[Gorm]

Which Country Leads the Way in Installed Biomass Capacity?

To promote the launch of its now freely accessible platform RESource, the International Renewable Energy Agency dropped some knowledge in infographic format about which country is leading the way in biomass generation.

"REsource, the online knowledge platform launched this week by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), enables users to easily find country-specific data, create customized charts and graphs, and compare countries on metrics like renewable energy use and deployment," the group wrote in a press release. "It also provides information on renewable energy market statistics, potentials, policies, finance, costs, benefits, innovations, education and other topics."

So, check out this infographic on biomass and applaud Brazil in being a world leader. Rad!

energydigital

As someone from sweden, I would guess that those numbers would have given a diffrent picture if you make them "per capita".

Here Biomass has major potential and are beeing developed. But we are in a so much more fortunate situation then many other in the world. That makes us a target I guess.

[Subjectivist]

Not according to this.

That graph is gallon of gas equivalent measured in BTU of energy. Ethanol has about 65 percent of the energy of gasoline per unit f volume so that is hardly a fair comparison.

[Subjectivist]

why isn't it a fair comparison? Doesn't the chart essentially measure miles per fuel dollars spent. I'd rather get more bang (inside the cylinder ) per buck on gas.

But it is not that simple, because ethanol has a very high octane rating you can add turbochargers to the engine and recapture some of the energy difference by using more efficient fuel air and compression ratio combinations compared to low compression gasoline engines burning that 86 octane stuff many stations sell these days.

[Graeme]

This Chart Shows How Oil Is Losing Its Total Grip on American Transportation

The U.S. Energy Information Administration just published a great chart that shows how oil—once pretty much the only transportation fuel we used in America—is losing its grip at a nontrivial rate.

The chart shows the changing amount of BTUs (British thermal units) consumed across all modes of transportation by energy source. And for much of the past half-century, the picture was rather simple. It was pretty much all petroleum (gasoline/diesel), and it rose pretty much every year.

But several years ago, we started to see the beginnings of the slow-motion disintermediation of petroleum as a transportation fuel. No, gasoline, isn’t quite going the way of whale oil. But it has been losing market share at an alarming rate—and at the same time as the need for energy throughout the system has been declining.


First, other fuels are slowly gaining traction. Especially biofuels—chiefly ethanol, the controversial, subsidy- and mandate-aided gasoline substitute made from plants like corn. From a tiny base, 135 trillion BTUs in 2000, ethanol consumption rose eightfold to 1.092 quadrillion BTUs in 2014. Add in the small amount of biodiesel, and these renewable biomass fuels in 2014 accounted for 4.7 percent of the transport sector’s energy consumption—up from .5 percent in 2000. They have increased their market share tenfold in 14 years.

slate

And you should know that this is the current trend but the situation is changing toward introduction of other biofuels. We've been discussing this for a long time so the biofuel market will change. Watch this thread.

[Graeme]

The US is now looking for other feedstocks besides corn for production of biofuels:

Transferring Dead Trees from Source of Wildfire Fuel to Biofuel

Trees killed by bark beetles have, for years, been a source of fuel for forest fires. Now, those very trees are being turned into biofuel and biobased products.

This vast bioenergy resource—approximately 46 million acres—requires no cultivation, circumvents food-versus-fuel concerns, and may have a highly favorable carbon balance compared other forestry feedstocks. The problem, however, is that beetle-killed biomass is typically located far from urban industrial centers in relatively inaccessible areas, which means transportation costs are a key barrier to widespread utilization of this vast resource.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) supports seven regional integrated Coordinated Agricultural Projects (CAPs) that develop regional systems for the sustainable production of advanced biofuels and biobased products. The regional systems focus on non-food dedicated biomass feedstocks such as perennial grasses, sorghum, energy cane, oilseed crops, and woody biomass.

One such program, the Sustainable Bioenergy Alliance Network of the Rockies (BANR), is led by Colorado State University. BANR brings together scientists, educators, and extension specialists from universities and government agencies to work with industry partners to address the major challenges that impact economical and sustainable utilization of insect-killed trees for the production of biofuels and biochar.

usda

[Graeme]

Mould unlocks new route to biofuels

Scientists at The University of Manchester have made an important discovery that forms the basis for the development of new applications in biofuels and the sustainable manufacturing of chemicals.

Based at the Manchester Institute of Biotechnology (MIB), researchers have identified the exact mechanism and structure of two key enzymes isolated from yeast moulds that together provide a new, cleaner route to the production of hydrocarbons.

Published in Nature, the research offers the possibility of replacing the need for oil in current industrial processes with a greener and more sustainable natural process.


