A Visit to the New Choren BTL Plant
Posted by Robert Rapier on May 6, 2008 - 10:00am
Introduction
I had to dig way back in my Gmail archives to figure out how it was that I first interacted with Choren. I had written several articles on biomass gasification in 2006, and when I announced that I would be moving to Scotland in early 2007, I received an e-mail from Dr. David Henson at Choren. David, at that time in Business Development at Choren and now the President of Choren USA, said he had been reading some of my essays, and he extended an invitation to visit the biomass-to-liquids (BTL) plant that Choren was building in Freiberg, Germany.
While I tentatively planned to visit several times while I was living in Scotland, it wasn't until I recently moved to the Netherlands that I was actually able to make the visit. So here is some background information on BTL, followed by the trip report from my visit on April 18th, 2008 (the day after German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Rob Routs from Shell visited for the inauguration of the facility).
BTL Background
I have written several essays describing biomass gasification. (See here or here). However, let's review. Biomass gasification takes biomass - ideally some sort of waste (and I understand that the term "waste" can be contentious) plant material - and partially burns the material with a controlled amount of oxygen to produce carbon monoxide and hydrogen (synthesis gas, or syngas). One of the often overlooked benefits of the thermochemical approach over fermentation is that it can be used to produce chemicals, synthetic natural gas, or electricity - and from a wide range of feedstocks. There are many different variations of how the gasification process is done, and I will delve into the specifics of what Choren is doing in the next section.
Once you have produced syngas, you can go a number of different directions. You can burn the syngas to produce combined heat and power (this has some cleanliness and efficiency advantages over directly burning the biomass), produce methanol, ethanol (Range Fuels, Coskata, Syntec), mixed alcohols (Standard Alcohol, Power Ecalene Fuels), or hydrocarbons like diesel via the Fischer-Tropsch process (FT). This latter approach is what Choren is doing. The diesel they are producing is not biodiesel, but "green diesel" as I have described in this essay (scroll down to the "renewable diesel" section).
To my knowledge no other company in the world is as far along as Choren is in producing diesel (and maybe any liquid fuel) from gasifying biomass. Whereas Range Fuels is currently building a plant (and the schedule for that is already slipping), and Coskata is building a much smaller demonstration plant, Choren has been piloting their technology since 1998, and their new plant is mechanically complete. (Yet Choren - funded largely by private investors - has been pretty low-key, issuing a fraction of the press releases of some of the other biofuel companies).
Choren's Process
The Choren process (incidentally, Choren's name comes from Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and renewable) starts off by feeding biomass into a low-temperature gasifier (about 500 degrees C). The purpose of this step is to remove volatile components that will form tars at higher temperatures. What remains in the gasifier is called char, and is fed into the high temperature gasifier.
The volatile components are mixed with oxygen and steam and also fed into the high temperature gasifier where temperatures are around 1400 degrees C. Under these conditions, the volatile components are broken down into syngas. The char is first pulverized, and then blown into the bottom of the high-temperature gasifier. The gas that exits the high-temperature gasifier is cooled, generating steam in the process that is used for power generation. The gas is then further treated (filtered and scrubbed), and it is ready for the Fischer-Tropsch process. You can see an animation of the entire process here.
The gasification section of the plant has been in operation since 2004, proving the scale up of the design. Since 2005, the FT section of the plant has been under construction and is now mechanically complete.
I won't go into detail on the FT process. That technology has been around for almost 100 years, and is best-known as the process by which Germany produced their fuel from coal in World War II. Shell - a world leader in FT technology - provided the FT for the Choren plant. If you are interested in learning more about Shell FT, you can read here about the 15 years of experience they have gained from their gas-to-liquids (GTL) plant in Bintulu, Malaysia. (In addition to providing the FT technology, Shell is also an investor in Choren).
The Plant Tour
It was difficult to find the place, and I got to brush up on my German a couple of times when I had to ask for directions. But finally we (I was with a colleague) found the place and met up with David. He started off with an introductory slide show in which he walked us through the process. One of the more interesting comments he made was that the potential production of their second generation product (dubbed SunDiesel®) is up to 3 times the production of first generation fuels. A third party analysis of various biofuels may be found here, at the Fachagentur fur Nachwachsenden Rohstoffe (FNR). This agency is essentially the German Renewable Energy Department. Detailed information on various BTL platforms can be found here.
The new Choren plant utilizes forest residue and waste wood and will take in 68,000 tons of biomass per year and produce 18 million liters of diesel and 45 MW of power. One thing David mentioned that too many in this business don't seem to get is "You know, biomass just isn't very energy dense." Therein lies the source of a lot of people's misconceptions about rapidly scaling up biomass to replace petroleum. The energy density is problematic to say that least - and this poses big logistical challenges.
We finally got to walk around the plant, and they have done a really nice job. Everything was brand new, and the design was well-thought out and well-engineered. This was not like a typical dirty, old refinery or ethanol plant I have walked through before: This plant was a Cadillac. Of course it's a Cadillac yet to be driven, but it sure was a pretty picture. Here are some facts about the plant, courtesy of Choren:
Maximum production: 18 million litres of BTL p.a (= the annual requirement of about 15,000 cars)
Biomass requirement: About 65,000 tonnes of wood (dry matter) p.a.
Raw materials: Forest residue and waste timber
Supply is secure for several years
Investment: About €100 million
Technical details: 31.5 km pipelines, 57 km electrical cables,
5,000 fittings, 5,000 measuring signals,
60 pumps, 181 containers and reactors
45 MWth output
Partners: SHELL, Daimler and Volkwagon
Synthesis/hydrocracking partner: Shell
Of particular interest was the material handling piece, as this is a major cost factor in driving up the capital costs in a BTL plant. We traced out how the material comes into the plant, and how the flows of volatiles and char come off of the low-temperature gasifier. The one piece we didn't really look at was the FT back end, but then again I have seen those before.
So, where do things stand, and what's next? From the Choren site:
Over 150 suppliers and around 50 assembly companies, including many from the region, were involved in the building of the Beta plant. CHOREN designed and manufactured 180 main components itself. Over 600 companies had been involved in the development of the Carbo-V® technology. By April 2008 around 800,000 man-hours have been utilized in development and assembly, and the overall number of employees almost doubled.
In the coming months 113 sub-systems in 26 main operating units will be started up individually then in sequence. Around 1,200 steps will be needed for the commissioning of these systems, which in themselves consist of several sub-steps. A highly-complex process, which, not unusually for plants of this complexity, will take 8 to 12 months. CHOREN will receive valuable support for this from Shell.
What's the Catch?
