Twitter headlines« Citroën Adds New Electronic Transmission to Diesel C4, Boosting Fuel Economy to 52 MPG | Main | SDTC Approves C$48 Million for Clean Technologies Funding, Including EVs and Biofuels »
US DOE Releases Roadmap for Cellulosic Ethanol
7 July 2006
 |
| The research agenda focuses on three main areas: better feedstocks, better processes for breaking down cellulosic materials, and optimizing fermentation. Click to enlarge. |
The US Department of Energy (DOE) has released a detailed research agenda for the development of cellulosic ethanol as an alternative to gasoline. The 200-page research roadmap—Breaking the Biological Barriers to Cellulosic Ethanol: A Joint Research Agenda—resulted from the Biomass to Biofuels Workshop held in December 2005.
The roadmap identifies the research required for overcoming challenges to the large-scale production of cellulosic ethanol, including maximizing biomass feedstock productivity, developing better processes by which to break down cellulosic materials into sugars, and optimizing the fermentation process to convert sugars to ethanol. Cellulosic ethanol is derived from the fibrous, woody and generally inedible portions of plant matter (biomass).
The roadmap responds directly to the goal recently announced by Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman of displacing 30% of 2004 transportation fuel consumption with biofuels by 2030. This goal was set in response to the President’s Advanced Energy Initiative.
The focus of the research plan is to use advances in biotechnology developed in the Human Genome Project and continued in the Genomics: GTL program in the Department’s Office of Science to jump-start a new fuel industry the products of which can be transported, stored and distributed with only modest modifications to the existing infrastructure and can fuel many of today’s vehicles.
The December 2005 workshop was hosted jointly by the Office of Biological and Environmental Research in the Office of Science and the Office of the Biomass Program in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. The success of the plan relies heavily on the continuation of the partnership between the two offices established at that workshop, according to the DOE.
The fundamental barrier to the widespread and cost-effective production of ethanol from cellulosic biomass is the inherent recalcitrance of the biomass to such processing.
Biomass is composed of nature’s most ready energy source, sugars, but they are locked in a complex polymer composite exquisitely created to resist biological and chemical degradation.
Key to energizing a new biofuel industry based on conversion of cellulose (and hemicelluloses) to ethanol is to understand plant cell-wall chemical and physical structures—how they are synthesized and can be deconstructed. With this knowledge, innovative energy crops—plants specifically designed for industrial processing to biofuel—can be developed concurrently with new biology-based treatment and conversion methods.
Recent advances in science and technological capabilities, especially those from the nascent discipline of systems biology, promise to accelerate and enhance this development. Resulting technologies will create a fundamentally new process and biorefinery paradigm that will enable an efficient and economic industry for converting plant biomass to liquid fuels. These key barriers and suggested research strategies to address them are described in this report.
The roadmap lays out a three-stage technical strategy:
Phase 1: Research. This phase, to last no more than five years, is focused on gaining an understanding of existing feedstocks. research will center on the enzymatic breakdown of cellulosic biomass to pentose and hexose sugars (5- and 6-carbon) and lignin using a combination of thermochemical and biological processes. Cofermentation of the sugars will follow.
Phase 2: Deployment. This phase, within 10 years, includes the creation of a new generation of energy crops optimized for sustainability, yield and composition, coupled with processes for the simulataneous breakdown of biomass to sugars and cofermentation of sugars via new biological systems.
Phase 3: Systems Integration. Within 15 years, this phase is to incorporate concurrently engineered energy crops and biorefineries tailored for specific agroecosystems.
|
| The three-stage strategy. Click to enlarge. |
Resources:
July 7, 2006 in Biomass, Cellulosic ethanol, Ethanol, Research | Permalink | Comments (30) | TrackBack (0)
Comments
Posted by: Roger Pham | July 10, 2006 at 01:13 PM
Roger, you need to re-read that PDF. Cooper and company claim less than 1% energy overhead for de-ashing. I would expect this to be even lower for charcoal than de-volatilized coal.
