backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 45 comment(s) - last by shady28.. on Feb 3 at 9:08 AM


Researchers at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) think they have a winner with Bioliq, a fuel produce by pyrolysis-gasification processing of wood, straw, or other substances. They are constructing a pilot plant, to be completed in 2012.  (Source: Rhombos Verlag)
Researchers push gasification pyrolysis as a means to more affordably process wood and other substances into biofuel

Germany, known as a hotbed for automotive activity in Europe, is now setting its sights on biofuels.  Researchers at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) are working on a process to create relatively affordable biofuels out of common plant wastes, such as waste wood.

They hope the technology will yield fuel that costs €0.50 a liter or $2.49/gallon USD.  However, it is dependent on the proper infrastructure being established, says the team.

The new process breaks down wood, straw, or other plant waste by a process known as bioliq.  It yields a number of fuel products that could be refined, to produce gasoline, as well as other useful chemical byproducts.  The process starts with pyrolysis -- heating the plant waste in a vacuum chamber to 500°C.  A thick liquid called biosyncrude, containing solid particles of coke, is produced.

The biosyncrude is subsequently vaporized by a stream of oxygen gas.  The outgoing gas is than heated at high pressures to approximately 1400° C.  This gasification process turns the biosyncrude into a mix of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, known as syngas.

While the researchers' describe their work as "new" and "novel", it is actually quite similar to previous research in the U.S. and elsewhere.  However, the KIT researchers are perhaps closer to commercialization then some, as they have partnered with German process engineering company Lurgi, KIT to build a pilot plant, which is scheduled to be complete and fully operational by 2012.

The cost estimates provided by the team are based on estimated costs of a plant producing 1 million tons of fuel yearly.  To put this production scale in context, a typical oil refinery is about ten times this size, while a plant that produces liquid fuel from oil and gas is a similar size to this target full-scale production size.

The key obstacle the team foresees to syngas biofuels is the transportation of plant waste and the costs incurred.  The team plans to split the pyrolysis process from the gasification.  The pyrolysis would occur at numerous smaller plants, which would then deliver biosyncrude to a central plant for gasification.  This structure would be more feasible than a design featuring a two phase central plant, they say.

Nicolaus Dahmen, leader of the KIT team, states, "Biomass is pre-treated in around 50 regionally distributed pyrolysis plants to produce the biosyncrude.  This can then be transported economically over long distances to supply a central fuel production plant with a high capacity."

Biosyncrude is more compact and thus cheaper to transport than wood, straw, or other plant wastes.  Under the new setup, these materials would only have to be transported a short distance to a plant in the local municipality.

The team's research is featured in this month's issue of the journal Biofuels, Bioproducts & Biorefining.

The researchers admit that bioliq will for some time be more expensive than gasoline or diesel fuel.  However, they hope that European governments will use taxes to make bioliq and other biofuels more cost competitive. 

One key obstacle to such plans is breakthroughs in cellulosic ethanol production.  U.S.-based Coskata says it will soon be able to deliver $1/gallon cellulosic ethanol, using similar plant wastes.  At this cost cellulosic ethanol would easily beat out bioliq.  However, the bioliq researchers still have much time to think up new solutions.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Do we have enough wood?
By MrX8503 on 1/30/2009 1:39:50 PM , Rating: 2
Well I guess the good thing is that wood is renewable, but if this does happen, is there even enough land to support our energy needs?

I can't imagine how much wood or plants we would need to use it as an energy source.




RE: Do we have enough wood?
By EBH on 1/30/2009 2:45:32 PM , Rating: 1
Why does this research seem so shortsighted? I agree with finding new ways to take advantage of waste products. But to think wood is a good place to start is kind of a wasteful strategy. In that the footprint left has a greater impact than other possible solutions. What if we run out of trees? The argument was once made that we would never run out of Oil.

harvest trees
plant baby trees
process harvested trees
process waste from harvested trees
wait for baby trees to grow for 50 years or more
or
do more research into genetics
genetically enhance the growth rate of trees
or
just plant hemp and save yourself some time space and oxygen


RE: Do we have enough wood?
By plowak on 1/30/2009 2:51:47 PM , Rating: 3
Well if we would get over our sentimentality about burying our dead and use them as...as, huh...bio waste, we would then have a resource that would increase as population increased.

