Biomass technologies use renewable biomass resources to produce an array of energy related products including liquid, solid, and gaseous fuels, heat, chemicals, and other materials. Bioenergy ranks second (to hydropower) in renewable U.S. primary energy production and accounts for about three percent of the primary energy production in the United states.

Biomass can be used in its solid form for heating applications or electricity generation, or it can be converted into liquid or gaseous fuels for use in vehicles or other energy needs. It is the only form of carbon that is replenished on short time scales.

Currently, there are about 7,800 megawatts (MW) of biomass power capacity installed at more than 350 locations in the United States. This represents 1% of the total electricity generation capacity in the United States.

The term "biomass" means any plant derived organic matter available on a renewable basis, including dedicated energy crops and trees, agricultural food and feed crops, agricultural crop wastes and residues, wood wastes and residues, aquatic plants, animal wastes, municipal wastes, and other waste materials. Handling technologies, collection logistics and infrastructure are important aspects of the biomass resource supply chain.

The picture and the write-up was taken form the Department of Energy (DOE). "Corn stover — stalks, leaves, and husks — is a major Biomass Program focus as a possible feedstock. It is very large in volume — roughly equivalent to corn grain, our largest crop; and it is already there, largely unused*, so requires little additional investment or resources to produce it. "

*However. the Department of Energy (DOE) did not tell us that the farmers must plow the stover back into the ground to keep the soil mass from depletion. If not plowed back, an enormous amount of petroleum base fertilizer would have to be supplied.

Biomass grows under the energy of the sun by photosynthesis. Heat energy can be extracting from biomass by either burning it or as in the case of corn converting it to an alcohol termed ethanol. Ethanol is a product that is used to fuel transportation vehicles as well as an alcohol for drinking. But be careful. Ethanol processed for automotive fuel is not fit for human consumption and is thus very dangerous to drink.

Unlike other renewable energy sources, biomass can be converted directly into liquid fuels for our transportation needs. The two most common biofuels are ethanol and biodiesel. Ethanol, an alcohol, is made by fermenting any biomass high in carbohydrates, like corn, through a process similar to brewing beer. Biodiesel, an ester, is made using vegetable oils, animal fats, algae, or even recycled cooking greases. It can be used as a diesel additive to reduce vehicle emissions or in its pure form to fuel a vehicle.

Corn based ethanol is falling on hard times economically and due to lack of abundance. Now cellulosic based ethanol is the choice. But will it provide sufficient ethanol?

Cellulosic-based ethanol is now our choice for fuel. Such fuel sources, comprised of wood chips and switch grass, are abundant and could supply billions of gallons of ethanol. But the conversion process is expensive and undeveloped. To move it along, the U.S. Department of Energy is investing about $385 million in six projects over the next four years. When fully operational, the "bio-refineries" are expected to produce more than 130 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol per year.

I do not think we have enough land to grow sufficient switch grass to support cellulosic ethanol for transportation fuels. Where does all this land come from? The western deserts are too dry to support grasses. And according to a professor of agriculture it takes enormous amount of fertilizer to produce cellulosic ethanol. Moreover , the process to make it is very expansive.

Will enviros reverse course? Biofuels found more harmful to planet than fossil fuels

By Gretchen Randall
Date: September 28, 2007

Issue: A study by a group of European scientists, including a Nobel prize winner, found that emissions from burning biofuels made from corn and rapeseed produce more harmful greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuels. When burned, biofuels release nitrous oxide (N2O) that comes from the nitrogen in the fertilizer used to grow the crops.

Nitrous oxide is believed to be "296 times more powerful" a greenhouse gas than CO2. The study concludes that biofuels "can contribute as much or more to global warming by N2O emissions than cooling by fossil-fuel savings”. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2507851.ece)

Here is an excerpt of a news article.

Biomass Plant Builder Arguing Permit Denial

Western Water & Power Production LLC is fighting the denial of an air $74 million, 35-megawatt plant would produce electricity by burning trees, shrubs and other materials harvested from forests and rangeland.

