Showing posts with label biofuels. Show all posts
Showing posts with label biofuels. Show all posts

Monday, November 8, 2010

Beyond Corn Ethanol: Bioproducts from 'Garbage'


Though algae has great promise to secrete oils or be biomass itself,  algae always seems to about “five years away,” according to Dr. William J. Orts of USDA’s agriculture research service  in Albany, CA who spoke at UC Davis Energy Institute this past week.

Seemingly to prove his point, one of the large oil companies has been running a TV advertisement, featurng a middle-aged researcher:

“It is was 1975 and my professor at Berkeley asked if I wanted to change the world.   I said sure.  And he said, ‘Let's grow some algae’.”

Dr Orts talk, “Agriculturally Derived Biofuels and Bioproducts: Going Beyond Corn Ethanol” began with corn ethanol summary: Though it is in production now, enjoys a $0.51 per gallon subsidy  and “we know how to do it,”   it suffers from several drawbacks, including a bad carbon footprint when all the fertilizer use and transportation is factored in.  Ethanol is also corrosive, so can not be put into pipelines, and there is not enough of it to make a real dent in US demand for transportation fuels.

Much research is now focused on second generation biofuels.  Energy crops are “very hot now”, he said, for example switchgrass.    Dr. Orts outlined the basic line of attack on cellulosic biomass (think: harder to degrade corn or rice stalks, not the corn) by pointing out that  we should learn from anything that ‘eats wood’, from fungus to cows.  

Like algae, it is not so easy.   Whereas corn starch breaks down with just 2-3 enzymes, heavy cellulosic materials can need 16.  The goal for many researchers is finding the right “3-in-1” kind of sauce with the right genetic-modified material and optimized enzymes to seek out and attack the chemical and biological weaknesses of cellulose.

But Dr. Ortis then turned to one of his favorite approaches which can work now:  garbage.  Garbage, or municipal solid waste ( MSW), is about 40% cellulosic.    MSW - the waste,  plastic bottles and all - can be sorted,  ‘cooked’ in the right environment  (temperature, enzymes, etc) to yield biofuel (ethanol) or biogas (ex: natural gas) or even paper for paper plates.  (There are hopes of this new bioproducts industry will even replace petroleum  in the manufacture of man-made  fibers, polymers or even the medicines that we have become so used to. )

The city of Salinas is planning   a project with uses pre-treatment and sorting MSW.   The equipment then “cooks” it and  creates ethanol.   It avoids the landfills completely.  And, it can be done now.
 

Announcement:
http://calendar.ucdavis.edu/event_detail.lasso?eventID=11730

Thursday, November 4, 2010

China’s Farm Waste to Energy Programs


As part of an ambitious farm waste-to-energy program, the Chinese government provides rural households with an anaerobic digester as a way to provide inexpensive cooking biogas and heat while also removing farm animal and human waste, according to Dr. Xiujin Li of Beijing University of Chemical Technology, who visited UC Davis today with a Chinese delegation.

China began a program for anaerobic digesters in 1975, but many suffered leaks and were of poor quality and were phased out.    Today, some 35 MM of these rural digesters many made from newer durable materials now exist, up from 10 MM in 2000.  Many are the size of a couple of refrigerators and buried underground on a farm.  The price is $400, beyond reach of most Chinese farmers but paid for under the government program.  Dr. Li mentioned that Americans have asked him where to purchase.

In larger Chinese communities or larger farms,  such as a commercial chicken farm, the Chinese government has offered since 2005  a second program for  much larger anaerobic digesters  to convert the waste into biogas, fuel for electricity or natural gas for vehicle fuel.  The government provides just over $700 MM annually for the equipment and the maintenance of these larger, more complex biodigesters, in which Dr. Li said  support  is “only a phone call away.”    Local governments must then commit an equal amount of the funding. [update: Here is an excellent video by Amy Zeng about biogas production in Kunming]

China also a problem with dry, crop residue.   Annually, China produces 700 MM tons of dry rice, wheat, corn  waste (the stalks), half of which is  burned in open fields.   This dry waste has a high lignocelluloisic component, making it difficult to biodigrade.   Dr. Li described several university research efforts  in China to improve the biogas yields and reduce the time to produce.  One promising approach is pre-treating with sodium hydroxide, other research effort range from fungus to various reactor designs.  

What works in the lab, of course, may not work in the fields.  This is true everywhere, but it is particularly important to realize that in a developing country, like China, development is uneven.   The best features of a modern society can often be  juxtaposed with the face of a poor, less developed society.   In other words, Dr. Li stressed technologies used in anaerobic digestors must not only be low capital, cost-effective but also reliable and must scale easily.  

