[Pil-pc-oceania] Biofuels without starvation (Greenleap)

[Deb Guildner]

Biofuels can be produced without competing with food production 
Posted by: "Philip Sutton" Philip.Sutton at green-innovations.asn.au   philipsuttonoz 
Thu Apr 24, 2008 6:48 pm (PDT) 
------- Forwarded message follows -------
From: "chmardon" <chmardon at bigpond.com>
Subject: RE: [greenleap] Despite Problems, Biofuels 
Continue Surge
Date sent: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:34:06 +1000

Dear Philip,
While I deplore the use of foodstuffs for the production of 
biofuels, I feel that I should reiterate yet again that other choices are 
possible without resorting to that or destroying the environment. Many 
people are starting to become aware (at last) that woody biomass is a viable 
source of liquid fuels, but they usually think in terms of inefficient old 
processes like acid or enzymic hydrolysis followed by fermentation. In fact, 
there are other processes to convert such biomass to transport fuels, such 
as biogas, thermal pyrolysis, gasification followed by catalytic conversion to 
methanol, dimethyl ether or even hydrocarbon fuels. 

I recently came across an NREL paper describing a process using 
gasification followed by catalytic conversion to mixed alcohols, mainly 
ethanol. It is called Thermochemical Ethanol via Indirect Gasification and 
Mixed Alcohol Synthesis of Lignocellulosic Biomass and it can be 
downloaded from http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/41168.pdf. This 
process is far more efficient than other processes for the production of 
ethanol from biomass (which means that you don´t need as much raw 
material) and it can use any kind of woody biomass. In fact, any organic 
material capable of being gasified could actually be used, even garbage! 
The authors claim: 

"Combined, all process, market, and financial targets in the 
design represent what must be achieved to obtain the reported 
$1.01 per gallon, showing that ethanol from a thermochemical 
conversion process has the possibility of being produced in a 
manner that is "cost competitive with corn-ethanol" by 2012. 
This analysis has demonstrated that forest resources can be 
converted to ethanol in a cost competitive manner. This allows 
for greater flexibility in converting biomass resources to make 
stated volume targets by 2030."

This still raises the question of whether we should be producing relatively 
expensive fuels from biomass while the fuel efficiency of most cars is still 
very poor and the planning of our cities still condemns most people to 
commuting long distances by car and delivering our goods by road freight. It 
also raises the question of whether there are more efficient fuel/vehicle 
combinations than ethanol/petrol blends in conventional ICE vehicles, and 
what we will do as the supply of petrol declines. 

We are now on the cusp of Peak Oil, and even with marginal sources of oil 
such as polar oil, deepwater oil, tar sands, heavy oil, gas condensate and 
coal liquids, we are very close to the point where total supplies must start to 
decline. Once that decline starts, annual supplies will fall at 3-4% a year, so 
we will need to adjust our demand to the available supply. That suggests 
that with the current concept of 10% ethanol in petrol, we will need to get 
production up well beyond the Biofuels Target of 350 ML (which is only 1% 
of demand) as quickly as possible to reach 3,500 ML. But what then? Most 
conventional cars cannot take more than 10% ethanol, so we would have to 
start using flexible fuel vehicles, such as the ones that Holden is exporting to 
Brazil, which can run on a variety of blends up to 85% ethanol. 

As the percentage of ethanol increases, the fuel will get more expensive, 
and other alternatives will need to be considered. While considering other 
fuel/vehicle combinations to reduce the overall cost of motoring, we should 
also be looking at radical alternatives that could make a real difference. 
Hybrid and fuel cell cars come to mind, but the latter will not run on petrol. It 
is often suggested that they will have to run on hydrogen, but that is not true 
either because they can run on any hydrogen carrier that can be catalysed to 
hydrogen at a low temperature (which excludes petrol) using an onboard 
catalyst unit or reformer, such as natural gas (CNG) and alcohol fuels. 

Whatever we do, we will need to use transport fuels more efficiently and 
start the transition away from petroleum fuels, and that transition needs to 
start now. Coal liquids are not a genuine alternative because they involve the 
production of large amounts of greenhouse gases and lock us into the 
continued use of petroleum fuels. Biofuels may play a part in that transition, 
but we should avoid the mistakes of other countries and ensure that the net 
energy production from biomass is positive. This will mean a very different 
approach to the Biofuels Taskforce, and the realisation that low-level 
ethanol/petrol blends do not represent a long-term solution. While we are 
developing the biomass conversion processes and building up supplies of 
biomass (such as mixed species long-rotation plantations on salt-affected 
land that is unsuitable for agriculture), we could be producing transitional 
supplies of the hydrogen carriers mentioned above using our abundant 
supplies of natural gas that we just cannot wait to export overseas as LNG. 
At the same time, we could be converting our chemical, plastic and fertilizer 
industries to gas feedstocks as well so that we are less dependent on oil. 
Eventually, they too could run on biomass.

The need to develop viable alternatives to petroleum fuels is now urgent, but 
we should be aware of all the traps.

Regards,

Chris Mardon

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://jasper.cmsarchitects.com/pipermail/pil-pc-oceania/attachments/20080426/c3380d50/attachment.html