God, I should have been an engineer!


RE: Do we have enough wood?
By Spivonious on 1/30/2009 3:42:44 PM , Rating: 3
Soylent Green is people!


RE: Do we have enough wood?
By ggordonliddy on 1/30/2009 8:09:08 PM , Rating: 2
Tastes great and is less filling.


RE: Do we have enough wood?
By marvdmartian on 1/30/2009 3:34:26 PM , Rating: 4
You might be shocked at how much waste wood is really out there, currently being buried in landfills.
Back in the early 90's, I worked for ~1 year at a "biomass" power plant, that burned wood in a boiler to produce steam, that then turned a turbine generator and produced electricity for the power grid. We had a "fuel yard" full of wood chip piles that would have likely powered that plant for a good month or two, without being replenished (though they did bring in new fuel every day or so).

The fuel we used there was split pretty much 50/50 between construction waste that would have otherwise gone to the landfills, and agricultural sources (old fruit and nut trees that were past their prime production, taken down by the farmers, to be replace with new tree groves). The only down side to using construction waste was the non-wood product that was normally mixed in with it (metal fittings like hinges & door knobs, etc), that had to be removed prior to burning the wood, so it wouldn't slag the fuel plate inside the boiler (we utilized a huge magnet that the fuel conveyor went under, to pick up the ferrous material).

So really, not every bit of fuel would have to come from harvesting woodland trees, ya know??

Oh, and one correction for the article:
quote:
The outgoing gas is than heated at high pressures to approximately 1400° C.

should be then .


RE: Do we have enough wood?
By Keeir on 1/30/2009 4:47:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You might be shocked at how much waste wood is really out there, currently being buried in landfills.


I think the OPs point was not that -no fuel- could be produced this way, but to question if a significant fraction of energy could be produced this way. It may be a great technology, but its not worth pushing large grant money etc into if producing 10% of our daily oil needs requires all the wood that is chopped down/produced every day currently.

As you point out, there are already methods of turning wood waste into energy... this new method would need to be more efficient or more apt to large scale deployment to even consider...


RE: Do we have enough wood?
By PrinceGaz on 1/30/2009 7:50:18 PM , Rating: 2
In addition to the wood chopped down/grown every day currently, there is also a large unutilised amount which often goes to waste by burning to clear land across South America and other areas. The best environmentally-friendly solution would probably be to clear all those areas with non-managed wood and other plant growth, and replace them with a mixture of biofuel crops and biofuel trees. That way we can be very eco-friendly whilst still supplying the fuel requirements of a developed society.

At the same time, existing land currently used for human food production could be replaced with biofuel crops to facilitate a global population reduction (like what Robert Mugabe has done- but instead of reducing the population by just destroying efficient food-farms, replace them instead with efficient biofuel-farms and cull the surplus population in a more humane method than letting Cholera run rife), especially in the unsustainable over-populated countries of the world. By simultaneously reducing the population, and replacing fossil-fuels with bio-fuels, we could actually make our use of the planet sustainable.

It makes total sense when looked at for the good of us and our planet. By switching to biofuels and reducing the population to a sustainable level, we could live in harmony with the world. And human-caused global-warming really would become a myth.

It's a shame that no politician is brave enough to suggest it, except the Chinese in a more watered-down one-child policy way that forgot that pre-dated the biofuel advantage.


RE: Do we have enough wood?
By masher2 (blog) on 1/30/2009 11:38:01 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
By switching to biofuels and reducing the population to a sustainable level, we could live in harmony
What do you consider "sustainable"? Three billion? One? 500 million? At one time, it was thought the world couldn't possibly support 200 million people. Now we support 30 times that-- and people are better fed, housed, clothed, and cared for than ever before in history.

In fact, one can say that our incredible standard of living isn't in despite of our high population, but because of it. Our massive, complex industrial society is only possible because of the vast population. A world of only 200 million people couldn't possibly support all the various specialized professions civilization now demands.

Furthermore, the larger the population, the more scientists and engineers the world has. And that means knowledge advances at a faster pace. Every new baby born means another chance at a Newton, a Gauss, or an Einstein...and the immeasurable benefits that such a genius conveys upon us all.