Capital costs for BTL are still pretty high. On the other hand, Choren's costs were sunk at a much lower capital cost. Oil at $120/bbl should help them out quite a bit - provided they have a pretty good contract on their biomass. I have no doubt that they will be successful from a technical standpoint. They have a lot of experience on the gasification piece, having piloted it since the 90's. Shell has many years of experience on the back-end FT piece. No doubt there will be some unexpected bumps as they commission the plant; after all it is a first of its kind and speaking from experience issues will come up. But they have a lot of engineers on staff, and I don't think they will find any show-stoppers.
There are those who insist that using biomass for fuels can never be sustainable - so there are likely to be critics on that front. However, I disagree with this. There are a number of biomass sources that are true waste, and biomass can be grown sustainably. On the other hand, production of biofuels can also be used to strip-mine the soil. Like most things, there are right ways and wrong ways to go about it. Biofuels have a part to play. But it would be foolish to try to completely replace petroleum with biofuels. That would require unsustainable practices. Incidentally, Choren has a life-cycle-analysis (LCA) on their process. Highlights can be seen here.
Short-term, I don't know that this plant will be large enough to be profitable. I don't think that's the primary purpose; I think proving the technology for future plants is the purpose. In the longer-term, even though I am a fan of electrifying our transportation options, we will always have a demand for liquid fuel. Choren is trailblazing in an area that I believe will supply our liquid fuel in the future. The only question is, "How far off is that future?"
Additional Reading Material
Brochures and lectures for downloading may be found on Choren's site here.
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Thanks for a fine article.
It seems from this that the technology is available to power equipment where electricity is not practical, for instance heavy plant, agricultural machinery and so on.
As you say, for cars EV still looks the practical option.
Anyone got any figures at all on how much fuel is used by equipment where electricity will not do?
How does this compare with biofuel resource potential? (I always ask easy questions!)
My back-of-the-envelope calcs suggest this process turns 10 units of biomass energy into 3 units of diesel energy, which then would turn into 1 unit of shaft energy in a diesel engine. Not a very efficient use of biomass energy compared to direct biomass combustion at a conventional biomass cogeneration plant, which could turn 10 BTU's of biomass into 4 BTU's of electricity and 4 BTU's of process heat. If the gasification processes can produce sufficient high-quality waste heat usable by other industries or for space heat, it might make some sense.
You, and in fairness, Choren's summary box, are neglecting 365*24*45 = 394200 megawatt hours of electricity.
And this is substantial.
While it generates only 113,400 barrels of oil worth $13million,
It produces 394.2GWh of electricity worth 19.71million at the $0.05/kwh price of coal electricity.
So overall, the most profit is out of the gas, not liquid.
Thanks for picking up on the electrical power output. I completely missed it on the chart. Something doesn't quite add up, though, as my ballpark numbers now suggest that an efficient wood-burning power plant could produce at best about 139 GWh hours/year with 65,000 metric tons of dry wood. That would put the power value at about $6.9 million.
Assumptions:
65,000 mt = 65,000 x 2,200 = 143,000,000 lb wood/year
8,300 BTU/lb higher heat value
40% power plant thermal efficiency.
Something I haven't seen yet is an analysis of the inputs and outputs.
68,000 metric tons/year @ 17.4 GJ/tonne = 1.18 EJ
18 million liters diesel @ 38.6 MJ/liter = 695 TJ
45 MW * 8760 hr/yr * 3.6e9 J/MWH = 1.42 EJ
Whoops! The claim is that more ELECTRICITY comes out than biomass energy goes in! There is clearly an error in the figures given.
Could the electric output possibly be 4.5 megawatts, not 45?
Good catch. I tought that the discrepancy is moisture in the wood. But even though having igh effect, it cannot account for it.
I would say that the 45MW would the Max Suppliable power that could be delivered in the peak hours, using perhaps stored gas and stored charcoal. Outside of peak hours it would perhaps deliver a fraction of it.
But that makes some economy calculations invalid.
My back-of-the-envelope calcs suggest this process turns 10 units of biomass energy into 3 units of diesel energy...
While it's not quite as bad as that, this is the first area I pressed David on. I know about what GTL and CTL give, efficiency wise, so I knew that would be an area to explore. David said that out of all the recent visitors to come through, I was the only person to ask that. But I can't say exactly what he said, as I am covered by an NDA. But you can get to a ballpark number (which you did) by looking at wood in and fuel and electricity out.
How many units of diesel energy does it take to get 10 units of biomass?
That depends.
If you let it grow freely and burn it in place, you get all the heat with zero diesel energy input ;-)
That should be mostly determined by the mode of transportation. Cheapest would be using waterways. I assume that the seeding, is a negligible expense, considering the high plant/seed weight ratio.
Robert, thanks for another detailed and informative post.
I have a question about the sustainability though. Do they recover nutrients? I expect some ammonia and volatile amines will be produced in the first step as they are in low-temp coal gasification. Potassium is volatile at 1400 C, so where does it go, and phosphorus should remain as glass in the ash, acid leachable, so do they?
From a nutrient standpoint "forest waste", isn't. The living part of a conifer is the cambium and needles, and these remain in the forest, releasing P,K and some N for the next generation. If people start gathering this material as biomass feedstock, The minerals must be replenished from the source rock, or come back from the biofuel plant. Calculation of EROI should take all of this into account too.
Nothing in nature is "waste."
How do you value that which is priceless? The ecocidal ape already appropriates approximately 40% of global primary productivity to its own use, leaving only 60% for the maintenance of vital ecosystem support services. After having learned the clever ape trick of oxidizing fossil biomass, the ape is now going to do the same with current biomass, allowing it to grow its population that much more in excess of K, leaving even less "feedstock" for ecosystems & biodiversity. The forests are doomed, we will clearcut them in order to keep driving. Same with the grasslands. Switchgrass for fuel. Same with our lotic environments. Algae for fuel. Business as usual at all costs, until it all utterly collapses. This is what this technology leads to. Robert & his clever cohorts are applying all their considerable ape cleverness towards this outcome.
darwinsdog
That is an extremely 'dog'matic response. It reveals a misunderstanding of how living communities function. You are confusing a forest ecosystem that is selectively harvested on a 25 year rotation with a garden or farm field that may be harvested annually.
Of course it is easy to assume the worst of your fellow humans, and surely there is plenty of evidence to support that argument, but it is obvious that selective harvesting of forest biomass can be done sustainably. A well-maintained farm woodlot is a good example of sustainable forestry.
I routinely encounter urban folks with no forestry experience who see a forest as a museum in which the removal of a tree exhibit renders the whole diminished, when a forest is actually a living community in constant evolution.
You have failed to consider solar input to forests, which is what accounts for their growth. I live in the middle of 100 acres of bush and I can tell you that its growth is so rapid that it constantly threatens to overwhelm my attempts to maintain a small clear spot to live in.