"We think it's dirty in terms of emissions of greenhouse gases ... We think the emphasis should be on wind and solar. We do not consider biomass plants clean or renewable energy," said Nicole Rosmarino, conservation director with Forest Guardians.

Isn't this a reverse? Biomass is dirty to burn? This would seriously reduce the contribution of biomass to our renewable energy supply

Cellulose to ethanol is all the rage today. But no one has done it.

The logistics of harvesting, storing and transporting bulky cellulosic materials like switchgrass are serious impediments at this point, said Greg Cuomo of the University of Minnesota Outreach and Education Park.

We face equally formidable agronomic challenges as well. Cuomo pointed to one prediction that switchgrass could produce 16 tons of biomass per acre. “Never,” he said, explaining that yields of that magnitude would require massive fertilizer and other inputs.

I saw this on the internet. I have no expertise in algae and do not offer an opinion. Dr Krassen Dimitrar's summary, at the end of this item, thinks it is impossible to achieve.

Below is an excerpt by Ken Coleman, an investment advisor.

My Next Energy Stock Doubler!

Buy IENI to $4

A discovery that could make you rich.

It’s rare that you can find a speculative opportunity this good. if you can afford to buy stock and put it away till it has magnified your investment many times over, you buy IENI.

By finding the elusive genetic switch, scientists created a fuel source that has the potential to produce 5,000 to 7,000 gallons of fuel per acre!

Compared to 50 gallons for soybeans, 350 for corn, and 650 for palm. As you can see, no others come close.

And while most feedstock sources can only accomplish several crops per year per acre, algae renews itself every four days!

One of the team’s leading scientists described his discovery in press accounts as “unbelievable” and “enormously exciting.”

Charles Osgood of CBS heard about the discovery and devoted a segment to it on his popular show.

And now, the discovery and IENI could make you rich. Especially knowing that one of my recent discoveries that shot up 37% on the day I recommended it.

Below is Krassen Dimitror's (Ph D) summray on the algae situation.

Summary

GreenFuel Technologies (www.greenfuelonline.com/) has recently generated positive publicity for their technology, which converts CO_{2-containing emissions from power plants into valuable biofuels using
proprietary algal photobioreactors (PBRs).}

This report shows that GreenFuel’s method will not be economically feasible, even if the company achieves spectacular progress in development of its technology. Fundamental thermodynamic constrains make it impossible for such approach to be commercially viable for fuel prices below $800/bbl, even if flawless technological implementation is assumed. Since other technologies offer alternative options at substantially lower costs, GreenFuel’s approach cannot be expected to have a significant place in our future energy supply or carbon mitigation strategy.

California's Biomass to Electrical Energy is on the Downside

Results taken from California's Integrated Waste Management board.

Biomass to Energy

At full capacity, California's biomass-to-energy industry has the potential to supply about 2 percent of California’s electrical needs during periods of peak demand. In 1999, California's 29 operating biomass-to-energy facilities consumed 6.4 million tons of biomass materials, including wood processing, forestry, agricultural, and urban wood residuals. With a generating capacity of 600 megawatts (MW), these plants produced 3 million megawatt-hours of electricity.

However, the biomass-to-energy industry has declined dramatically in the past decade. This is largely due to expiration of contracts favorable to the industry containing fixed prices for the electricity produced from renewable fuels such as biomass, or expiration of specific favorable price provisions in the contracts. As a result, many biomass-to-energy plants either reduced their output or shut down altogether as operating costs now exceeded these lower revenues (at least until energy prices began surging in the summer of 2000).

Between 1980 and 1999, the number of active facilities declined by 28 plants, representing a 264 MW reduction of generating capacity. Of these, 14 plants were idled and 14 were dismantled. Recently, three additional plants were idled representing a further loss of 51 MW of generating capacity. Two plants shut down because of nonpayment from utilities for electricity already produced, and one because of fuel supply problems. As a result, only 26 plants are currently operating and capable of generating 550 MW of electrical energy.

If the biomass-to-energy infrastructure continues to disappear, along with the myriad of suppliers associated with it, California’s ability to produce energy during peak periods will be severely impacted. This will also affect many local jurisdictions’ ability to meet the State mandate to divert 50 percent of solid waste from landfills.