Be careful in wishing for a smaller world population, lest your dream one day come true.


RE: Do we have enough wood?
By kontorotsui on 1/31/2009 5:38:56 AM , Rating: 2
Good point, a pity that not all the people are "better fed, housed, clothed, and cared for than ever before in history" as you say, only a small fraction are.

No point to have a new Newton, Gauss or Einstein a day if he dies at 2 from lack of food or war or whatever before his/her precious brain can be useful for mankind.


RE: Do we have enough wood?
By masher2 (blog) on 1/31/2009 10:22:21 AM , Rating: 4
You are misinformed. Throughout most of history, all but a small fraction of the elite risked starvation continually, with a single bad harvest meaning the death of a large percent of the population. Malnutrition of one form or another affected nearly everyone, and only the weathy possessed more than a single outfit of clothing, usually no better than rags.

Today, starvation is essentially unknown. According to 2003 data, it affected 0.0003% of the world population -- the smallest number in history. And even the poorest villager in China or Botswana is better clothed and cared for than your average European from just a few centuries ago.


RE: Do we have enough wood?
By PrinceGaz on 1/31/2009 8:37:11 PM , Rating: 1
I would have thought you Michael of all people would agree that current population growth is unsustainable and that something has to be done.

Forget global warming or climate change (because I know you don't believe in that anyway), the fact is that there is a human-plague on the planet which is finding ever more efficient ways to feed itself, but this cannot continue indefinitely. Where do you draw the line? Ten billion? Twenty billion? Fifty billion? A hundred billion? Unless population growth is halted and ideally reversed soon, more and more people will be consuming ever more food and it will reach a point where the global population considerably exceeds the ability of global food-production to feed it, and mass starvation results.

There is a limit to what genetic-engineering can do to increase food production (and personally, I'd rather not eat any GM/Frankenstein food), and when that limit is reached, a lot of people will die as there will be no food-aid to supply over-populated countries. "A lot of people" probably meaning not tens or hundreds of thousands, or millions, but potentially several billion once demand far outstrips supply and all reserves have been emptied such that the price of food rises to a level where only advanced countries with farming methods to feed their own population will come through it relatively unscathed. In less developed countries where there is no longer any aid available because food is too expensive, people will die en masse. I suspect that will happen in my lifetime given the uncontrolled population growth in many countries. Even efforts to combat disease in some countries are just fuelling an ever bigger population time-bomb which will erupt sooner or later.

Whilst most people today are fed and only a small number dying of malnutrition (or unclean drinking water, etc), we have already seen the first signs of global food price rises, and this is only like to hit ever harder in the future.

How many people should there be? One billion worldwide would seem sensible and allow them all to live in a world with excellent education, healthcare, and a quality of life that can match the best in any country today. As world-leader, I would immediately impose a global "one-child policy" so as to work towards that goal. Hmm, I fancy getting back to my Civ4 game now.


RE: Do we have enough wood?
By ekv on 2/1/2009 2:33:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
there is a human-plague on the planet

They are called flaming Liberals 8)

Calm down, that was a joke. Seriously though, your world-view is sick. There is a difference between humans and the rest of the animals. We have a soul. They don't. You can say you don't. You can even sell it, on Ebay no less. But that doesn't change the fact.

Your analysis I totally disagree with. I value life. You haven't a clue. Where there's a will, there's a way. If you want people to live then you find a way. This is a big planet and we have lots of technology. In fact, given all the sci-fi I've read we could start a colony on Mars -- just NO DAMN STINKING Johnnie Cabs though, the fugliest damn freaking things, and they remind me of the Scion or the Element, just butt ugly!

Technically there may be limits but they are well beyond your execrable, misearable excuse for an imagination. Unfortunately, technology isn't the problem. The problem is people like you. You bear many similarities to a muslim fascist, to whom life is cheap. Kaboom.

Life is cheap in China too. That whole "one-child policy" has been a nightmare. I have friends who have adopted Chinese kids. Luckily, they're turning out to be intelligent.

Life ain't a game.