It's not that obvious. First of all, harvesting the forest will destroy habitats and, at least temporarily, alter that local environment (to some effect). Also, removing nutrients and organic matter from the forest means that those have to be replaced. How is that done sustainably? And, if this kind of thing takes off, isn't it likely that even more forest will be harvested to feed our consumer societies, to further detrimental effect?
I agree darwinsdog. There's no forward thinking here. If the nutrients are taken away from the forests then they will degrade and eventually die off. Taking switchgrass from the plains will cause the soil to dry out and support less switchgrass. But there's no stopping this last ditch desperate attempt to keep on burning oil ad infinitum.
Trully, hothing is waste.
By the same principle, neither is CO2, coal, oil or nuclear spent fuel.
Just make sure that the nutrients that are processed are again redistributed into the nature by one of the ancient means of transport:
1. CO2 - the plant food, to be distributed via air even to poor countried.
2. SO2 and SO3 - to be distributed aerially and condition the soil via mildly acid rain.
3. NO2 and NO3 - washed throught water and added with solid to fertilizer, or using aerial distribution.
Liquid residues:
NH3 - ammonia to be mixed to fertilizers.
Creosote - For further thermal processing.
Solid residues:
P, Mn, Fe, ashes, other trace elements - to present solid to the fertilizer.
I believe you are pretty much right on in this response, I think if our society keeps trying to live its current lifestyle by chasing diminishing marginal returns like this then we are in for a collapse no doubt, I think it has already been decided many years ago though. Like you say we don't need cleverness as much as wisdom in these times..
Anthropus ecocidus is pretty cunning & clever. It can do some neat tricks. But if there's any wisdom on this planet it resides with the Cetacea, not the Primates.
Then what's the point in existing if we are doomed to never get to days better than today?
No I don't think it's as hopeless as you suggest. We need a source of liquid fuels for some of our equipment that can not be powered electrically. But there is still plenty of forms of energy out there other than fossil fuels.
There is no point. The universe is ateleological. No meaning or purpose or point whatsoever. It just is. Whatever inspired people to believe or expect otherwise is beyond me. Just accept the pointlessness and get on with your life.
Yes, that's why people build and create things. To create meaning themselves. We need the kind of society that can support development and progress.
Yes, people "create" meaning, but deep down they know that the meaning they create is arbitrary, and doesn't exist outside the confines of their own nervous systems and won't survive their own personal annihilation. Cold comfort. Isn't it better to just accept that meaning doesn't exist, rather than engage in the rather desperate attempt to create arbitrary faux meaning? I guess it's a personal value judgement.
For someone who purports to believe that all meaning is arbitrary, you have made some pretty bold statements about others motivations and actions.
This indicates that you have simply not thought through the implications of what you assert to be your philosophy.
Of course, you miss the even deeper irony that your philosophy is by your reckoning an arbitrary faux meaning.
A much more reasonable position is that the human brain is so constructed that it perceives pattern, and indeed cannot function in any other way, so the question of whether the universe has meaning is redundant, as when observed by any human being it will be seen to have meaning, even if it is the one you attach.
A healthy human being creates meaning and value by assigning them and attempting to bring them about, and so doesn't need some hypothetical exterior deus ex machina.
It takes guts to place value in people and objectives, but that is what is needed to move beyond the adolescent angst at life's lack of meaning.
There is plenty of meaning, if you have the courage to accept the pain that this brings.
That's fine, but it means that there is no one answer to "what is the point of life?" The answer may be different for each person.
I just accept that we're here and we've evolved a certain nervous system that includes the notions of thought and emotions. We make our our meaning, as you say, but can't apply that to anyone else.
The various eastern philosophies might express this as that the universe has 'suchness', has no need for meaning, being prior to that.
As Popeye said: 'I yam what I yam - I'm Popeye the sailor-man! - toot toot!'
Meaning is a human value, and cannot exist outside that context.
You are assuming though that people are pretty different, so many meanings are possible.
Actually they make fairly similar constructs, with only the details varying much.
That is not too surprising when we consider that there are considerable similarities in human experience.
One of those similarities is that typically an adolescent experiences a loss of perception of value, but normally only the disturbed retain this in practise if not in theory, and most come to the conclusion that for themselves much of the meaning is in the relationships they form, and in what they create in their work and life.
I might as well enjoy life while I can then. I'll cash up and buy a hummer. The Earth ecosystem will find some new equilibrium after I'm gone and who the f*ck cares what stupid species go extinct? "Nature" sure doesn't.
*End of sarcasm*
Didn't sound particularly sarcastic to me. Sounded quite rational, altho perhaps not something I'd agree with. If you want to live for the selfish enjoyment of the moment, with no concern for the future or for others, you'd only being doing what the vast majority of organisms do anyway. So go for it. You won't hurt anyone's feelings by being a hedonist.
Meaning is not so arbitrary when you can see direct results and change.
I am from the computer industry. And it's one full of optimism as the people working in it are very much aware that they are rapidly changing the world. You'll find it full of mostly futurists and technologists.
Why, there's this bob dylan song, that would work great as an anthem for the industry, one that is used to a revolution every few years.
http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/times.html
The last thing I want, is for civilisation to go back to the 19th century, I think the technology to get us out of this situation already mostly exists. We don't need a power down we need power modernisation. The question is do people have the wisdom and willingness to do it, or will they just party while they still can.
Is it really impossible to imagine a better life than today, without ruining our habitat or denuding it of energy?
Business as usual at all costs, until it all utterly collapses. This is what this technology leads to. Robert & his clever cohorts are applying all their considerable ape cleverness towards this outcome.
I usually don't dignify such off-the-mark responses with a remark, but there may be others who don't understand my position. I have argued against the business as usual model for 20 years. We need to power down, but we also need some stop-gap measures as we do so. I am not content to wring hands while people starve. That doesn't mean people won't still die, but I won't stand idly, using sound bites like "business as usual" as a reason for inaction. I work to make sure we have some hope of transitioning to a post-oil future - albeit one in which we use a lot less energy.
Apparently not. Rather, you will actively promote starvation by growing food for fuel, or devoting land on which food could be grown to growning ligno-cellulosic feedstocks. By reducing soil fertility and tilth by processing residues for fuel that should be returned to the soil, you foster famine. By oxidizing organic substances that could be sequestering carbon in the soil as refractile humic & fulvic substances, you contribute to atmospheric warming that will ensure that crops fail and tens of millions starve. Are you truly evil or merely a fool, Robert?
By oxidizing organic substances that could be sequestering carbon in the soil as refractile humic & fulvic substances, you contribute to atmospheric warming...
Actually, I sequester carbon for a living. I suspect that my own carbon footprint looks better than yours...
Are you truly evil or merely a fool, Robert?
While I prefer to think of myself as truly evil, it could be that you just don't know what you are talking about. And in fact, that is the case. (That doesn't mean I am not truly evil, though).
