GM and Coskata Highlight Cellulosic Biofuels Opportunity in China; Estimates of 45-49 BGPY Market by 2030
25 October 2008
China biofuel potential: technical, economic and business-as-usual scenarios. Click to enlarge. Source: GM, Tsinghua University |
China has the potential to produce about 45-49 billion gallons per year (BGPY) of cellulosic biofuels by 2030, given appropriate supporting economic incentives, according to presentations by both General Motors and Coskata at the 4th World Biofuels Symposium at Tsinghua University in Beijing, 19 - 21 October, 2008, organized by BBI International and with COFCO as the title sponsor.
Coskata, a thermo-biochemical cellulosic ethanol company (and a strategic partner of GM, earlier post) based a 49 MGPY estimate on data from the USDA, UN FAO and its own production experience, said Wes Bolsen, the company’s Chief Marketing Officer and VP of Business Development. The 49 billion gallon number does not include landfill gas, municipal waste, steel mill gas, or any coal gasification that could add billions more, Bolsen added.
GM’s Dr. Andreas Lippert, director of Global Energy Systems for GM (earlier post), in his presentation adduced research by Prof. Xiliang Zhang at Tsinghua University, showing that while the technical potential existed for approximately 360 Mtoe (million tons of oil equivalent) of biofuels in China with 60% derived from agricultural residue, 20% from grasses, 10% from forest residue and 10% from other, the amount that could be produced to be cost-competitive with other fuels using incentives and considering societal benefits is around 100 Mtoe (roughly 45+ BGPY ethanol). In a business-as-usual scenario, without incentives, the amount produced is less than half that—but still a significant amount.
By comparison, the US Department of Energy’s Billion Ton Study estimates the annual biomass potential in the US at 1.33 billion tons by 2030 with an ethanol potential of 97.5 B gallons. A separate GM-University of Toronto study referenced by Lippert concluded that the US potential is 0.625 – 1.2 billion tons, enough to produce 50 – 134 BGPY of ethanol. The current US Renewable Standard mandated by EISA 2007 calls for 36 billion gallons of all biofuels by 2022, at least 16 billion gallons of which needs to be cellulosic biofuels.
China fuel ethanol plants in 2008, and provinces/cities with E10 blend mandates. Click to enlarge. Credit: Coskata |
China is currently the world’s third-largest producer of ethanol. Chinese grain-based fuel ethanol production has grown from 100 million gallons in 2004 to about 500 million in 2008, spurred by E10 mandates in major provinces and cities. China had been targeting a major increase in its fuel ethanol output by 2010, a target that now is in doubt due to the country’s restricting ethanol production from grain, while not yet relaxing control over non-grain feedstocks, according to a recent Reuters report.
To save on refined fuel, China has approved 10 percent blending of ethanol in gasoline in six provinces and regions, with a target of blending 2 million tonnes of ethanol in gasoline by 2010 and 10 million tonnes by 2020. But its ethanol production capacity is about 1.5 million tonnes a year, of which 1.32 million tonnes uses grains as a feedstock. Cassava is currently the only realistic feedstock for new ethanol projects in China, and high cassava prices were also partly to blame for missing the target, Ren [Dongming, a deputy director with Energy Research Institute of the National Development and Reform Commission] said.
The timing, suggested Bolsen in his talk, is right for the introduction of second-generation biofuels into China—an opportunity Coskata would like to tap with local partners. Despite the potential, Bolsen says, the Chinese market is in a very different stage that the market in the US, in which everyone is “fired up” about making something happen soon.
China is more about making decisions now that will affect them for the next two decades on not driving down the path to be as dependent on oil as the US.
—Wes Bolsen
Coskata. At the Platts Cellulosic Ethanol and Biofuels Conference in Chicago earlier in October, Coskata reported significant recent gains in the output (grams of ethanol per liter per hour) from its microorganisms that take it well below its early commercial target of an operational cost of <$1.00 per gallon. The company declines to publish the actual production numbers for competitive reasons.