RE: Do we have enough wood?
By masher2 (blog) on 2/1/2009 3:59:13 PM , Rating: 2
> "would agree that current population growth is unsustainable"

The largest problem the First World faces now is too low a birth rate. Japan and many European nations aren't even having enough children to sustain their current populations, much less grow. Unless things change, many of these nations will be effectively extinct within the next century or two.

> "There is a limit to what genetic-engineering can do to increase food production "

By the simple extension of First-world agricultural methods to the entire world, the planet can easily feed a population of some 15 billion. As for future technology, if one assumes even 1/4 of the rate of increase we saw during the last 150 years, then we'll be able to feed 30 billion by the year 2100. Assume widespread ocean farming or food farms in NEO, and the sky is literally the limit.

> "personally, I'd rather not eat any GM/Frankenstein food"

There were plenty of people who preferred horses also, refusing to ride in the Frankenstein-like monstrosity known as the automobile. There were even people who preferred to avoid heathen innovations like regular bathing and dental hygiene. Luckily, such ignorance usually dies out in time.

> "we have already seen the first signs of global food price rises"

Sure. When a nation decides to start burning a large percentage of its food crop as fuel, bad things happen. It shouldn't exactly come as any surprise.

> "Forget global warming or climate change (because I know you don't believe in that anyway), "

Of course I believe in climate change. Climate is always changing. Saying one doesn't believe in climate change is like denying the sun rises each day.

> "As world-leader, I would immediately impose a global "one-child policy"

And Stalin and Mao both would salute you, I'm sure.


RE: Do we have enough wood?
By Spuke on 2/2/2009 1:04:56 PM , Rating: 2
Makes me wonder if Gaz is serious considering other statements he's made in the past. These are seemly coming from left field.


RE: Do we have enough wood?
By Keeir on 1/31/2009 9:44:52 PM , Rating: 2
"The best environmentally-friendly solution would probably be to clear all those areas with non-managed wood and other plant growth, and replace them with a mixture of biofuel crops and biofuel trees."

"At the same time, existing land currently used for human food production could be replaced with biofuel crops to facilitate a global population reduction (like what Robert Mugabe has done- but instead of reducing the population by just destroying efficient food-farms, replace them instead with efficient biofuel-farms and cull the surplus population in a more humane method than letting Cholera run rife),"

"It makes total sense when looked at for the good of us and our planet. By switching to biofuels and reducing the population to a sustainable level, we could live in harmony with the world. And human-caused global-warming really would become a myth."

You make my head hurt.

To be "enviromental" you would completely destroy nature, promote a planned central economy, and use starvation as a method of reducing the population.


Tally Ho, ye olde Knight Rider
By ggordonliddy on 1/30/2009 8:06:54 PM , Rating: 4
Is it a coincidence that a company named KIT is working on car fuel in a country that adores David Hasselhoff? I think not.




non-centralized approach
By kattanna on 1/30/2009 11:40:05 AM , Rating: 2
i like their non centralized approach for the stage 1 processing. this would allow them to even put such facilities maybe onsite where the normal dumping of such waste already occurs thereby even lowering shipping costs




I just like the name
By 7Enigma on 1/30/2009 11:49:32 AM , Rating: 2
Though I thought this was for a different "type" of product.




By ggordonliddy on 1/30/2009 8:03:18 PM , Rating: 2
...unless it has cleansing properties to remove from his lips the sticky clear liquid and brown paste that he frequently gets from Barney Frank.




Way off topic.. but...
By FishTankX on 1/30/2009 9:49:56 PM , Rating: 2
I always wondered, when alternative fuels are mentioned..

When are we going to switch completely away from carbonaceous fuels?

Right now, there's a way to do it as soon as 4th gen nuclear plants hit their stride. 4th gen nuclear plants can produce hydrogen with their excess capacity. This hydrogen can be transformed relatively easily into ammonia, which is a valid transportation fuel in itself, which generates *no* Co2 emissions.

Voila, non carbon based fuel with no emissions other than nitrogen, water, and trace amounts of nox (less than current diesel and gasoline engines)

It also has the side effect of facilitating switches to fuel cells (Can be reformed into hydrogen on board, although the technical challenges for ammonia reformation haven't been surmounted yet)

Additionally, the ramping up of nuclear ammonia production would create tons and tons of cheap fertilizer that would help us with our increasing needs for food in the third world.

