Told ya :)

Every month or two someone comes out with a study or "proof" that biomass can be made for less than petroleum based fuels.

If that is even remotely true, then shut up and do it and we'll all be happy to buy it. Until then, it's just more noise...blah blah blah, blah blah, blah blah blah.

The maximum transport distance with good economy in Northern Europe for transportation of cellulosic biomass feedstock is no longer than 50 km (Africa is definitely out of range). This has been demonstrated for pulp and paper mills as well as for heat and power plants in Northern Europe. Thus, there is a sound base for a 300 MWth plant as studied by the researchers regarding biomass transport. The limits for transportation indicate that the plant cannot be of refinery scale. Liquefaction via small-scale gasifiers to an intermediate product (“biocrude”) and transport (e.g. train, boat, pipeline) to a large-scale gasifier would be an option to solve the problem of storage and transportation but there is an accompanying loss of efficiency in the first gasifier that cannot be fully compensated for in the large-scale plant.

Biomass ash is nutrients, not toxic waste, and should be returned to the environment. This is already done on large scale, so we do not have to learn again how to do that. Of course, you cannot grow your biomass on toxic land, if you want to recirculate the nutrients.

The study does not really attempt to prove that biomass would be cheaper than petroleum-based fuels. A price level of 0.5–0.7 €/liter (app. 1.90-2.65 US$/gallon US) is not cheaper than current petroleum-based fuels, so it is all about what you expect future crude oil prices to be. This is not sufficient for venture capitalists. However, at the cost level mentioned, these second generation biofuels might be competitive with current first generation biofuels (e.g. ethanol, biodiesel and biogas) produced in Europe. Perhaps the fuels will not be competitive enough compared with sugarcane ethanol from Brazil and heavily-subsidized corn ethanol in the USA but this could be handled via duty on biofuels imported to the EU.

The main problem in exploiting the results from the study is that the most economical options, methanol and DME are not preferred by either the oil or the automotive industries. You need not only one but both of these stakeholders to support the idea. On top of that, venture capitalists would prefer to have the blessing from both the mentioned stakeholders before even considering investments.

300 MW(th) of biomass @ 17 GJ/tonne is 58 tons per hour, about 1400 tons per day, half a million tons per year.  If the plant operates all year, it would require 250,000 acres of cornfields producing 2 tons excess stover per acre per year to produce its feedstock.  This is about 800 square miles, a square roughly 28 miles on a side.  This is manageable.

To operate year-round, the feedstock must also be harvested, dried and stored under cover.  This will be costly.  At some point it makes more sense to process to pyrolysis oil at harvest time and store that in tanks or bladders.

This does not sound competitive to me.

I believe that gasification and subsequent FC is more expensive and less efficient than pyrolysis and hydrogenation all in one step to produce refinable liquid hydrocarbon. The liquid hydrocarbon can then be transported economically to a refinery, because it will have many folds energy density c/w raw biomass.

The scheme that I have in mind is to set up the pyrolysis plants 30 miles apart in agricultural areas, or one every 900-1000 square miles.

The Hydrogen can be produced by solar PV set up in the field for the sole purpose of producing H2 via electrolysis. As such, no need for inverter nor rectifier nor long-distance power lines needed, hence much lower cost for the solar PV electricity. No need for large H2 storage container, either, because the H2 will be consumed as it is produced in the pyrolysis and hydrogenation process. Raw biomass will be gathered and stored until seasons that solar energy is plentiful, then processed and turned into refinable liquid hydrocarbon.

The above process will double or triple the yield of hydrocarbon fuel per unit of biomass used, as compared to the gasification and FC of biomass, while being much cheaper and less energy heat loss due to lower temperature and a single step process. Small BTL FC plant is not efficient due to the high temp and complexity involved, while single step pyrolysis and hydrogenation can scale down much better that still retain high efficiency.

I must hasten to add to above that MidWest wind electricity is cheap and plentiful, but power lines are expensive. This scheme above will eliminate the need for powerlines for remote wind turbines, thus will significantly decrease the cost of wind energy. No more stranded wind resource, nor surplus wind electricity when supply outpace demand.

@SJC,
Pyrolysis oil will be stabilized during the concurrent hydrogenation process and turned into hydrocarbons. All the corrosive acids and aldehydes are reduced into hydrocarbons (alkanes and alkenes).

FYI
Breakthrough in hydrogen fuel production could revolutionize alternative energy market

April 4, 2013 – A team of Virginia Tech researchers has discovered a way to extract large quantities of hydrogen from any plant, a breakthrough that has the potential to bring a low cost, environmentally friendly fuel source to the world.

http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2013/04/040413-cals-hydrogen.html

As I already stated before, collecting biomass for a plant size of 300 MWth has already been demonstrated. Alholmens Kraft in Finland is the biggest biomass-powered plant in the world. Its boiler has a capacity of 550 MWth. It is located at the sea, so the uptake area is “only” a half circle. Within this area, there is also competition for biomass for pulp and paper and other use. Under ideal conditions, we could perhaps envision up to 1000 MWth based on this example but I would presume that the practical limit in the Nordic countries is lower. In tropical areas, where biomass production per area is much higher, the plant could, of course, be much bigger. For sure, a plant size of 300 MWth should be both manageable and competitive in the Nordic countries and this condition should apply also to northern USA and Canada, at least regarding collection of biomass.

http://www.alholmenskraft.com/en/home

Yes Kit,

I read the paper, I posted it as general information, I make no conclusions based on it, but apparently you did. Perhaps you should stop jumping to conclusions and being so critical of others.

@Kit,
Coal is used as back-up in this case if there would be interruptions in biomass supply, like many plants, as you would have found out if you had looked deeper into it. I have been at the plant.

Floating logs on a rough sea is not a good idea. It is very seldom (=never) done at the Baltic Sea. There are no big rivers nearby. Transporting biomass via ships would be possible. It is done at several pulp and paper mills. I was just referring to what is done in this plant, i.e. basically road transport. You never seem to recognize the message that 300 MWth is feasible! For sure, no more proof is needed here!

You seem to be referring to this study as BS all the time; strange, when most of the BS comes from you. What have you published in this field?

Oxford Catalysts can produce a barrel of premium diesel for $66, or $1.57 a gallon, using gas at $4 per thousand standard cubic feet ($3.89 per mmBtu) at plants with a capacity of just 1,500 barrels a day.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-24/nazi-technology-turns-cheap-shale-gas-into-sub-2-diesel-energy.html