Still, some lingering questions remain, do the small biodigesters leak and contaminate underground water?   Who decides which villages and farmers have access to the government’s financial programs?

One way answer is to encourage collaboration with foreign scientists and this was just one purpose of Dr. Li visit, who had obtained his Ph.D from UC Davis.

(Remark: Dr. Li’s talk was about biogas.  China limits the use of food crops for ethanol, but is working with  jatropha )

Additional information:

http://www.methanetomarkets.org/expo_china07/docs/postexpo/ag_li.pdf

http://www.physorg.com/news131028348.html
http://www.pciaonline.org/beijing-university-chemical-technology-buct

Biogas in developing countries background

Monday, June 7, 2010

California Energy - Game Change?


The massive Gulf oilspill was a called a "Game Changer" by Catherine Reheis-Boyd, of the Western States Petroleum Association, an oil industry group, at a recent Climate One - Commonwealth Club event on May 21, 2010.

Four panelists and a moderator spoke on a wide range of energy policies and technologies.  They were

-(DM) Dan Miller, Managing Director, Roda Group
-(CRB) Catherine Reheis-Boyd, President, Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA)
-(MB) Michael Brune, Executive Director of the Sierra Club 
-(JB) Jim Boyd, Vice Chair, California Energy Commission (CEC) [Mr. Boyd and Ms. Reheis-Boyd are related by marriage.]
-(MOD) Greg Dalton, Moderator

Although Michael Brune (Sierra Club) and Catherine Reheis-Boyd (WSPA) disagreed on many things, both did agreed this oilspill is  "Game Changing."   At least as interesting  were the nuanced policy differences between Jim Boyd (CEC) and Michael Brune (Sierra)

The full audio is here plus some video clips.  Climate One website is here.
A few summaries by topic:

Off-Shore Drilling
JB: Did support off-shore drilling; now is cautious; but seems to like new slant technology oil drilling which would generate State revenues, including funds for education.
MB: Wants permanent off-shore drilling ban.

Plan to move away from oil
JB:  "our most optimistic projections show that we are going to be using petroleum for a long, long time."  And added it be nice if all domestically produced, but not realistic.
MB: We will use oil as long as we allow ourselves to use oil.   Instead, he suggested immediately create policies - policies to electrify transportation (rail, cars), switch heavy trucks to natural gas, green the grid.  

Electric Vehicles
JB - Likes PHEV (ARB opposed?), likes Chevy Volt, says he wanted 40 mpg in 2003
MB - electrify transportation, beginning with fleets (like postal service)

California ZEV policy
JB - Was instituted on his 'watch.'  Battery technology disappointed. Favors PHEV.  [California pioneered ZEV regulations; but withdrew and car companies removed models.  It may now be making a comeback at ARB.]

Biofuels
JB - insufficient but likes; hydrogen is in the future 
MB - environmental concerns about water use and full life cycle GHG emissions
DM - With right rules and investment, can be done by 2015.
[CEC was criticized at recent Biofuels workshop]

Canadian Coal Tar Sands
JB -  Better we use it then send it to China  because we will get air pollution back because of their unregulated use.
[Mr. Boyd led a Calfornia delegation to China in April to discuss low-carbon economy, solar, ZEV, policy, etc.]
MB - Global problem, need global leadership

Natural Gas - fossil source
JB - cleanest fossil fuel, wants Combined Cycle (heat & power), use as bridging fuel; concerns about shale gas
MB - natural gas industry must be cleaner; increase regulatory standards for drilling and production

On energy policy
JB - Target #1 in California is building -not just home - efficiency
MB - Wants goals and use criteria: fastest, cleanest, cheapest, quickest

On electricity generation for the grid
JB - defers to MB
MB - No new coal; retire old coal plants; loading order is (1) energy-efficiency (2) small scale distributed generation (solar, wind, etc.) (3) large scale solar/wind (4) if necessary, large Natural Gas 
[CEC has a policy of supporting CCS]

Investment
MB - $1 Trillion will be invested in the energy in next 10 years.  How to apportion it?

Nuclear
JB - against for waste, cost 
MB - nuclear comes in last on his criteria (fastest, cleanest, cheapest) - so no nukes
DM - nukes vs. coal - which is worse?

I think the game change is presence of Michael Brune.  He seems to have clear objectives.


Climate One at the CommonWealth Club