All in a format that is infinitely easier to store and transport than gaseous hydrogen (Albeit at half the energy density by volume than gasoline) and the most practical zero carbon fuel.

All it takes is one non nuclear phobic country (or a dictatorship) that will take the bait of ramping up nuclear production, I imagine this could eventually supply the world, and will work off existing modified diesel technology. In addition to revolutionizing agriculture.




By Dfere on 1/31/2009 11:53:07 AM , Rating: 2
Again I go back to a midwest 1980's high school education here... but... isn't there a law about a direct relationship between complexity of a system and its sustainability.

How likely is this projection if it relies on a set of assumptions that are going to drastically change by the implementation of this type of technology?. For example, the paragraph implies biomass is cheap. But if we start algae farms for local hydrogen plants for energy, or for fuel sources for autos, is biomass going to be that cheap?

It is a weird feeling that I have that is hard to describe how someone can be confident of predictions relating to techoology change as it changes (or doesn't), like a "technological fog of war". I'm only confident that the companies behind this aren't as confident as they'd like you to think this is feasible.




Why should I buy this bio fuel?
By Davelo on 1/31/2009 3:21:10 PM , Rating: 2
It costs more than petroleum and yields less energy. It has no market right now. Oh wait, I forgot about the politicians taking bribes to force this crap on us.




Flawed Logic
By shady28 on 2/3/2009 9:08:12 AM , Rating: 2
This is even worse than so called biofuels. Most people don't realize that it takes fertilizer - nitrates which are mostly PETROLEUM products - to grow things like corn.

Trees don't necessarily take nitrates like corn, but they are the #1 means of naturally removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. They also prevent erosion.

So, rather than trying to use a food that requires petroleum to grow, now they're going to choke us to death and turn the forests into desert plains? This is just doomed to fall into the growing heap of stupid ideas.




Huh?
By dirtman16 on 1/30/09, Rating: -1
RE: Huh?
By mholler on 1/30/2009 11:25:42 AM , Rating: 2
You also have to factor in the units. Liters vs. U.S. Gallons.


RE: Huh?
By JasonMick (blog) on 1/30/2009 11:26:37 AM , Rating: 2
That's okay, its easy to miss that European fuel go on liters (metric) rather than gallons, particularly if you haven't been over there.

1 liter = 0.2642 gallons (appr.), so get the cost convert Euros to dollars (typically around $1.30, I didn't do this conversion, these numbers came from those provided in the press release) and then multiply by 4.

So a rough approximation:
0.50 * 1.3 = 0.65*4 = $2.60/gallon


RE: Huh?
By bobsmith1492 on 1/30/2009 11:27:29 AM , Rating: 2
Per liter, which is ~1/4 gallon. So 0.5 euro/liter * 4 liter/gallon ~= 2 euros/gallon.


RE: Huh?
By therealnickdanger on 1/30/09, Rating: 0
RE: Huh?
By Motoman on 1/30/2009 12:38:50 PM , Rating: 2
...at *some* point in the future, if no other action is taken, the supply of oil will start to dwindle, and there will be an equity point if you will, where stuff like this makes economical sense.

I'm not in favor of artificially raising prices via taxes, subsidies, whatever...just leverage the fact that whether 50 years from now, or 500 years from now, or whenever, we will be out of oil. Let supply and demand dictate the economics. In the meantime, keep developing alternative fuels (that, apparently like this, don't cause us to re-direct resources needed elsewhere to fuel) and in all likelihood, it's cost will keep going down anyway.


RE: Huh?
By trisct on 1/30/2009 1:25:32 PM , Rating: 2
Also they are targeting $2.50 as a price point where its worthwhile to start. This will continue to get cheaper as the process improves and scales increase. Governments will make up the difference in tax breaks until then. Gasoline costs way more than 0.50 per liter all over Europe, that is probably the pre-tax cost.


RE: Huh?
By Jimbo1234 on 1/30/2009 1:50:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They hope the technology will yield fuel that costs €0.50 a liter or $2.49/gallon USD.