The Coskata process takes a thermo-biochemical pathway via a three-stage process. It first gasifies the feedstock, then uses microorganisms to ferment the syngas into ethanol. In the final stage, pervaporation technology separates and recovers the ethanol. Depending on the feedstock and with the cogeneration of bioelectricity or steam export, the Coskata process can result in up to a 96% reduction of CO2 in the production of the fuel and is up to 7.7 times more energy positive compared to conventional gasoline, according to an evaluation Dr. Michael Wang at Argonne National Laboratory.
Coskata originally licensed its technology and microbes from Oklahoma State University (the work of Dr. Ralph Tanner) and has subsequently optimized the microbes for the production of ethanol via strain management, assisted by a genomic analysis that helped identify optimal nutrients for the microbes. Coskata is now moving on to a phase of further optimization via mutagenesis—a process in which a mutagen is introduced to numerous cultures, and then Coskata screens for results. To enable this process, Coskata developed a high-throughput screening technique for anaerobes that allows the company to run some 100,000 experiments per year.
Coskata is also working on different bioreactor designs to optimize ethanol output. Although Coskata can in theory use a number of different front-end gasification technologies, the company is currently working with plasma gasifiers. Plasma syngas, said Coskata CEO Bill Roe, doesn’t contain tar (a usual outcome from biomass gasification), and the Coskata process doesn’t handle tar.
Its Lighthouse commercial demonstration plant will come online early next year, and the company remains on track for a full commercial plant (the Flagship plant) for the first quarter to 2011.) (Earlier post.)
GM is working on multiple pathways to solutions. Click to enlarge. Source: GM |
GM and Biofuels in China. GM is pursuing a global energy strategy that includes improving the energy efficiency of existing motor fuels and developing alternative energy and alternative propulsion systems. The development and commercialization of sustainable biofuels, particularly non-food based, next-generation cellulosic ethanol, is an important and leading component of GM’s overall strategy. (Earlier post.) GM also identifies China as being among the first markets and production sites for alternative propulsion systems.
(GM is not alone in that assessment. Earlier in October, the head of Johnson Controls Inc’s battery unit told the Reuters Global Environment Summit that he believes China could adopt electric cars faster than elsewhere because of its size and comparative lack of reliance on gasoline for transport.)
In conjunction with the Beijing conference, GM held a workshop to outline its R&D and commercialization efforts of sustainable biofuels worldwide, along with Coskata and Tsinghua University. GM has established a collaborative bioenergy research center at Tsinghua University as part of its larger Global Energy System Center work.
At the workshop, David S. Chen, vice president of GM China Group, said, “According to the China Automotive Energy Research Center, GM has already begun successfully validating the automotive energy resource potential for sustainable biofuels in China.” The research center officially opened this April at Tsinghua University. GM will continue to advance its strategy of “in China, with China, for China” to help China develop diverse automotive energy solutions and commercialize such energy solutions, Chen said.
The development goal of CAERC is to provide support for China’s policy making on automotive energy strategies, technology roadmaps and management mechanisms. At the same time, CAERC is working with various organizations in academia and related industries in China to accelerate the development of the new energy automotive industry.
GM said that it will continue to share with China the R&D results in the area of new energy from its research centers and partners around the world, including the R&D and market applications of next-generation, non-food based cellulosic ethanol. Chen said China can produce cellulosic ethanol on marginal lands from wood waste, energy crops such as switchgrass and even garbage, and China is in a good position to benefit from the development of such sustainable biofuels.
Resources
Utterly unbelievable. A zero on the mindshare scale.
Posted by: | 25 October 2008 at 11:29 AM
Cotsaka keep claiming optimistic results that haven't been validated at an industrial scale yet, all these yields obtained in lab-reactor just prove the concept but don't prove that the same concept can work at an industrial scale like they are used to in the energy industry. I recently talked to a friend who is bio-engineer and has spent the last 10 years manipulating genome of bacteria to specialise them for making vitamin or whatever chemical at an industrial scale. When I asked him if a bio-reactor could be scaled for the energy industry he answered straight and clear : "No". He is not in the biofuel business but that's concerning indeed.