Carbon contained in biomass comes mostly from the air, not the soil. It is possible to grow it in a sustainable manner. I have seen it done - with the residual ash returned to the soil. In fact, I recently stood on top of a pile of biomass 100 feet high, and a football field long. It contained almost no nutrients, and the owner was asking me to please help him find a way to get rid of it - other than just burning it. But there will always be impotent hand-wringers who don't understand the difference between strip-mining soil - which I have argued strongly against for many years - and the possibility of sustainable biomass.
LoL So is this the new status determinant? Not "my dick is bigger than yours" or "my truck has more horsepower than yours." Sorry, but that Eritrean kid on the brink of starvation has you beat all to hell. How puerile can you get?
The Eritrean kid's footprint is greater than zero, Robert's may be less than zero.
And your hot air is contributing quite a bit to AGW, without shedding one quantum of light.
The Eritrean kid's footprint is greater than zero, Robert's may be less than zero.
Doh, you beat me to it. I was just about to point that out. As EP alludes, yes, my carbon footprint is in fact negative. Our puerile friend must enjoy sticking his foot in his mouth. That's what often happens when someone forms an opinion, and then doesn't let factual information get in the way of that opinion.
I should also remind him that he is the one who brought up carbon sequestration.
Anyway, I normally don't consort with trolls, and when someone comes on spouting off about things which he knows not - and in the process calls me a fool, evil, and accuses me of promoting food for fuel - he is definitely a troll in my book.
Perhaps you could critique more effectively if you commented on what has actually been said, rather than your own distortion of it.
The proposals Robert has put forward clearly state that this is a solution which is limited in scope, appropriate to provide power where the use of electricity is difficult, for instance to power agricultural machinery which would be very difficult otherwise, thus providing more of the food you are ostensibly concerned about.
The use of animals for the same purpose would use far more cropland, around a third of all agricultural land.
He also clearly stated that the production of biogas and biodiesel would be acceptable only if done in a sustainable way.
You are obviously unaware that many sources of biogas currently produce only pollution, for instance the effluent both from humans and intensively farmed animals.
You, on the contrary, propose nothing of any worth to help.
Giving up is apparently your preferred option.
Before you make false accusations, perhaps you would present your own proposals.
darwinsdog, grow up. Get off your flippin' high horse, already.
I know nothing about you, but based on your postings here on TOD in the last couple months, I'd guess you are a university student, probably in ecology or related science, and definitely no older than your mid-20s. Your perspective is so extreme, it speaks of a profound immaturity. You remind me of that character in the "Twas the Night Before Christmas" (1974) cartoon special: the precocious, mechanically gifted mouse Albert, who spends so much time telling other people how little they know. Albert was smart, but he was not wise. And that's what he learns about himself in the course of the story. The jury's still out on you.
Look in the mirror, boyo: you're an "ecocidal ape" just like the rest of us. How much non-renewable energy do you eat up using the Internet? Even if all your tech is plugged into robust solar energy systems, or some treadle-driven mechanism you pedal as you type, all the infrastructure that traffics your thoughts into the glowing pixels we read is not only built on non-renewable energy, most of it is made with highly toxic materials that will not break down into more "natural" states until long after even our culture is no longer remembered.
You're deeply embedded in the system you profess to hate -- to varying degrees whether you want to be or not.
If you're so hard core and so pure: log off, stop using any cultural artifacts made of non-renewable/toxic molecules, then either go join the Old Order Amish or move into a forest and live off the land like a sannyasin.
If you're not willing to do that, then at least spare us all your insufferable editorializing. I, for one, already share your sense of eco-crisis and concern, and wonder if Homo sapiens will turn out to be no wiser than yeast in a jar of grapejuice. But I don't make the mistake of thinking that I am so much better than everyone else.
Robert is one of the most lucid voices on the web when it comes to Peak Oil and related issues. He is deeply concerned about the challenge represented by peak oil, yet thoughtful and measured in his responses. He spends a great deal of time, time taken away from his family and the rest of his life, sharing the fruits of his highly trained thinking and considered perspective with the Internet community. He is a valuable member of the TOD community. You, on the other hand, are so far little more than an extremist gadfly (if a well-educated one).
THANK YOU KL!!!
My forte is not energy or peak oil, I'm just a code slinger, but this 'Dogbert' dude was going to make me throw up. Thanks for saving me the typing.
Thanks from me too, KL.
I was getting all hot under the collar reading this thread, especially with the respect I have for Robert.
Your reply is far more eloquent and nicely said than I would have done.
Steve
Quite simply there are too many people on the Earth.
They are only being maintained by industrialized agriculture.
By your reasoning it's a catch 22.
Since we are depleting the soil by our unsustainable practises then we're doomed.
BUT
If we try to maintain the soil then our productivity will drop so much that we're doomed too.
Which choice do you make Hobson?
>Nothing in nature is "waste."
Really? Then where did all this coal and oil come from in the first place.
Natures waste is our fuel source at the moment, this technology could just speed up it's manufacture. ;)
Besides, surely biomass other than forest waste could be used. What about farming waste or even human waste?
There are some early stage proposals to invest in plants like this in Wisconsin where woody biomass situation is probably similar to Germany- we are hoping to use waste material associated with paper production as a feedstock. One concern some people are raising is safety, especially concerning "worst case scenarios" (explosions somewhere in the plant). It sounds from your description that there's some volatile materials being handled in such a plant. Can you describe the setting in which the plant is located (distance to residential areas, type of uses nearby?) What safety concerns were brought up during your visit (if any)? In your opinion, are these plants any more or less safe than conventional oil processing facilities? Thanks.
At least in my region of Germany, near Karlsruhe, there is very little forest 'waste' - pretty much all of it is used, in one form or another. But then, the Black Forest has been managed for centuries at this point - for profit.
There was a quote from one of the vortex/thermopolymerization company heads remarking that their process wasn't practical in Germany, as there simply wasn't the 'waste' available. (Never found the link again - it was the people using poultry waste to make diesel.)
As for the plant - it is simply an industrial plant handling various volatiles - big deal.
My thoughts when reading this are 1) how much energy goes into the process and 2) how much greenhouse gas is outputted by the processes even before the output energy is consumed.
Just a quick correction: Choren is in Freiberg, not Freiburg. (Freiberg is in Saxonia, not far from Chemnitz or Dresden, while Freiburg is in south-west Germany, not far from the French/Swiss border. Since Freiburg is also renowned for its ecological progressiveness this should not be confused.)
One Question:
What would be the value of the 45 MW of electricity if the plant was located in, say, Wisconsin, or the Pacific Northwest?
How much would the electrical generation be worth? Tricky question due to evolving market conditions. A base load sale of power might get you $60-$75/MWh these days. But with carbon offsets, selling to "green consumers", or state and provincial mandates for renewable energy sources the rate could be as high as $120/MWh.