They did not say if this was their cost, or wholesale, or retail. Government only adds tax to fuel, never subsidize it at the retail level. This is why Europeans pay so damn much for fuel; it's mostly taxes. You will never see €0.50 per liter pricing at the pump.


RE: Huh?
By ceefka on 1/30/2009 5:08:20 PM , Rating: 2
And hopefully future cars will consume less of it per mile or kilometer. Don't forget to look at the price per km or mile.


RE: Huh?
By rudy on 1/30/2009 2:02:31 PM , Rating: 1
You are forgetting the most important aspect. Energy independance. If anyone can produce biofeuls for 3$ a gallon they should. And I do not have a problem with the government subsidizing it. The reason is because from that point in time on the price of oil can never be jacked up past 3$ a gallon. Basically it creates the competition we really need for crude.

Look at how messed up things were when gas was passing 4$ a gallon, not even just that but how fast it was able to climb to that point. Everything about our way of life was rapidly changing. If every country had the option of producing their own biofeuls they would never bid the price of crude up. We are in need of a good competitor to oil, if its a biofeul, electric or hydrogen I do not care, but we do need one.


RE: Huh?
By HotFoot on 1/30/2009 2:52:21 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with the above poster. When there is so much complaining about jobs going overseas, I think you also have to look at how much money your economy is BLEEDING to other countries just in the oil you produce. Look at the oil-producing countries in the Middle East and the extravagance of some of the projects going on there. That's your dollars at work!

Even if it were a little more expensive, something home-grown would probably be better for the economy on the whole.


RE: Huh?
By masher2 (blog) on 1/30/2009 11:46:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If anyone can produce biofeuls for 3$ a gallon they should...Look at how messed up things were when gas was passing 4$ a gallon
Remember that gas sold retail for $4 per gallon is, when taxes and profits are removed, about $3/gal at the wholesale level.

More importantly, remember that free (or nearly-free) waste wood is not an infinite resource. Once you exhaust the relatively small supply of waste product, you have to start generating your own, and that's going to come at a much higher cost.

So while it's posssible that this process could one day generate a certain amount of fuel at $3/g, there's certainly no way it could power the entire US at that rate.


Drugs are bad mmmkay.
By acase on 1/30/09, Rating: -1
RE: Drugs are bad mmmkay.
By teldar on 1/30/2009 12:10:16 PM , Rating: 2
coke is also used to refer to the crap that's left over when something is burnt.


RE: Drugs are bad mmmkay.
By Spivonious on 1/30/2009 12:58:20 PM , Rating: 2
That explains why Coke tastes so bad.


RE: Drugs are bad mmmkay.
By acase on 1/30/2009 4:19:03 PM , Rating: 2
pssst...it was sarcasm


RE: Drugs are bad mmmkay.
By omnicronx on 1/30/2009 1:24:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Finally a true liquid cocaine that will really mess you up!
Its already here! Its a half/half shot of Goldschläger and Jägermeister. If a bunch of these does not mess you up, then you've got problems ;)


RE: Drugs are bad mmmkay.
By CloudFire on 1/30/2009 2:54:41 PM , Rating: 2
nope. you forgot the MAIN key ingredient for the intoxicating effect ;)

Liquid Cocaine:

0.5oz Goldschlager
0.5oz Jagetmeister
0.5oz Barcardi 151

bartending is a fun job :)


RE: Drugs are bad mmmkay.
By icanhascpu on 1/30/2009 4:14:36 PM , Rating: 2
Ah good old Barcardi 151.

The first time I ever got drunk was off 7 1.5oz shots of the stuff followed by 5 shots of vodca and a bunch of jack n cokes.

I almost died =)


RE: Drugs are bad mmmkay.
By Samus on 1/30/2009 6:51:13 PM , Rating: 2
10.5oz of 151 would raise the blood alcohol in a 180lb person above a quarter percent if processed within an hour. Considering the additional alcohol you consumed, it is astonishing you didn't die ;)


RE: Drugs are bad mmmkay.
By bodar on 1/30/2009 7:17:45 PM , Rating: 2
Only in this kind of story can you follow "I almost died" with a smiley emoticon.


"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook














botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki