Envisioning Mature Biomass Refining
Download
1 / 38

Envisioning Mature Biomass Refining - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 111 Views
  • Uploaded on

Envisioning Mature Biomass Refining. Mark Laser. Thayer School of Engineering Dartmouth College [email protected] Joachim Forum. Renewable Bio-based Materials and Fuels Session Milleneum UN Plaza Hotel New York, NY. June 4 – 5, 2007. 77. 77+3+15. 100 x. 100 x. = 69%. = 85%.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Envisioning Mature Biomass Refining' - lacy


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

Envisioning Mature Biomass Refining

Mark Laser

Thayer School of Engineering

Dartmouth College

[email protected]

Joachim Forum

Renewable Bio-based Materials and Fuels Session

Milleneum UN Plaza Hotel

New York, NY

June 4 – 5, 2007


77

77+3+15

100 x

100 x

= 69%

= 85%

100+ 2.2+9.5+0.4

100+ 2.2+9.5+0.4

Oil Refining Energy Flows

  • Fuels

  • Gasoline (42.0%)

  • Diesel (23.8%)

  • Jet fuel (8.9%)

  • LPG (2.6%)

77%

100%

100%

96%

Refining

TS&D

Crude Recovery, TS&D

Petrochemicals (3%)

  • Other

  • Coke (5.2%)

  • Residual oil (4.5%)

  • Asphalt (3.6%)

  • Lubricants (1.0%)

  • Other (1.0%)

15%

4.4%

(Still gas)

9.5%

2.2%

0.4%

Input Mix

Diesel 100%

2.9% (FFE)

10.1% (FFE)

Input Mix

Coal 19%

Residual oil 4%

Natural gas 71%

Electricity 6%

Input Mix

Crude 1%

Residual oil 1%

Diesel 15%

Gasoline 2%

Natural gas 62%

Electricity 19%

Well-to-Pump Efficiency

Sources:

External energy inputs/efficiencies: GREET, 2005

Refinery outputs: Energy Information Administration, 2005

All products:

Fuels:

2


Biomass Refining

?

Refining

Biomass Production, TS&D

What will

we make

TS&D

?

?

What inputs will be required?

What will it cost?

And, how big can biorefining be: Niche player or major industry?

3


Multi-sponsor

• U.S. Department of Energy

• The Energy Foundation

• National Commission on Energy Policy

Objectives

1) Identify & evaluate paths by which biomass can make a large contribution to future demand for energy services.

2) Determine what can be done to accelerate biomass energy use and in what timeframe associated benefits can be realized.

The Role of Biomass in America’s Energy Future

(RBAEF)

Multi-institutional

• Dartmouth College • Natural Resources Defense Council

• Argonne National Lab • Michigan State University

• National Renewable Energy Lab • Princeton University

• Union of Concerned Scientists • USDA Agricultural Research Service

• University of Tennessee • Oak Ridge National Lab

4


Importance: More important to know where we can get than where we are to evaluate

• Appropriate levels of research effort, policy intensity for biomass-based options.

• The potential contribution of biomass to a sustainable world.

Framing the Analysis

Broad range of technologies (but not all) considered in a common framework.

Emphasis on mature technology

What: Asympotic state such that further research & experience yield but incremental improvement in cost/benefit realization.

e.g. Total expended effort to improve technology is similar to that done for petroleum refining

Evaluation: Knowledgeable optimist’s most likely estimate.

5


Basis for

Thermodynamic analysis “energy balance”

Material flows for environmental analysis

Economic analysis

~7 person-year effort undertaken jointly by Dartmouth, Princeton

24 different scenarios including many product combinations

• Electrical power

• Fischer-Tropsch Fuels

• Ethanol

• Hydrogen

• Dimethyl ether

• Animal feed

• Light gases

Unprecedented for mature biomass conversion technologies

RBAEF Process Analysis

Material & Energy Balance Models

Implemented using Aspen Plus

Built on extensive prior work

Princeton (thermochemical fuels & power)

NREL & Dartmouth (ethanol)