Using a typical availability of 355 days per year, the annual sale of 45 MW at $65/MWh would be $25 million. Premiums could be earned for the aforesaid environmental factors.
Our engineering company has been working extensively lately in these types of projects. Lots of wood here, lots.
And Darwin, usually like your perspective, but idealism about sustainable forestry gets misappropriated all too often. Our forestry practices ensure a sustainable harvest over the species time spans. It is definitely not rape and pillage, (see original comment).
Our BTL/S/G process is self sustaining using a portion of the product output to fuel the plant heating and electricity. I propose we use the liquids for wood harvesting operations also. This has the potential to create a nearly carbon neutral system. (Can't do much about the equipment manufacturing and the arms and legs operating as such).
Don't you have to scrub CO2 from the syngas before F-T synthesis? If you could sequester this, the system could be carbon-negative.
I don't believe we have to scrub the gas, but there will iterations on the design. Looking at the Choren process, ours wouldn't require all the stuff to the right of the HTV for syn-gas production. Our gas is dry and clean right out of the box. There is no Fischer-Tropsch required. Some hydrocracking may be required for treatment of the liquids. I am simplifying somewhat, but comparatively the process is much simpler. It could still be considered neutral because the carbon emitted would be taken up by the new growth feed stock.
I think the trick may be to de-emphasize liquid fuels for transportation and think about the products for core energy uses mentioned in this thread such as farming, central heating, etc. That way we don't keep trying to force a feedstock into a less than ideal use and suffer the lower efficiencies and pollution.
A forestry note I got from a Forrester, young trees fix far more carbon than older mature trees. (Just watch your teenagers eat and you'll get the idea). This doesn't mean we should mow down the older forests. I am only bringing to light an uncommonly known scientific fact so we don't delude ourselves with delusions of Middle Earth Elvish utopias.
EP - could you run an energy balance on this process?
My energy balance of this system just isn't matching up with 45 MW of electric power output at all. It looks more like it may be 45 MW of thermal heat rejection, which makes comes out to a closer balance.
Some of the data in RR's stuff suggests it may actually be thermal heat. The summary says "45 MWth", and one of the graphics has 45 MW thermal tucked in the lower left hand corner. If this is the case, it does't necessarily produce any electric power at all unless you add another undocumented system that can extract electric power from the thermal heat. (low/med. pressure steam turbine, Rankine-cycle, etc.) The amount of power you would extract would depend on the temperature you can get it, but I'm guessing you'd be looking at about 30% thermodynamic efficient cycle at best, or 13 MW of electrical power output. Also, I didn't notice any data on internal parasitic electrical loads for the pumps, blowers, etc.
Hvac, I agree based upon our energy and mass balances for similar Dry ton feedstock volumes. 45 MW is closer to 600-800 wet tons per day based on species.
Energy balance is in this subthread, and shows that the 45 megawatt figure is likely erroneous.
>80% of old-growth forest (unmanaged stands w/ trees >200 yrs old) from northern California to British Columbia have already been logged. In British Columbia 90% of current logging occurs in the remaining 20% of old-growth forest. 89% of that logging is clear-cutting. Of 353 coastal valley temperate rainforest watershed, only 69 remain unlogged in BC. On Vancouver Island only five out of 90 of these vital watersheds have not been logged. The salmon fishery has utterly collapsed due to this "rape and pillage" of old-growth temperate rainforest. "Sustainable harvest" my ass. All you're doing is spewing propaganda for your pet technofix gimmick you hope will make you rich at the expense of forest ecosystems and the unique biodiversity they support.
That is an odd statement to make since you know nothing of the particular project that he is engaged in.
Whatever may be the general state of the industry and it's practises, you are writing this accusation without any knowledge at all about the case in point.
Take a look at the Mountain Pine Beetle kill in the province. A 1/4" bug has done far more damage than we ever could. Because it was nature, does that make it acceptable?
If I surmise your points correctly and come to the logical conclusion, I would imagine the only solution would be to all gather at coastal locations, hold hands and take a long walk off a short pier and drown ourselves - all except one, which would be you so you can enjoy your environmental paradise.
Be part of the problem or else you are just noise.
We're all part of the problem. The problem *is* that 6.7 x 10^9 rapacious apes is ~1.5 orders of magnitude too many for the biosphere to support without massive fossil fuel inputs. Fossil fuels are finite resources and are rapidly being depleted. Your solution to fossil fuel depletion is to take biomass from forest ecosystems, process it and oxidize it so that "business as usual" can continue. You're a profiteer & environmental wastrel of the worst order. An enemy to humanity & to the biosphere. Sad but true.
And who purchases your coding product of which you depend on for a livelihood? Have you evolved into an energy independent entity that does not rely on electrical power to produce and communicate? Oh wait, that would be electrical power engineers like myself that keep the 120 V 60 Hz constant and accurate at your receptacle so you can rant hypothetically.
Not doing too much for the coder sociopath stereotype I'm afraid. As the exploiter and Bambi killer, guilty as charged.
As I understand, the Mountain Pine Beetle's destruction of the forests of British Columbia is only possible because of *man-made* global warming -- don't blame "nature".
Bio,
I'm not sure if GW can be directly or wholly blamed for the MPB, but the temperature profile substantiates the idea. The even more damaging cause is the rampant eco-nazi idealism that prevented the forest management from containing the outbreak because it originated in a park. Its a combination of faults.
However, we have to deal with the present situation. One only has to fly over hundreds of square miles of devastated forest to get a grasp of the damage. Then, take a tour through the areas on the ground and see the number of dead trees. It makes acid rain look like minor Spring shower against a monsoon.
There you go again spewing verbal hog crap. I'm grew up in the PacNW close to the timber industry. The salmon plight is due to damning spawning streams and over fishing, not logging. Not only that it has been proven time after time that younger forests not only sequester more C02 than old growth, but it also provides a much more robust habitat for the regional fauna. Oregon is already on it's THIRD cutting of MANAGED forests and the flora and fauna are thriving (except as you pointed out the salmon killed by falling old growth)...
There seems to be some confusion over the "45 MW output" figure quoted in the summary box. This must be the energy INPUT figure. 68,000 tonnes per year of wood at zero moisture content with a CV of 18.7 GJ/tonne gives an input of 1.27 Petajoules per year of energy input. If the plant has a design load factor of 90% then that corresponds to an energy INPUT of 44.8 MJ/sec=MW.
18 million litres of diesel product per year corresponds to 0.68 PJ. Hence the overall thermal efficiency of conversion from wood to diesel is very creditable 60%.
Only a portion of the other 40% of the input energy would be withdrawn as steam from the post-gasification boiler and only a fraction of that converted to electricity so I daresay that the plant only generates around 2MW of electricity, possibly enough for its own use.