In this particular study, published in the journal Nature, researchers focussed on the production of alpha-olefins; a high value, industrially crucial intermediate class of hydrocarbons that are key chemical intermediates in a variety of applications, such as flexible and rigid packaging and pipes, synthetic lubricants used in heavy duty motor and gear oils, surfactants, detergents and lubricant additives.

sciencedaily

[Graeme]

Drax declares biomass conversion nearing 20 million tonnes of carbon saved

Drax is close to saving 20 million tonnes of carbon emissions, after replacing coal with sustainable biomass in two of its generating units, the company announced this week.

The UK's largest power station, which claims to be the country's biggest green energy producer, also revealed this week that it hopes to reach the 50 million tonne mark in 2017.

The power station in Yorkshire, which provides about eight per cent of the UK's power, is currently converting a third unit to renewable biomass as part of a long-running plan to reduce its reliance on carbon intensive coal.

businessgreen

[Graeme]

Yes I did. These are very legitimate questions and environmentalists have rightly protested:

The latest figures came in the same week as campaign group biofuel watch delivered a 110,000-strong petition to the Department of Energy and Climate Change protesting against Drax's involvement in the funding competition that could deliver up to £1bn of funding to the plant to install carbon capture technology.

"Public funds should be spent on slashing carbon emissions through insulating draughty homes, improving energy efficiencies and genuinely low-carbon and sustainable renewable energy, not new thermal power stations," said Biofuelwatch campaigner Duncan Law. "The White Rose project will be hugely expensive and tie the UK into even more coal and biomass burning long into the future."

Drax has repeatedly defended its reliance on imported wood chips from North America and this week again published data which it argues proves it is delivering significant emissions savings.

There are no easy answers and this problem won't go away if Drax has it's way. The best option is to abandon all coal-fired power stations altogether. But that can't happen overnight so it seems that their "solution" might be a way to transition to a no-carbon future.

[Graeme]

Here's a little more on the history of the Drax power station.

'Converting Drax to burn biomass required new supply chain'

Graham Backhouse, head of supply chain and logistics at the UK’s largest power station, said it was necessary to create new port facilities, new rail wagons and extra storage facilities.

Backhouse said the move was driven by the government’s stated goal to move away from coal and Drax started experimenting with biomass fuels in 2003.

“It was the right thing to do, to consider the future and the skills and infrastructure at the power station, which lent themselves to biomass,” he said.

Backhouse joined Drax in 2008 after it was decided to ramp up the use of biomass. In that year the station used a couple of hundred thousand tonnes of biomass – a mixture of timber and agricultural by-products – but by 2010 it was burning more than one million tonnes a year.

At that time the company’s intention was to convert its six boilers to run on a mix of coal and biomass, known as co-firing, to take advantage of government renewable energy subsidies. This would require around seven million tonnes of biomass and five million tonnes of coal each year.

However, in 2012 government policy changed and subsidies for co-firing were cut. This meant to get the same level of subsidy as before, Drax would have to convert boilers to run purely on biomass. “On that day our share price tumbled immediately by 25 to 30 per cent within an hour of the government announcement, because no one had ever converted boilers on the scale Drax has here,” said Backhouse.

supplymanagement

[Graeme]

Greenfield approves first local anti-biomass ordinance in Massachusetts

Greenfield is the first community in the state to strictly regulate biomass plants.

An ordinance passed by the Town Council last week prohibits industrial-scale wood-burning plants as well as trash-to-energy plants. It still allows anaerobic digesters and residential wood stoves, according to The Recorder of Greenfield.

Smaller commercial wood-burning facilities would be allowed, as long as they only burn clean wood, wood pellets and chips. No facility will be permitted to burn garbage, tires, construction materials, plastics, or other materials.

Greenfield several years ago was the site of a protracted battle over a proposed wood-burning power plant.

masslive

[Graeme]

United Airlines investing $30 million in biofuels producer

United Airlines says it is investing $30 million in a biofuels company to reduce its vulnerability to oil-price shocks and limits on carbon emissions from planes.

United officials said Tuesday that they expect to begin receiving fuel from Fulcrum BioEnergy Inc. in 2018 and could be taking 90 million gallons a year by 2021.

That’s enough fuel for 20,000 flights a year but just a drop in United’s fuel bucket. The nation’s second-biggest airline burned 3.9 billion gallons last year, including United Express flights.

United officials declined to disclose the airline’s ownership stake in privately held Fulcrum, but the investment is a tiny fraction of United Continental Holdings Inc.’s $1.1 billion profit last year.