Posted by: Treehugger | 25 October 2008 at 02:47 PM
Is it asking too much for these US cellulosic companies to have just a little patience and wait until they have documented that they have a commercially viable process (e.g., successful operation of demonstration scale facility for 12-18 months and then construction of a viable commercial scale facility) before they mouth off about how important it is for second generation biofuels to be introduced in China (or elsewhere). It will take at least 3-5 years in the US to provide sufficient proof to the investment firms & banks that will finance this technology before they will begin to be willing to provide the funding necessary to construct any meaningful capacity. By then, it's likely that 3rd or 4th generation technologies will be breathing down the neck of cellulosic, and it may become a dinosaur before it makes any substantial contribution to oil displacement.
Posted by: Little Wally | 25 October 2008 at 02:50 PM
@Little Wally,
Any idea what those 3rd and 4th gen technologies would be? Based on the growth of synfuel technolgies in China, I can say that introducing a technology in China is probably much easier (legally) and much cheaper than doing the same scale production in the US. (Ex: capital costs for CTL plants in China are ~0.8 billion, whereas in the US, they come to >4 billion USD).
I personally think that this might be one of the few winning combinations..The reasons are that the selectivity for producing ethanol from CO and H2 is very poor when using normal catalysts. Enzymes on the other hand can selectively mediate this process, potentially leading to lower separation costs. Of course, the yield and rate data will determine if this process makes economic sense. A writeup on the background for Coskata's technology is on my blog.
Posted by: Pradeep | 25 October 2008 at 04:43 PM
"China has the potential to produce about 45-49 billion gallons per year (BGPY) of cellulosic biofuels by 2030, given appropriate supporting economic incentives."
According to a post on GCC in 2007:
"Gasoline consumption in China will rise 24.7% from last year’s level to reach 65.44 million tonnes (about 24.5 billion gallons US) by 2010, according to government projections."
So 49 BGPY is about twice forecast 2010 consumption.
With consumption rising fast, it is difficult to forecast 2030 consumption.
Nevertheless, it sounds like China could reduce the influence of unstable crude oil prices on the economy by developing biofuels.
I agree with Pradeep that low-cost countries like China, India & Brazil would be the logical places to test out scaling-up from laboratory-scale to industrial scale.
Posted by: Kristoff | 25 October 2008 at 07:00 PM
Even if next generation biofuels would become highly competitive with coscata's, it still has a very important advantage : the plasma gasification can gasify any carbon source to CO and H2. this is further 'processed' to fuel. (rather small alteration can provide ethanol or butanol or long-chain fatty acids).
If the biomass is dried before gasification, much of the carbon is carbonised (= agrichar) and thus sequestered. If (solar-, wind-, nuclear-) H2 is added to the process, the production of fuels can be increased dramatically without consuming more carbon.
Posted by: Alain | 26 October 2008 at 02:24 AM
I've got no problem with introducing second generation technologies to China, and I am a fan of the general approach Coskata has taken especially if they can really prove they can convert diverse waste streams (tires etc), although I remain skeptical of the back end biochemical conversions at scale. And I agree that countries like China / India will likely have lower capital costs (which is one of the largest hurdles to viability).
I just don't like hype, although I recognize that it comes with the territory for any new technology trying to scrounge up venture capital.
It seems that there currently are a goodly number of pilot and demonstration scale facilities in progress here in the US, and a few in Europe. I think those are sufficient to provide the scientific assessment of the viability of these technologies, and to help to improve their efficiencies / profitability. We will have a much clearer picture of the landscape in 2-3 years, and then can make some more intelligent decisions about large scale infrastructure development.
Regarding 3rd and 4th generation technologies, companies like Virent with their sugar - catalytic reforming pathway to gasoline, and Amyris and LS9 with their microbiological approach to 'green gasoline', and of course algae biodiesel, all are breathing down the neck of cellulosic ethanol. There are plenty of more examples. Since ethanol is a clear loser from the energy density perspective and compatibilty, it is an unsatisfying end-product to displace gasoline. We don't need to be pouring billions into additional infrastructure (e.g., new interstate pipelines or special vehicle engines) tailored to the special needs of ethanol, but instead using those funds to develop fuels that take advantage of the existing infrastructure. Before leaping to unproven technologies at commercial scale, let's take a deep beath and give all these technologies a thorough technical evaluation.