It is a wood to liquids plant, not a power station.
Good catch, glad to see someone was paying attention in math class. This fits the energy balances we have been using for 35% wet feedstock.
Choren is in Freiberg, not Freiburg.
Fixed, thanks.
As noted above, Freiburg and Freiberg are two very different places.
Also, as near as I can tell from the link below, this is not 'waste' -
'Um den Bedarf an Biomasse von Choren zu decken, wurden im Raum Freiberg und in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Agrarflächen mit schnellwachsenden Pflanzen unter Vertrag genommen.'
Very free translation - To meet Choren's requirements, in Freiburg and in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern agricultural (growing might be better - a not trivial distinction) areas with rapid growth plants are under contract.
http://www.rnz-online.de/zusammen2/00_20080417144033_Erste_kommerzielle_...
When I first read Freiburg, the idea of 'waste' was actually possible, combined with its location along the Rhine. And a plant making biodiesel on the Rhine would be fairly efficient in a number of ways, as the barges are going to be running on diesel for a long time. And Freiburg makes sense in another way - it is pretty much at the end of the oil supply chain in its region of Germany.
Nonetheless, interesting project to be informed about. Though the project's sponsors led me to already suspect that it wasn't placed in Freiburg - that is a city with more active hostility against cars than most, a place quite interested in changing our automobile centered lifestyle. (Don't even get started about nuclear power providing a chance for electric cars to replace IC models - the good citizens of Freiburg are equally appalled by nuclear power.)
Just came out of a meeting this morning regarding our prospective BTL partner. I can't delve into the specifics due to confidentiality agreements, however in reading RR's report I think we are onto a disruptive technology.
The major differentiator for our partner's process is the gas output is a very clean and dry gas that doesn't need scrubbing. The gas has been vetted for direct combustion in a turbine or reciprocating engine. Therefore, no scrubbing, or no combustion in a boiler system to generate steam. The two other outputs are charcoal with equivalent coal Btu and "green diesel". We are looking to processing the oil outputs into useful petroleum replacement fuels.
We have to get farther along with the engineering implementation stages, but we don't see any show stoppers yet.
However, there is a very important point regarding sustainability. Although we have enough Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB) killed wood in BC with an approximate geographical size of Scotland, this will not in any way be a panacea or significant replacement for existing petroleum fuels. Not if we don't want to completely denude our forests anyway.
Our immediate expectation is to use the liquid fuels in heavy industry transportation such as large ore trucks in the immediate area copper mines. The charcoal has multiple uses and demand. These projects are financially feasible based on the liquids and solids without selling power to the provincial utility. (All the current biomass energy projects in BC are designed to sell electrical power to the utility).
CBC National News will be doing a story on the MPB situation and this technology over the next couple of weeks. I will link the video when it becomes available.
Disclaimer: I am not a chem eng or a petroleum eng (EE obviously), but I can clearly see the opportunity. There are implementation phases to get this commercially operational - but hey, that's what we do. That's what we went to school for.
I am wondering what the best technology option would be for running mechanized farm equipment, primarily for grains, where they grow best, and also the associated shipping to population centers.
I am not sure the biomass projects described here will do it since much of the plains are former grasslands, but perhaps forestation of agricultural hinterlands and local (e.g. 10-20 mile radius?) biomass to liquids plants are warranted? In this way the "waste" is put back on the land, perhaps including biochar if that is part of the process.
A large combine uses about 18 gallons of diesel per hour.
I don't really care much about making cars run, but tractors are very important!
That's the point Jason, we can scale this process to be feasible for farmer co-ops because we don't need expensive boiler plants. Tests are underway to convert dairy cattle waste (cow poo) and other farm waste material. Can't promise there would be enough to fuel all the machinery, but I'm willing to find out.
Bio-char produced might be blended with manure to make fertilizer.
Good news.
This is a no brainer for keeping agriculture running along with transport of foodstuffs.
Seems we're not doomed after all, though we may be energy poor.
The bulk of the attention has been spent on the liquid fuel product, but the process also produces electricity. If we used that in PHEVs, how many vehicles could we run with it?
Assumptions:
The hypothetical vehicle electricity consumption is 2500 kWh/yr.
A 45 MW plant operating at 100% capacity factor would produce 394,200,000 kWh/year. This would be sufficient to supply 157680 vehicles per the assumptions above. If you needed any more convincing that our best route is to go electric wherever possible....
Thanks for putting some numbers on EV power use.
At that rate you would only need around 50-100GW to power an EV vehicle fleet for the US, so there seems to be no fundamental reason why, after a difficult transition, people should not be able to have personal mobility.
Slight correction, that would be 383 GWh per year (355 days per year). You have to allow for maintenance. Thermal facilities need far more frequent maintenance cycles than hydro or solar, etc. That's without unplanned outages.
Ideally yes, we should go electric wherever possible; until you go and try to build the new transmission lines to facilitate the increase in electrical usage. There is the argument there is enough existing capacity in the N. American grid, but is it in the right place at the right time? Total national terraWatt capacity does not necessarily mean it can get to where and when it needs to go.
Biomass SLG (Solids-Liquids-Gas) is only a part of the basket of solutions. We are going to need all of them. Let's not object our way into the dark ages.
RR, if you need to get rid of the fibre waste pile, we can help you with that. Our process is designed to be modular and mobile for situations where there is a fixed supply that will deplete. Prospective locations in the works are in Canada, Sweden, Panama, Columbia, etc.
The article did say maximum of 18 million liters, and did not state a capacity factor. If the gasifier is operating, the generator would be also.
And more:
In addition to Electricity and Diesel fuel it produces
- Charcoal
- Waste heat
The electricity is not the primary product.
The primary product is a very clean, dry syngas that is with loses converted to electricity.
But syngas can be without much loses used for directly as a car fuel and as heating fuel.
Charcoal can be used as a high quality heating fuel.
Any figures on amount of produced charcoal?
Petrus,
We have the numbers but they are confidential for the moment. I can tell you the energy content of the char is better than bituminous coal (wet basis). The oil has good energy content as well. The syn-gas is about 50% of natural gas per weight.
Waste heat, good point. I am proposing what I call the BC Bio Complex. Beyond the S/L/G products, the waste heat could be used for green houses. We are far from some produce production areas and vulnerable to transportation costs and disruptions. (Although those bell peppers you get in Costco come from BC greenhouses). There will be other secondary and tertiary industries connected to the complex, as well as the living arrangements for the people in the community. I recognize this is not a revolutionary idea, but it is for N. America.
I was thinking a bit about the waste heat and came to a conclusion that it is called "waste" for a reason. It is a low quality energy whose harvesting would cost more than the benefits of using it.