The combustible gas produced from gasification is used in combined-cycle power plants at ~60% efficiency. Perhaps the Wabash River plant does not have means for recycling the heat required for gasification.Wabash River has a heat recovery steam generator on the gasifier outlet, and gasifier steam is a substantial feed to the steam turbine.
The cold-gas efficiency of the gasifier runs around 76%. If you figure 40% efficiency in the gas turbine (.76*.40=30.4% through the gas turbine), 28% in the steam turbine ((.24+.76*.6)*.28=20.0%) minus 10% back-work you get just about 40%. You should read up on it before you say anything further.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | July 13, 2006 at 07:36 PM
I'm a bit late here, I'm afraid, but to see Alan Z talk about using 4 gallons a day to commute, drives home to me the importance of the US getting out of its large uneconomic autos and into something smaller, slinkier and more efficient. My 2 litre Ford Focus will do aobut 160 miles on 4 gals! Are you really 80 miles from work?
Posted by: simon | August 17, 2006 at 05:28 AM
Has anyone considered the fact that BioButanol can be sold as an industrial solvent at a higher price than if sold as a fuel?
For businesses entering the biofuel market, this fact alone should make Butanol more attractive than either ethanol or clean coal. If the hydrogen revolution actually does happen, profits can still be realized on the industrial side.
Posted by: Tim | October 06, 2006 at 02:52 AM
There are developments in DME in China today:
DME is an LPG-like synthetic fuel can be produced through gasification of Biomass. The synthetic gas is then catalyzed to produce DME. A gas under normal pressure and temperature, DME can be compressed into a liquid and used as an alternative to diesel. Its low emissions make it relatively environmentally friendly. In fact, Shandong University completed Pilot plant in Jinan and will be sharing their experience at upcoming North Asia DME / Methanol conference in Beijing, 27-28 June 2007, St Regis Hotel. The conference covers key areas which include:
DME productivity can be much higher especially if
country energy policies makes an effort comparable to
that invested in increasing supply.
By:
National Development Reform Commission NDRC
Ministry of Energy for Mongolia
Production of DME/ Methanol through biomass
gasification could potentially be commercialized
By:
Shandong University completed Pilot plant in Jinan and
will be sharing their experience.
Advances in conversion technologies are readily
available and offer exciting potential of DME as a
chemical feedstock
By: Kogas, Lurgi and Haldor Topsoe
Available project finance supports the investments
that DME/ Methanol can play a large energy supply role
By: International Finance Corporation
For more information: www.iceorganiser.com
Posted by: Cheryl Ho | May 22, 2007 at 11:40 PM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef00d834d4911769e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference US DOE Releases Roadmap for Cellulosic Ethanol :
Eng-Poet,
Thanks for the link to DCFC. Appears to be a promising technology, but still very much in research stage. Durability of the fuel cell is still a problem. Appears to be good for smaller scale distributed generation, due to the high capital cost of $2500/kw power. Cannot replace Clean Coal Tech because this can also produce hydrogen, methane and CTL fuels for transportation sector. Remember that the >75% efficiency is only with respect to the HHV of the purified (de-ashed coal) carbon and electricity output. For total efficiency, one must substract the energy cost in the process of de-ashing and other parasitic losses in the system for maintaining its functionality. Expect overall efficiency to be lower than 75%.
By contrast, for coal gasification, the coal is only needed to broken into smaller pebble sizes, then fed directly into the plant without requiring de-ashing. The ash with the sulfur, mercury and other pollutants will stay behind and is salvageable for other industrial uses. The heat used in gasification process, which is relatively small in comparison to the total heating value of the coal, is largely recyclable by steam turbine at >40% efficiency. The combustible gas produced from gasification is used in combined-cycle power plants at ~60% efficiency. Perhaps the Wabash River plant does not have means for recycling the heat required for gasification.