6


Biological Processing

  • Ammonia Fiber Explosion pretreatment no feedstock degradation and

    downstream inhibition

  • Consolidated bioprocessing no dedicated cellulase production

  • Energy efficient distillation intermediate vapor recompression heat pumps

  • Extensive water recycle no evaporation of distillation bottoms liquid

Thermochemical Processing

  • Pressurized O2-blown gasifier smaller gasifier sizes

  • Warm gas clean-up reduced thermal losses

  • Integrated tar cracking fewer pieces of equipment

  • Combined cycle gas turbine increased generation efficiency

Feedstock

  • Switchgrass extensive growth area & environ. benefits

  • Large scale 5,000 – 20,000 dry ton/day

  • High yield e.g.10 dry ton/acre/year (2X current yield)

Key Mature Technology Features

7


Mature Biomass Refining Energy Flows (example scenario)

THERMOCHEMICAL

Power 3.7%

1.6%

Power 3.6%

0.2%

0.9%

0.1%

Power 3.7%

3%

NH3

1%

Steam 10%

5%

Steam 10%

Steam 10%

Steam Turbine

HRSG

3%

100%

100%

97%

96%

Feedstock

54%

Ethanol

2%

1%

17%

1%

Pretreatment

0.1%

0.1%

Solids

26%

Feed Handling

Distillation

CBP

Liquid

16%

2%

9%

6%

19%

Power 1%

GT

4%

21%

35%

26%

Gas Cleanup

27%

27%

FT Synthesis

Gasification

22%

Residue

FT Gasoline 6%

WWT

Sludge

1%

FT Diesel 10%

Drier

Biogas 13%

POX

WWT

Other Utilities

Cooling/Heat Loss

BIOLOGICAL

0.3%

0.6%

Ag Inputs (Farming, feedstock transport) ~ 7 %

Energy out/Ag Inputs =

71/7 ≈ 10X

8


Maturation of biological conversion  much larger opportunities

Current

Mature

100%

100%

Biological

Processing

Biological

Processing

54%

39%

Post-Biological

Processing

Post-Biological

Processing

Internal cogeneration - most energy for biological processing is from waste heat accompanying power and/or FT fuel production

Fischer-Tropsch fuels

(diesel, gasoline)

Power

Post-

Biological

Processing

Post-

Biological

Processing

Residues

Residues

39%

39%

FT fuels

(16%)

Power

(17%)

Bioprocess

(steam, power)

Bioprocess

(steam, power)

14%

14%

power = 0.68

FTfuels = 0.71

0.75% power demand displaced for every 1 % transport fuel demand displaced (US)

Slate of fuels including bioethanol,

FT diesel, FT gasoline (or added ethanol)

Large baseload power contribution,

compliments intermittent sources

E90 entirely from renewables

Thermochemical Processing of Residues Offers Lots of Value

9


Max Fuels

80

77

77

73

71

69

68

64

61

61

61

58

55

49

33

GTCC

Rankine

EtOH/H2

FT/GTCC

H2/GTCC

EtOH/GTCC

EtOH/Rankine

DME/GTCC

EtOH/FT/GTCC

EtOH/Protein/FT

EtOH/FT (1X)/CH4

EtOH/SA/Rankine

EtOH/Protein/GTCC

EtOH/Protein/Rankine

EtOH/FT (w/recycle)/CH4

Current technology (dilute acid pretreatment; SSCF)

36 – 47%

Processing Efficiencies

100%

87

90%

80%

73

70

70%

60%

Processing Efficiency (%)*

50%

45

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Corn EtOH

Oil Refining (fuels)

Oil Refining (total)

Oil Refining (fuels + chems)

10

*Defined as energy out/(feedstock + external processing energy); % feedstock LHV basis


Dedicated

Power

Current US Power Mix

Bioethanol (max fuels) and

TC Coproducts

TC fuels and

Power

Future US Power Mix

Bioethanol and

TC Coproducts

Current technology (dilute acid pretreatment; SSCF)