Waste heat is a result of imperfect thermal isolation. If you want to keep the chamber without losses, you would need infinitely expensive insulation.
But we do have a pretty good insulation for no additional cost - the feedstock itself.
Let us design the ideal heat use, where the dissipated heat is nealy 0 (plus latent heat in water wapor).
The best thing to do with the waste heat is to use it to finish drying and preheat the feedstock.
If you envelop the heat-losing reactors with the conveyor of incoming celulosic feedstock, the waste heat will be put to good use. Assuming that
- the reactor works at 500degC, and
- the feedstock starts with 30% humidity,
- dry wood having 2kJ/kg/degC specific heat,
- Water latent evaporation heat of 2.27MJ/kg
- Wood combustion heat of 18,500 kJ/kg
- Wood igntion temperature of 250degC, safe temperature 120degC.
- Water specific heat of 4.2kJ/kg
By using waste heat for pre-heating wood outside reaction chamber to safe temperature of 120degC, we will evaporate all water and save substantial amount of energy.
Per 1kg of wood:
681 kJ For evaporation of remaining 30% of water.
220 kJ For heating wood from average 10degC storage temperature to 120degC
378 kJ For heating contained water from 10degC to boiling point
---------
1279 kJ Total saved using waste heat.
Inside chamber:
760 kJ To heat dry preheated wood from 120degC to 500degC.
2040 kJ Total heat input per 1kg of dry contents in wood
Now what is the economy of benefit
2.68 = 2040/760 Factor of EROI increase.
168% = (2.68-1)*100% Increase in production per unit or energy
9.06 = 18500/2040 EROI of the core process.
There will be savings on chamber designed delibarately badly insulated. The rate of loss will have to be designed so that the wood just reaches 120degC as it is being loaded to the reactor. This will be proportional to the rate of production. At fast enough throughput we can have arbitrarily cheap reaction chamber insulation.
Electronically controlled fans will prevent woor from overheating and distribute the hot air.
I think EV's are the only viable option for the future. Did you take into account the amount of energy required to manufacture the EV in your figure?
If you take another look at the way he has set out his figures, then it is apparent that they refer to the amount of energy used to run them, not build them.
A calculation of the energy used in building them would not be easy, as they would use less steel than current cars to keep weight down, but for the same reason might use more aluminium, and the batteries would also take some energy to make.
Not just energy, but other resources also. Are there foreseeable limits in the the elements needed for parts of an EV which are not an ICE, or are present in larger amounts in an EV?
They would use far less in total materials weight than current cars, so in fact large amounts of steel should become available for other uses, such as building wind turbines as the old SUV's are scrapped and the iron becomes available.
Most of the specialist bits in an ICC are not needed, EV's are far simpler, although not plug-in hybrids to the same extent.
The biggest difference is of course in the battery.
One of the variants of lithium is the current preferred choice, although there is a lot to be said for advanced lead acid batteries.
Substantial discussion of lithium reserves here has established that resources are entirely adequate to support a major switch to EV's, so the short answer to your question is no, there are no show stoppers.
Cost for the lithium batteries is still an issue, with even the relatively small batteries in the Th!nk costing perhaps half of the £14,000 price and giving far less functionality than an ICC.
Still, the cost is affordable to many, would maintain personal mobility with perhaps the occasional hire of an ICC for long trips, and batteries have very good potential for further improvement.
I thought something like lithium might be an issue. What do you mean by "a major switch"? Does that mean many people won't ever have the opportunity for EVs, unless battery technology changes? Don't we need more than one battery per car (for swap outs), and how quickly can the dud ones be recycled? Also, what is lithium currently used for; is all the estimated lithium available for making EV batteries? And will its availability decline (like most resource extraction)? What about growth and the ability to make all the other components that go into EVs?
Sorry, I'm not trying to overload you with questions, and not expecting answers, just musing on the notion that we can all switch to EVs and not much else will change.
No problem.
By 'major switch' I mean that as far as we can see, building as many cars as we can.
It actually seems unlikely that problems would be encountered even with several billion cars, say European levels of ownership for everyone on the planet.
Whether you need more than one battery set depends on the refuelling strategy.
Recycling is not an issue, and would certainly be employed.
Personally, I do not believe in the Limits to Growth scenario for many resources, it appears to me to apply only to certain cases, fossil fuels, forestry and ocean products, and rare earths an minerals for example.
Most major industrial inputs like aluminium and uranium follow, in my opinion, a different model, whereby as long as you have access to large supplies of energy you can get pretty much what you want, and models which say that you have x numbers of years of supply which will be exhausted in y years are erroneous, with resources being elastic.
In any case, that is to wander into a much more general debate, which can hinder thinking on the subject in hand.
If you want to check out previous discussions on lithium and it's availability, then using Google to do a site search using that term is the way to go.
Here is an easy way of doing that:
http://www.soople.com/
Soople; easy search in Google. Advanced calculator
Here are few links to get you started:
http://www.compactpower.com/faq.html
Frequently Asked Questions
http://www.australianminesatlas.gov.au/info/aimr/lithium.jsp
www.australianminesatlas.gov.au
http://www.itri.org.tw/eng/research/sus/re-sus-f002.jsp?tree_idx=0400
ITRI - Research - Sustainable Development - Land and Water Resources Technology
http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1434
EVWORLD FEATURE: Lithium in Abundance: Battery | Lithium | Evans | Tahil
http://www.worldlithium.com/Home_files/An%20Abundance%20of%20Lithium.pdf
An%20Abundance%20of%20Lithium.pdf
http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1180
EVWORLD FEATURE: Peak Lithium?: Lithium Ion | Electric Car | Meridian International Research
You will note that there is a variety of opinion on lithium availability, but to my mind those who argue that there is plenty of it had by far the best of the argument.
In any case, it should be noted that no problems are even conceivable until production has been ramped enormously from current levels, and if at that stage problems were found that the idea of EV cars would not be taken out, as other batteries are available, for instance advanced lead acid and zinc batteries, neither of which would have any problems in resource availability in powering tens of billions of cars.
That's a lot of reading, thanks for the links; I've bookmarked the post.
I don't think limits to growth (not necessarily the book) requires belief. It's clear that, on a finite planet, consuming finite resources is unsustainable and doing so at increasing rates even less so. Of course, problems will be hit at different times with different resources. The ability of our environment to assimilate our "waste" is also a factor. So it's just a matter of time and how important one thinks it is to start the move to sustainability sooner, rather than later. I agree that, to some extent, energy can make up for lower quality resources, for inaccessibility, and substitution of scarce resources by poorer replacements. But even energy is limited (both because it takes resources to harness energy and because energy sources may not be able to be brought on quickly enough to compensate for the problems mentioned, plus other issues).
But tens of billions of cars? What a scary thought.
Resources are indeed limited at some point, but the relevant question is when.