Still, Chicago-based United touted the deal as the biggest single investment in biofuels by a U.S. airline so far. Hong Kong-based Cathay Pacific announced an investment in Fulcrum last year.

theheraldbusinessjournal

[Keith_McClary]

The US is now looking for other feedstocks besides corn for production of biofuels:

Transferring Dead Trees from Source of Wildfire Fuel to Biofuel

Trees killed by bark beetles have, for years, been a source of fuel for forest fires. Now, those very trees are being turned into biofuel and biobased products.

This vast bioenergy resource—approximately 46 million acres—requires no cultivation, circumvents food-versus-fuel concerns, and may have a highly favorable carbon balance compared other forestry feedstocks.

Thank you, bark beetles.

[Graeme]

Study: even with high LDV electrification, low-carbon biofuels will be necessary to meet 80% GHG reduction target; “daunting” policy implications

A study by researchers from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Michigan State University colleague has concluded that even with a relatively high rate of electrification of the US light-duty fleet (40% of vehicle miles traveled and 26% by fuel), an 80% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050 relative to 1990 can only be achieved with significant quantities of low-carbon liquid fuel. The paper is published in the ACS journal Environmental Science & Technology.

For the study, the researchers benchmarked 27 scenarios against a 50% petroleum-reduction target and an 80% GHG-reduction target. They found that with high rates of electrification (40% of miles traveled) the petroleum-reduction benchmark could be satisfied, even with high travel demand growth. The same highly electrified scenarios, however, could not satisfy 80% GHG-reduction targets, even assuming 80% decarbonized electricity and no growth in travel demand.


Their findings included:

None of the 9 reference scenarios met the 80% GHG reduction target, although 4 were below the 50% petroleum target and one was only slightly above.

In the petroleum-targeted scenarios, they substituted a hypothetical RFS-compliant advanced biofuel (i.e., advanced cellulosic biofuel) for gasoline on an energy basis, if needed, until the petroleum reduction target is exactly met—(i.e., to the point where gasoline and diesel consumption is reduced to 50% of 2011 levels).

Thus, petroleum requirements for all scenarios exactly meet, or are otherwise below, the 50% reduction target. None of the 40%-electrified cases required any contributions from cellulosic biofuel, as the electrification alone provided sufficient petroleum displace- ment.

No cellulosic biofuel was required under low growth and 20%-electrified conditions. The remaining five scenarios required widely varying contributions of cellulosic biofuel, from 316 to 8638 PJ. For comparison, they team estimated the RFS goal for cellulosic fuels to be equivalent to 1289 PJ.

The climate-targeted scenarios included cellulosic biofuel substitution to reduce GHG from light duty transportation to 20% of the reference GHG. The team also assumed that electricity is largely “decarbonized”, reducing GHG intensity by 80%.

No scenarios achieved the 80% GHG reduction without contributions from RFS-compliant advanced cellulosic biofuel. Only three scenarios actually met the GHG target of 294 MT. The remaining six scenarios exceeded the target even while replacing all petroleum with low GHG cellulosic biofuel (at 60% lower GHG intensity).

greencarcongress

[ennui2]

The only benign biofuel I know of is waste-vegetable-oil, or its refined form, biodiesel, and there isn't enough of it around to have an impact. I haven't heard much about algal fuel lately. I'm pessimistic about it but am interested in seeing where it goes.

[Graeme]

Top 10 Lessons Learned commercializing advanced biotechnologies, Part 2

In part one of the three-part series of Top Ten Lessons Learned, we reviewed process development topics. In this second segment, we will explore process design and deployment.

PART 2 – PROCESS DESIGN AND DEPLOYMENT

Facility Design – Understanding fit for purpose
Without a doubt, the largest source of technical difference of opinion, in the commercialization of a new bioprocess, is the design standard for building a larger-scale facility. The magnitude of the difference of opinion is directly correlated to whether the team members have the capacity to transform and hail from diverse backgrounds (as noted in Lesson #1). Everyone comes with experience and perspective, as well as biases for equipment and vendors, which may or may not be right for the process under development. To understand the source of the conflict, we need to look at what are the most common design standards and how we determine which one is fit for our purpose.

The birth of modern biotechnology began predominantly in the pharmaceutical industry, where the products being made have a very high value and the purity requirements are very strict. Many of these same technologies have been used in the emerging industrial biotechnology industry (biofuels and biochemical), with more recent application to food products. As we look to build large-scale facilities, we will find that the standards (and resulting capital costs) can vary dramatically between each of these platforms. Let’s take a look at the requirements for each and what standards would be used to design a fermentation and downstream processing system.

biofuelsdigest