Comparative Greenhouse Gas Displacement

11


Dedicated

Power

Current US Power Mix

Bioethanol (max fuels) and

TC Coproducts

TC fuels and

Power

Future US Power Mix

Bioethanol and

TC Coproducts

Current technology (dilute acid pretreatment; SSCF)

Comparative Petroleum Displacement

12


Inputs

  • Liquid fuel

  • Fertilizer

  • Other

Nutrient

recycle

Soil Carbon

Accumulation

CO2 point source

Geo/Ocean

Reservoirs

Coproducts

(e.g. power, feed)

CO2 point source

CO2 Equivalent Emission

(% Gasoline base case, per mile, not cumulative)

EtOH & Power EtOH & FT Fuels & Power

Primary Cycle 0 0

Inputs +10 +8

Coproducts -56 -4

N recycle -3 -2

Soil carbon accumulation -43 to -159 -33 to -48

CO2 capture, sequestration -128 -48

CO2

Photosynthesis

End use

Biofuel

Biomass

Conversion

13


A

24.5%

29.8%

remaining

A. 1/3 current transport fuel from

cellulosic biofuels, coproduce power

B

21.2%

B. 40% electrical power from carbon-

neutral sources

C

24.5%

C. Triple transportation sector efficiency

45.2%

27.7%

29.8% remaining

Aggressive but possible CO2

emission reduction combined

with carbon sequestration

accompanying biomass

production & conversion:

23.3%

21.1%

6.5%

-15.4 to 2.1% current emissions

Soil carbon

Point source

Combined

Biofuels as Part of Broader Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Strategy

An Illustrative Example

CO2 Emission Reduction Strategies

Total CO2 Emissions

Transport & Power Generation

Carbon Sequestration

Opportunities

14


Analytical Approach:

  • Estimate capital (NREL, Princeton, vendors, literature) and operating costs

  • Calculate internal rate of return using discounted cash flow analysis, as a function of:

  • Fuel & power prices

  • Scale

  • Debt-equity ratio and other financial parameters

(Can also fix fuel & power prices and calculate IRR)

Economics

Salient Observation:

Cellulosic biomass @ $40/ton = $2.3/GJ = oil @ $13/barrel

15


Scenario Comparison

50%

EtOH/Rankine

EtOH/GTCC

45%

EtOH/FT/GTCC

EtOH/FT (1X)/CH4

40%

EtOH/FT (w/recycle)/CH4

EtOH/H2

35%

EtOH/Protein/Rankine

EtOH/Protein/GTCC

30%

EtOH/Protein/FT

Internal Rate of Return (%)

25%

FT/GTCC

DME/GTCC

20%

H2/GTCC

Rankine

15%

GTCC

10%

5%

0%

$5

$6

$7

$8

$9

$10

$11

$12

$13

$14

$15

Fuel Price ($/GJ)

2002

2003

2004

2005

Crude price:

($61/bbl)

($24/bbl)

($29/bbl)

($37/bbl)

($50/bbl)

Gasoline price:

($1.81/gal)

($0.81/gal)

($0.98/gal)

($1.27/gal)

($1.65/gal)

$0.04/kWh

$0.20/lb protein

40/60 D/E

7.5% loan rate

Scale: 5,000 dry short tons/day = 4,535 metric tons/day

16


Scenario Comparison: 5,000 dry tons/day

2002

2003

2004

2005

Crude price:

($24/bbl)

($29/bbl)

($37/bbl)

($50/bbl)

Gasoline price:

($0.81/gal)

($0.98/gal)

($1.27/gal)

($1.65/gal)

50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

Internal Rate of Return (%)

25%

20%

Current EtOH/Rankine (dilute acid pretreatment; SSCF)

15%

10%

5%

0%

$5

$6

$7

$8

$9

$10

$11

$12

$13

$14

$15

Price of Competing Fuel ($/GJ)

($61/bbl)

($1.81/gal)