USDA Awards $5.5 Million for Biofuels, Biomass, and Wind Power

EERE Network News - 9/27/06 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced last week its selection of 44 projects in 21 states that will receive nearly $5.5 million in grants for the production and marketing of ethanol, ethanol by-products, and biodiesel and for feasibility studies of energy production from biomass and wind power. The funds are part of a larger package of Value-Added Producer Grants, which generally go toward marketing agricultural products, but can also go toward farm- based renewable energy projects. While most of the funds will go toward ethanol-related projects, the projects also include efforts to market heating fuels derived from wood pellets, wood chips, sugarcane biomass, and corn and from methane produced from an anaerobic digester on a dairy farm. The on-farm renewable energy projects are all wind power projects, but two grant recipients plan to supplement their wind power with biomass power, one using corn and the other fueling a micro turbine with wood chips. The projects will be located in the states of Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Hey! What about California? It has the largest output of agricultural products in the nation.

MY comments:

This sounds like a waste of money, but the saving grace is it is not a lot of money. to be spread over so many states. About 30 years age the Gov put out a report to the farmers about how to make ethanol. The report did not state what the Farmers should use for fuel to process the ethanol. In the back of that report they suggested that they use corn stover, They told the Farmers the corn stover is bulky and they should be prepared to store such bulk some where. And also scrounge corn stover from the farmers who do not choose to make ethanol, It was funny and so is this effort. Moreover, corn stover must be plowed back into the soil to replenish it.

Well what goes around comes around. I doubt we will see Mom and Pop ethanol systems all over. It is a difficult process for amateurs to carry out and takes quite an investment to carry it out. I doubt that it pays off on such small scale.

And micro turbines? These are very expensive and high tech to place at each farm. There are very few mechanics sitting around to maintain and repai them.

Relative Costs of Biomass-to-Energy Production

Electricity generated from biomass is more costly to produce than fossil fuel and hydroelectric power for two reasons. First, biomass fuels are expensive. The cost of producing biomass fuel is dependent on the type of biomass, the amount of processing necessary to convert it to a fuel, distance to the energy plant, and supply and demand for fuels in the market place. Biomass fuel is low-density and non-homogeneous and has a small unit size (e.g., individual wood chips are small). Consequently, fuel is costly to collect, process, and transport to facilities.

Second, biomass-to-energy facilities are much smaller than conventional fossil fuel power plants and therefore cannot produce electricity as cost-effectively as the fossil plants. The biomass-to-energy facilities are smaller because of the limited amount of fuel that can be stored at a single facility—the fuel is bulky (e.g., a pile of wood chips is both fibrous and includes "air space"), and limited quantities of fuel can be gathered from any given area. With higher fuel costs and lower economic efficiencies, solid-fuel energy is not economically competitive in a deregulated energy market that gives zero value or compensation for the non-electric benefits generated by the biomass-to-energy industry.

My comment: It looks like increasing California's added contribution of biomass to the electricity mix in California will cause the cost of electricity to go up for a state that already has a very high cost of electrical energy.

Study: Corn waste potentially valuable

PHILADELPHIA, Jul 19, 2006 -- UPI

U.S. scientists say they've determined corn stover can be used to manufacture not only ethanol, but also to directly generate electricity.

"People are looking at using cellulose to make ethanol," said Bruce Logan, a Penn State professor of environmental engineering. "You can make ethanol from exploded corn stover, but once you have the sugars, you can make electricity directly."

Logan's process uses a microbial fuel cell to convert organic material into electricity. Previous work has shown such fuel cells can generate electricity from glucose and from municipal wastewater, as well as directly generating hydrogen gas.

Corn stalks and leaves, totaling about 250 million tons a year, make up one-third of all solid waste produced in the United States. Currently, 90 percent of corn stover is left unused in the field.

Agricultural researchers say corn stover is about 70 percent cellulose or hemicellulose complex carbohydrates locked in chains. A steam explosion process releases the organic sugars and other compounds in the corn waste and those compounds can be fed to microbial fuel cells.

The Penn State scientists say they have also used microbial fuel cells and wastewater to produce hydrogen gas directly.

My comment: Again we see that they expect to use the stover for energy. I wonder what they think will replace the massive amount of material that will be taken from the soil?

Cost to generate electrical energy using biomass fuels.

A typical existing coal-fueled power plant produces power for about 2.3¢/kilowatt-hour (kWh). Cofiring inexpensive biomass fuels can reduce this cost to 2.1¢/kWh, while the cost of generation would be increased if biomass fuels were obtained at prices at or above the power plant's existing coal prices. In today's direct-fired biomass power plants, generation costs are about 9¢/kWh. In the future, advanced technologies such as gasification-based systems could generate power for as little as 5¢/kWh. For comparison, a new combined-cycle power plant using natural gas can generate electricity for about 4¢-5¢/kWh at fall 2000 gas prices. (Note: The price of electricity from natural gas is escalating rapidly due to the current spike in NG prices.)

For biomass to be economical as a fuel for electricity, the source of biomass must be located near to where it is used for power generation. This reduces transportation costs—the preferred system has transportation distances less than 100 miles. The most economical conditions exist when the energy use is located at the site where biomass residues are generated (i.e., at a paper mill, sawmill, or sugar mill).

The great bulk of U.S. ethanol is made from field corn

Field corn is the United States’ largest agricultural crop (sweet corn for direct human consumption is a minor crop) and one that typically has enough surplus to require price supports. Most field corn is used for animal feed, a lesser amount for food processing. To date, corn stover does not supply ethanol. Also an early government booklet suggested that the stover be burned to supply the heat needed to make ethanol from corn grains. This is not being done as of this writing.

Ethanol is an alcohol-based alternative fuel produced by fermenting and distilling starch crops that have been converted into simple sugars. Feed stocks for this fuel include corn, barley, and wheat.

The total quantity of ethanol produced in the United States is 3325.8 million gallons per year. Of that total, corn is the feed stock for 99.7% and the remainder is small amounts of beverage waste, potato waste, brewery waste, waste beer, cheese whey, wheat starch, and sugar. It has been stated that ethanol can be made from grass, plant clippings, leaves, and other plant wastes, but it does not seem that anyone has done it. In other words, ethanol is strictly made from food stuff rather than wastes.

While there is still hunger in the world it seems that making ethanol for auto fuel additives is not a judicious choice, especially since ethanol as an additive does absolute nothing to provide a cleaner exhaust.

The largest producer of ethanol is Archer Daniels Midland (1070 million gallons per year) located in Decatur. IL.

Do we need biomass ethanol in our gasoline?

California's air resource board's position<

"The air board has felt for some time that you can make the reformulated gasoline without using the oxygenates," said Allan Hirsch, a states Air Resources Board spokesman.

"This report helps bolster the argument that there should not be a federal requirement for oxygenated gasoline in California."

Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-San Diego, has introduced a bill that would remove a provision in the federal Clean Air Act that requires regions to use oxygenated gas in high-ozone areas.

The bill is before the House Commerce Committee's subcommittee on health and environment. It's supported by most of the state's congressional delegates.

At one time, Hirsch said, the state relied on oxygen additives to make gas burn more cleanly and produce less carbon monoxide. But with improvements in autos and the gas itself, Los Angeles is the only region that violates carbon monoxide standards.

"Cleaner-burning gasoline in California has been very, very successful in cleaning up the air, no thanks to the oxygen (in the gas)," said Chevron spokesman Fred Gorrell.

U.S. biodiesel production is based mostly upon soybean oil and recycled restaurant cooking oil.

Biodiesel is made from about 50% soybean oil and 50% restaurant cooking oil waste. B20 (20% biodiesel, 80% petroleum diesel) works fine in all diesel engines without modification, reducing toxic air emissions and lubricating to reduce engine wear. Straight biodiesel (B100) requires special management in cold climates. Also, rubber seals, gaskets, and hoses made before 1994 should be replaced when using B100. B20 typically costs 8 to 20 cents more per gallon than regular diesel

There are two sites where biodiesel is being tested. School districts in Los Vegas and Kentucky are experimenting with biodiesel B2 and B20, i.e. 2% and 20% biodiesel mixed with regular diesel fuel. The Kentucky state div of Energy has given the school a $45,000 sum to use for the program.

