced from the reality that is the Midwest corn-belt to release a report such as Searchinger's last week titled, "Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases through Emissions from Land Use Change."
Luckily, none of you have to take my word on this issue. Scientists at the Argonne National Laboratories at Oak Ridge, Tennessee have written a very insightful response to Searchinger's piece totally refuting his results. Although they point out, as I would, that increasing ethanol production towards 15 billion gallons per year could affect these senarios, current fact proves that this is not occurring right now, which negates Searchinger's claim that ethanol is a GHG emitter and bolsters the fact that corn-based ethanol reduces GHG emissions 16% over gasoline... not to mention that this is RENEWABLE carbon.
Anyway, back to the Argonne report, they found that while demand for corn from the ethanol industry has increased, this has not affected domestic supply and exports of corn have maintained the 2 billion bushel per year level that occurred pre-ethanol demand. Furthermore, the research from Argonne saw little land-use change in the United States due to increased corn demand because of ethanol and refuted Searchinger's claim that transitioning to cellulosic feedstocks would have an adverse affect by forcing corn onto marginal land. Argonne studies have found that more than 1 billion tons of biomass are currently available on marginal land, (such as trees, switchgrass, shrubs), and so these two feedstocks towards making ethanol would not compete.
The bottom line is that studies such as Searchinger's should have been welcomed. If he had released the report by saying that the study was a scenario of what could occur, then a discussion of more moderate increases in corn-based ethanol production or of regulations towards ensuring that imported ethanol doesn't originate from countries that practice deforestation. Instead of doing something like that to promote responsible dialogue, Searchinger chose to grab headlines and to scare people into disliking ethanol for no good reason. (I saw him interviewed last night and he didn't present the arguments with any caveats towards how the report should be interpreted).
I'm just glad that Argonne and others moved quickly to point out that Searchinger's report should be taken for what it is -- a look into what could happen, not what is going on. With the increased production of ethanol and the evolving debate over its merits and problems, this will not be the last report that seeks to scare and confuse the public. Hopefully the truth continues to be told.

For the response from Argonne labs: (Read it if you've got the time, it's very good)
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/media_center/news_stories/20080214_response.html