Bioethanol (max fuels) and TC coproducts

Bioethanol and TC coproducts

TC Fuels and power

$0.04/kWh

$0.20/lb protein

40/60 D/E

7.5% loan rate

Power

Scale: 5,000 dry short tons/day = 4,535 metric tons/day

17


Scenario Comparison: 5,000 dry tons/day

U.S. Average Industrial

Price 1996 - 2005

$0.0485/kWh

40%

35%

30%

25%

Internal Rate of Return (%)

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

$5

$10

$15

Electricity Price ($/GJ)

$0.04/kWh

$0.06/kWh

$0.07/kWh

Bioethanol & TC coproducts

Current EtOH/Rankine (dilute acid pretreatment; SSCF)

TC Fuels

$8.23/GJ fuel price

($1.50/gal gasoline)

($1.00/gal ethanol)

($1.67/gal diesel)

$0.20/lb protein

40/60 D/E

7.5% loan rate

Power

$20

18


Anticipated Features of Mature Biofuel Technology (RBAEF)

Efficient

  • > 70% feedstock energy  fuels, power

  • Fossil fuel displacement ratio (out:in) ≥ 10

  • Integrated biological & thermochemical processing key

Cost effective

  • Liquid fuel production cost-competitive with gasoline from oil @ $30/barrel

Attractive production/utilization cycles

  • Near-zero net greenhouse gas emissions

  • High performance, clean-burning fuels

  • Large agricultural economy & soil fertility benefits

~ Two dozen cellulosic biomass processing scenarios developed based on

performance & configurations anticipated for mature technology

• Ethanol, F-T fuels, dimethyl ether, hydrogen, electricity, feed protein

• Analyzed in a common framework

• Unprecedented

19


Resource Sufficiency: Radically Different Conclusions

Large contribution possible & desirable

United States

  • Biomass will eventually provide over 90% of U.S. chemical and over 50% of

    U.S. fuel production (NRC, 1999, Biobased Industrial Products,).

  • 20% of petroleum demand in 2025 (Lovins et al., 2004, Winning the Oil End Game).

  • 1.3 billion tons of biomass could be available in the mid 21st century - 1/3 of current

    transport fuel demand (Perlack et al., 2005, “Billion Tons Study”).

  • 50 % current transportation sector energy use, and potentially nearly all gasoline,

    by 2050 (Greene et al., 2004, Growing Energy)

  • Goal of 100 billion gallons of ethanol by 2025 (Ewing & Woolsey, 2006,

    A High Growth Strategy for Ethanol)

Worldwide

  • Biomass becomes the largest energy source supporting humankind by a factor of 2

    (Johanssen et al., 1993, Renewables-Intensive Global Energy Scenario).

  • Biomass potential comparable to total worldwide energy demand (Woods & Hall,

    1994; Yamamoto, 1999; Fischer & Schrattenholzer, 2001; Hoogwijk et al., 2005)

20


Resource Sufficiency: Radically Different Conclusions

Large contribution not possible and/or not desirable

David Pimentel’s group (8 papers, 1979 to 2002)

“Use of biomass energy as a primary fuel in the United States would be impossible

while maintaining a high standard of living”

“Large-scale biofuel production is not an alternative to the current use of oil and

is not even an advisable option to cover a significant fraction of it.”

Others

Power density of photosynthesis is too low for biofuels to have an impact on

greenhouse gas reduction (Hoffert et al., 2002)

Impractically large land requirements for biomass energy production on a scale

comparable to energy/petroleum use (Trainer, 1995; Kheshgi, 2000; Avery, 2006)

2030: Ethanol (corn and cellulose) 2.5% of transportation energy - 2% of this

cellulosic (EIA, 2006)

Any substantial increase in biomass harvesting for the purpose of energy

generation would deprive other species of their food sources and could cause

collapse of ecosystems worldwide (Huesemann, 2004)

Because of large land requirements, biofuels are not a long-term practical solution

to our need for transportation fuels (Jordan and Powell, July 2006, Washington Post)

21


{

VMT

1

- I

NNLFP =

MPG • YP/F

P

Understanding the Disparity of Resource Sufficiency Studies

The math is simple:

{

NNLFP: Net new land, ignoring changed land for food production (acres)

VMT: Vehicle miles traveled (miles/yr)

MPG: Miles/gallon gasolineequivalent

YP/F: Process yield (gallons gasoline equivalent/ton dry biomass)

I: Feedstock produced from currently-managed lands (ton dry biomass)

P: Productivity of biomass production (tons/acre/year)

22


Factors Impacting Biomass Feedstock Availability:

Feedstock Productivity (P)

25

Projected

24

15

12.5

Energy Crops

U.S., 10 years

(R. Hamilton)

Energy Crops

U.S., Mature

(V. Khosla)

Energy cane, projected

(Botha, Reinach)

SG, 2050

(McLaughlin)

Richard Hamilton (Ceres) “[Available information]…strongly suggest[s] that over the next decade or so the deployment of modern breeding technologies will result in average energy yields of at least 15 tons per acre, and that these averages can be sustained across a broad range of geographic and environmental conditions, including the approximately 75 million acres of crop and pasture land in the United States that could easily be converted to their cultivation without impacting domestic food production.”

30

Current

25

20

16.5

Productivity (tons/acre/yr)

15

7.5

10

5

5

1.3

0

Miscanthus (Heaton & Long)

Pimentel et al. (2002)

Current SG

(McLaughlin)

Corn

Whole plant

U.S. Ave.

Heaton and Long: 3 site average in Illinois over 2 years, direct comparison with switchgrass

(Cave-in-Rock), which averaged 4.6 tons/acre/yr

23


Land Area Required for Current U.S. Light Duty Mobility in Relation to Vehicle Efficiency

High Vehicle Efficiency

A central feature of all sustainable

transportation scenarios

Battery/EV; H2/fuel cell:

Avoids otherwise small travel radius

Cellulosic biofuels

Avoids otherwise large footprint

Land used

160

for animal

feed

140

120

100

Land Area (Millions of Acres)

Without Residue Utilization

80

60

Idled by federal

programs, mid 80s-

mid 90s

40

CRP

20

With Residue Utilization

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Vehicle Efficiency Multiplier

•LDV VMT = 2.5 trillion vehicle miles traveled

•Waste availability: 200 million dry tons

•Switchgrass productivity: 10 dry tonss/acre/year (20 to 30 year projected average, tentative)

•Fuel yield: 100 gallons/dry ton

24


Factors Impacting Biomass Feedstock Availability: Relation to Vehicle Efficiency

Integrating Feedstock Production Into Currently-Managed Land (I)

Hasn’t happened in the past.

Farmers would rethink what they grow and how they grow it.

Feed protein/feedstock coproduction

Feedlot pretreatment to make calories more accessible

Increase production on under-utilized land (e.g. hay, pasture)

Winter cover crops

Agricultural residue removal, enhanced by appropriate crop rotations

Food production is usually assumed to remain static in analyses of biomass supply.

New demand for non-nutritive cellulosic biomass due to cost-competitive

processing technology would very likely result in large changes.

25


Feed Protein/Feedstock Coproduction Relation to Vehicle Efficiency

Concept

Feed Protein

Fuels/

Chemicals

Switchgrass

Protein Recovery/

(& Pretreatment)

Composition & productivity comparison

Crop

Protein

(Mass Fraction)

Protein Productivity

(tons/acre/year)

Mass Productivity

(tons/acre/year)

Switchgrass

5.0 – 10

.08 -0.12 (early cut)

0.4 – 1.2

Soybeans

1.1 – 1.3

0.36 - 0.5 (bean only)

0.40 – 0.65

• Production of perennial grass could potentially produce the same amount of feed protein per acre while producing a large amount of feedstock for energy production

• Requires readily foreseeable processing technology to recover feed protein

• Many positive indications of feed protein quality, but not fully established

• Not pursued now because of absence of demand for cellulosic residues

• Cellulosic feedstocks might also be coproduced from large biomass soybeans

Processing

26


New uses for existing crops (e.g. corn stover) Relation to Vehicle Efficiency

New combinations of existing crops

New & improved crops & cropping systems

Invited paper for Global Change Biology

Lee Lynd, Mark Laser, Kara Podkaminer (Dartmouth)

Rob Anex, Andy Heggenstaller, Matt Leibman (ISU)

Bruce Dale (Michigan State University)

David Bransby (Auburn University)

Nathanael Greene (NRDC)

Housein Shapouri (USDA)

John Sheehan (NREL)

Reimagining Agriculture to Accommodate Large Scale Energy Production

New demand  new rewards & opportunities  new agriculture

This new agriculture has received only scant investigation worldwide

Different solutions will be most practical in different local situations

27


{ Relation to Vehicle Efficiency

VMT

1

- I

NNLFP =

MPG • YP/F

P

6.1

4.5

1.4

VMT (trillion miles, 2050)

“Car Talk” scenarios

21

2.4

50

MPG (LDV)

Current—D. Friedman

36

2.5

YP/F (gallons/ton)

91

Recent NREL—RBAEF

Infinite

I (million tons)

0

600

Many—“Billion Tons”

12

P (tons/acre/year)

D. Pimentel—V. Khosla

1.3

24

NNLFP(million acres)

14

381

5,328

Returning to that simple equation…

{

Ratio

Source

Least Efficient

Most Efficient

Parameter

(Max/Min)

(High, Low)

28


1,030 Relation to Vehicle Efficiency

Status quo

Advanced

processing

410

Vehicle efficiency 2.5X↑

165

Biomass yield 2.5X↑

65

91 gal Geq/ton

Agricultural integration

I. Soy  switchgrass

or large biomass soy

Early-cut switchgrass produces more feed protein/acre

than soy; similar benefits from “large biomass soy”

-10

II. Corn stover (72%)

-50

Feasibility of stover utilization enhanced by rotation

36 gal Geq/ton, current mpg, no ag. integration, 5 tons/acre*yr

Winter cover crops, other residues, increased productivity

of food crops, increased production on under-utilized land…

??

III. Other

New Land Required to Satisfy Current U.S. Mobility Demand

CRP Land

(30 MM)

U.S. Cropland

(400 MM)

LDV

HDV

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

New Land Required (million acres)

29


Biomass Resource Sufficiency: Summary Observations Relation to Vehicle Efficiency

Primarily behavioral

(diet, exports, VMT)

80 million acres currently devoted to producing export crops

has a biofuel production potential of 110 billion gal GE

Shifts in meat consumption could make available ~60 million

acres, with a corresponding biofuel production potential of

82 billion gallons GE of fuel

Both technological &

behavioral

(MPG, integration of

feedstock production

into managed land)

Integration potential, on the order of 600 million tons, could

produce 55 million gallons GE with no new land required

Technically-possible mileage increases could decrease fuel

demand by 2.5-fold

Multiple complimentary

changes

Becomes realistic to consider meeting all U.S. mobility demand

from biofuels, with some scenarios requiring little if any new

land to achieve this

Illustrative Large Impacts

Category of Change

Primarily technological

(process yield, crop

productivity)

Anticipated improvement in process yield & energy crop

productivity together would increase per acre biofuel yield

by ~ 10-fold (1715 gal gasoline equivalent, GE, per acre)

Increased productivity of food crops could substantial acreage

of existing cropland available for energy crops

30


Pulp & Paper as Entry Point for Cellulosic Ethanol? Relation to Vehicle Efficiency

  • Several studies suggest that co-producing ethanol with pulp and paper can be economically attractive:

  • Fan & Lynd, 2007. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng; 30:35-45

  • Lynd, 2004. Industrial Bioprocessing; 26(5):7

  • Furstein, S.J. et al., 2003. TAPPI Proceedings; pp. 262-271

  • Kerstetter et al., 1997. NREL subcontract ACG-6-15177-01

  • In January 2007, Flambeau River Papers announced plans produce 20 MGY from spent pulping liquor in Park Falls, Wisconsin as soon as 2009.

  • In April 2007, Weyerhaeuser signed LOI with Chevron to jointly assess the feasibility of commercializing cellulosic ethanol

31


Common Threads: Relation to Vehicle Efficiency

Policy

R&D

Education/Communication

32


} Relation to Vehicle Efficiency

• Research, development, demonstration

Simultaneous, consistent with

• Commercialization

• Niche applications

• Corn ethanol, gasoline price gap

Cumulative cost (10 years): ~$2 billion

• Desired rapid deployment

Additional supporting policies

Renewable fuel standard, becoming performance-based over time, require FFVs

Aggressive policies supporting vehicle efficiency

Build a new agricultural-environmental coalition

RBAEF Policy Recommendations

Policy package developed by NRDC with input from UCS & others

2015: Billion gallons of cellulosic biofuels, cost-competitive (oil @ $30/bbl)

33


Three levels of activity Relation to Vehicle Efficiency

Applied fundamentals (15% of funds)

Innovation (35% of funds)

Demonstration (pilot, 50% of funds)

All three focus areas are prime targets, especially diverse approaches to

overcoming the recalcitrance of cellulosic biomass

Are many promising options for which pilot work is appropriate now

Example: AFEX for feed, pretreated feedstock production

However, the best pilot plants are ones that we cannot afford to shut down,

and there are opportunities there too that have been overlooked

Paper sludge conversion

RBAEF Recommendations: RD&D

Research, Development & Demonstration ($1.1 billion, 6 years)

Three focus areas

Overcome the recalcitrance of cellulosic biomass - Primary economic barrier

Product diversification (various fuels, chemicals, power, feed)

Advanced feedstock production (productivity, environmental, economics)

34


Approach Relation to Vehicle Efficiency

Reduce barriers but do not replace private-sector due diligence.

Menu of incentives.

Bond & efficacy insurance - feedstock supplier, producer, product purchaser

Production incentive - first 5 years

Graduated pools with caps on % cost, value of plant, total available

Recommendations: Commercialization

Amount

$0.8 billion over 10 years

Objectives

Encourage production of sufficient capacity that, in combination with RD&D,

production costs can approach that of conventional fuels by 2015.

Minimize risk of unproductively spending public funds.

A self-sufficient, growing, industry when policies expire.

35


Policy Progress Relation to Vehicle Efficiency

Energy Policy Act 2005

  • Renewable Fuels Standard: 7.5 billion gallons in 2012

  • 250 annual million gallons cellulosic ethanol by 2013

  • Biomass R&D: $200 million per year 2006 – 2015

  • Cellulosic biofuels production incentives: $250 million over 10 years; 1 billion gallons by 2015

DOE Commitments 2007

  • Up to $385 million to 6 commercial projects; 130 million total gallons

  • Up to $200 million over 5 years; 5 – 10 demonstration plants

Whitehouse Proposal 2007

  • 20 in 10: reduce gasoline consumption by 20% in next 10 years

  • 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017

36


R & D Focus? Relation to Vehicle Efficiency

Increase hydrolysis yield

3%

Improved biomass

sugars

13%

Halve cellulase loading

R&D-Driven Improvements

Eliminate pretreatment

22%

Consolidated bioprocessing (CBP)

41%

Simultaneous C5 & C6 Use

6%

Improved sugars

product

Increased fermentation yield

2%

Increased ethanol titer

11%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Increased ethanol titer following CBP

7%

Processing Cost Reduction

37


Education/Communication? Relation to Vehicle Efficiency

  • Communication of the cellulosic biofuels concept has already entered the mainstream public lexicon:

  • President Bush has mentioned the subject in his past 2 state of the union addresses.

  • Google search on cellulosic ethanol yields 1.1 million links

  • Efforts are underway to develop curricula to prepare students for a future economy centered around cellulosic biomass:

  • Michigan State University’s Multidisciplinary Graduate Training Program on Technologies for a Biobased Economy

  • Michigan Biomass Curriculum Project

  • BioSUCCEED — Bioproduct Sustainability, a University Cooperative Center of Excellence in Education

  • Wisconsin Biomass K-12 Biomass Education

38


ad