Los Vegas has a large supply of yellow cooking oil waste due the large amount of restaurants in the area. But they are not close to the soybean supply. On the other hand Kentucky is close to where soybeans are grown, but not too close to a large supply of cooking oil waste.

Caution about biodiesel selection. Taken from the Web site www.biodieselnow.com

The biodiesel manufacturing process converts oils and fats into chemicals called long chain mono alkyl esters, or biodiesel. These chemicals are also referred to as fatty acid methyl esters or FAME. In the manufacturing process, 100 pounds of oils or fats are reacted with 10 pounds of a short chain alcohol (usually methanol) in the presence of a catalyst (usually sodium or potassium hydroxide) to form 100 pounds of biodiesel and 10 pounds of glycerine. Glycerine is a sugar, and is a co-product of the biodiesel process.

Raw or refined vegetable oil, or recycled greases that have not been processed into biodiesel, are not biodiesel and should be avoided. Research shows that vegetable oil or greases used in IC engines at levels as low as 10% to 20%, can cause long-term engine deposits, ring sticking, lube oil gelling, and other maintenance problems and can reduce engine life. These problems are caused mostly by the greater viscosity, or thickness compared to that of the diesel fuel for which the engines and injectors were designed. To avoid viscosity-related problems, vegetable oils and other feedstock's are converted into biodiesel. Through the process of converting vegetable oil or greases to biodiesel, we reduced viscosity of the fuel to values similar to conventional diesel fuel.

Another view point on wood

Green Energy Resources (PINK SHEETS: GRGR) citing the US Energy Information Agency, ( EIA ) confirms biomass is the number one renewable energy in the world. Wood biomass comprises 48% of all current renewable energy and is the 4th largest energy after oil, gas, and coal. (Not true since nuclear and hydro electric systems contribute much more than wood.)

The total biomass available in the US is 2,740 quads or 29 times total current electric power used in the US. Wind and Solar energy are distant seconds and not expected to contribute more than 1% of the total US electric power supply before 2020. Wind energy in particular, is extremely limited because of the unsightly turbines and a 'Not in my back yard' attitude in the US and Europe.

Green Energy Resources announced that they have a contract to supply 250,000 tons of wood to New York State beginning in 2007. Also they will supply four New England States with 5 million tons of wood over a 10 year period. At 500,000 tons of wood per year this should provide about 5.5 million kWh per year of electric energy. One 1,000 MWe nuclear power plant will supply about 8.76 billion kWh per year.

Wood burning is to be New England's contribution as a renewable because they said that there is no space for wind machines and the weather is not optimal for solar energy.

The same report said that if they are successful in closing two nuclear power plants they will increase the output of wood power plants to make up the difference. To accomplish this, they would have to gather and burn 33 million tons of wood per year.

Do you think they can get that much wood from the New England States? They do not say where the wood comes from. In the US will we denude our national forests? Not if the environmentalists have their way.

But I agree with GER in part, Wind and Solar are distant seconds and will not contribute more than 1% of our total energy mix. And before 2020 I think that wind and solar will eventually be exposed as a farce.

The NRDC-UCS action plan

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) have an action plan to curb dependence on Mid-East oil. One of the actions is the following:

Expanding use of renewable, non-petroleum fuels, such as ethanol made from crop wastes, by steadily increasing requirements for "renewable content" in gasoline.

My comments: Very little ethanol is not made from crop waste. Another misconception from the NRDC. Expanded use of ethanol will not reduce the need for Mideast oil. As you will see below, more energy is required to produce ethanol than ethanol gives back in combustion.

Epilogue

The bottom line is simple. No matter which of the dueling studies one finds persuasive, one may well ask: If ethanol from corn is so cost effective, why does its production need federal subsidies? Regardless of the ability of making biomass into various energy fuel forms, I cannot see where there would be enough mass of plant crop grains or wastes that would provide much more than the current three percent of the national energy supply.

Return to the Top