Posted by: Little Wally | 26 October 2008 at 05:58 AM
Gm is a compagny that work for goverment and big oil. They let go the interest of their customers and these customers are about to let go this compagny for real. They always promise real progress like their ev1 but at the end let big oil and goverment win. Now they invest in a castastrophy like ethanol where the feedstock are limited to please big oil, LOL. They should have invested in methane where it pollute less and the feedstock are unlimited ( sewage and natural gas fields)
Posted by: a.b | 26 October 2008 at 08:41 AM
"Before leaping to unproven technologies at commercial scale, let's take a deep beath and give all these technologies a thorough technical evaluation."
Except that global warming threatens to flood 40% of world coastline in less than ten years. Temperatures keep rising, CO2 chokes atmosphere, gas usage increases, pollution is gaining upper hand. On top world economies are all failing - especially emergent industrials with no infrastructure. To avoid catastrophic final meltdown we have to DO SOMETHING right now. Or die.
Posted by: reelist | 26 October 2008 at 10:05 AM
Putting almost 300 million fuel guzzlers in operation with only about 1/3 the liquid fuel production required may seem, at first sight, as a flagrant lack of forsight and planning.
However, this is exactly how wild uncontrolled good old capitalism works. Going from one bubble to another is part of the game. Creating bubbles is the way to retrieve the funds and properties accummulated by the middle class.
Most people will never learn. After many desastrous bubbles (technologies, overspending/credit, banks, oversized vehicles, overpriced real estates, overpriced stock markets, etc) USA will have to deal with the oil/liquid fuel bubble.
The next post-oil bubbles may very well be, advanced batteries (ESSUs), PHEVs/BEVs, low GHG power plants, smart power distribution networks health care bubbles, etc
Unless we learn to better regulate speculation and wild capitalism, the world will have to get use to a new bubble every 10 to 20 years.
Here is a simple possible correction.
Why are most goods and services taxed while buying stocks is not? Would an equivalent (international) sale tax (something like 2% to 20%) put and end to stock market speculations and useless day traders?
Posted by: HarveyD | 26 October 2008 at 04:18 PM
Good luck getting that one passed.
Posted by: ai_vin | 26 October 2008 at 11:32 PM
@ai-vin:
I agree with you that transaction fees or taxes would not be very popular but something will have to be done to stabilize future markets.
The old supply & demand system is not working that well since it has been taken over by speculators and cartels. One good example is Oil going from $10 to $150 in less than 10 years and down to $63 in less than one month.
There are many other examples of ravages done by speculators.
Of course, there are many other ways to manage this problem but all solutions will hurt.
Do you have better ones?
Posted by: HarveyD | 27 October 2008 at 08:41 AM
GM will be out of existence before this becomes commercial.
Posted by: DS | 27 October 2008 at 12:39 PM
"We don't need to be pouring billions into additional infrastructure (e.g., new interstate pipelines or special vehicle engines) tailored to the special needs of ethanol, but instead using those funds to develop fuels that take advantage of the existing infrastructure"
One of the supposed advantages of Coskata's process is that it can depend on local resource inputs, various types of waste, something that cities large and small have in vast quantities. This will have the effect of localizing output under city management, eliminating the need of vast infrastructure. Oil companies will hate this, but I find hope that GM's interest will help offset the influence of oil interests. With a little help from an new administration of course, which will have to be immune from influences of big oil and nuclear graft.
Posted by: jimbo | 27 October 2008 at 09:37 PM
"When I asked him if a bio-reactor could be scaled for the energy industry he answered straight and clear : "No". He is not in the biofuel business but that's concerning indeed."
With this kind of expertise - let's just throw in the towel!
Posted by: reelist | 28 October 2008 at 10:17 AM