Some argue that we should stop growth now, as ultimately resources are finite.
It makes one heck of a difference though if we are going to have to stop now with most of the world in poverty, or in perhaps 100years with most people hopefully at a European or Japanese type of standard of living - not of course the expansive American model - and population falling naturally.
Questions of timing are essentially a different debate, and it is often a good idea to consider one idea in depth at a time, or you end up with a meandering discussion which does not adequately analyse anything - there is quite a bit of reading to do just to consider the question of lithium availability!
No-one is suggesting, as of course you realise, that tens of billions of cars will be needed or built, but the resource base of lead and zinc is large enough that we would not run out of materials to build the batteries for them - IOW is we used those materials we can have all the batteries we need - we probably won't have to as lithium should do fine, but lead may be cheaper paired with ultra-capacitors.
One of the ideas of the steady state economy post is to redistribute wealth, rather than trying to raise the bar, in the hope that the rest of the world will be dragged up to above what some consider the poverty level.
There are several problems, I think, with wanting to continue growth in order to raise the poor out of poverty. One is that question of timing. Non-one knows exactly when enough vital resources will become too scarce to continue running our societies the way we do now. Another is that the growth of wealth will be uneven and may not work the way one expects, at the speed one expects, in order to have the effects one wants. Wouldn't it be better, and more effective, to reduce the inequalities in the developed countries and redistribute wealth to poorer countries? Of course, not even multi billionaires will want to redistribute much of their excess wealth.
In any case, it matters not what any of us desires for this world if geology and the climate conspire to work against us. I think a better paradigm would be to work within what the earth provides on a yearly basis, instead of trying to temporarily expand that provision. That is the only sure way to be sustainable. One's aspirations towards people elsewhere could probably be accommodated within that annual budget, but it would need hugely better management than is currently apparent.
I am moderately familiar with medieval history, and the result of shortages has not historically led the lion to show any tendency to lay down with the lamb, save after dinner.
I will put my money on getting the technology right, thanks, rather than count on a change in human nature.
Your redistribution ain't gonna happen.
The rich have what it takes to hang on to their money and power - that is why they are rich and powerful.
I agree. However, I also have little faith that an attempt to drag everyone up by increasing GDP will eliminate poverty. If poverty can't be eliminated, how do we decide (if anyone could ever possibly make such a decision) who should remain in poverty and who shouldn't? Wouldn't our efforts be best directed towards ensuring a paradigm shift away from "more is better"?
I understand where you are coming from, but feel for the vast majority of the earth's population more is certainly better.
And I think that is is much more conceivable that we will be able to increase wealth by a factor of ten than that the paradigm shift you suggest will occur.
Again, I agree with your last point, with two provisos. I don't think that there is any likelihood of increasing real wealth by a factor of 10. Also, if resource shortages bite enough, then a paradigm shift would become more likely, in my opinion. Since I don't think it's possible to remove the main effects of poverty without a paradigm shift, then the future looks dire for many.
I do not understand the source of this claim. Electric motors are light but batteries are extremely heavy compared to gas tanks. We might save some steel, but I think that this savings will be more than compensated by increasing use of other (probably much rarer) materials.
I was referring to the weight of the actual structure of the car, rather than the weight including batteries.
It is really the hybrids which are the real heavyweights though, as they also have to lug around a gas tank and an ICC and gearbox.
A lot depends for electric cars on how much range and acceleration you want.
Here is the top of the range OX:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/03/04/geneva-08-th-nk-announces-the-ox...
So at 3300lbs it is no featherweight.
As for the use of rare materials, please see my links I posted above on the availability of lithium.
Clearly we don't have enough biomass to fuel a huge number of biomass to liquid plants. If we did, the it is interesting to think about what scale of a project it would be to provide enough biofuel for all the cars we have in the US today.
In the US, there are about 80% as many cars as people. I suspect that US cars will use a little more fuel than assumed in the post, partly because we drive a lot, and partly because our cars are less fuel efficient. If the adjustment for cars per people and for higher mileage offset, we might need one plant of the size you saw for every 15,000 US residents.
This means a city of 1,000,000 people would have to have the equivalent of 67 plants, and a city of 15,000 residents would need its own plant. Something tells me that the cost of this would be astronomical, if there were no other impediments.
Gail, that is why no-one is proposing it.
See EP's comments on how the electricity produced could power around 150,000 cars - and since you could produce it locally it would also reduce your concerns about transporting power around on the grid.
The biodiesel produced would help power agricultural equipment and so on, areas where many, including I believe including yourself, have expressed concerns about the possibility of finding an adequate replacement for oil.
See correction above - the electric power output figures are clearly impossible given the inputs. One or the other is an error (I'm guessing the electric output, as the liquid output is consistent).
We do not have to find replacement for all the mineral oil at once. Instead, we should build a series of synthetic oil technoligies like the above described BTL and let the market choose the best one based on price of the ingredients.
But of course, we should also take care that all of the oil and coal is mined out. If we really did mine these efficiently, we could increase the atmospheric CO2 10times and that would greatly accelerate production of the feedstock.
But with the current wasteful methods of oil extraction using water flooding, I doubt that we will be able to get the necessary carbon out of the ground. Doubling CO2 can improve biomass growth rate by 50% to 80% depending on the kind of wood. This would make the same land produce diesel for 22,500 to 27,000 cars by the end of the century.
Just off the top of my head: You could easily get 6,800 tons of switchgrass off of a sq. mile in N Florida. That would be just a tad light of 11 tons/acre. Ten sq mile = 1 plant.
200 miles X 200 miles = 40,000 sq miles = 4,000 plants. 180,000 MW? 60 Million Cars?
I've been quite impressed with the potential of gasification for a couple of years. I bought a Tom's Wood Stove and modifed it for wind protection, 100 hour battery, ability to support heavy pots and continuous wood feed. It impresses visitors and the charcoal goes on to the garden. Separately I plan to try to run a small engine from the scrubbed gases from airless heating of chaff (ie chopped hay) and sawdust.
This suggests the next step for gasification technology must be to make it smaller and portable. That way it becomes almost like foraging or hunter-gathering. A patch of fire hazard unused land can be mulched and fed into the portable gasifier with charcoal spread back onto the soil. Electrical output can charge batteries. However the accepted wisdom is that the next step of Fischer Tropsch conversion requires a monolithic facility with a huge capital cost and large daily throughput.
The alternative proposal has been to make pyrolysis oil at sawmills or remote sites then take it away by tanker truck. From what I understand that oil seems to have water bound fractions that make it unsuitable for FT. Therefore the challenge seems to be miniaturised 'dry' FT. Maybe that's where Choren should direct their efforts.
It's unsuitable for direct F-T because it's made of complex molecules, but pyrolysis oil could be gasified with ease. However, bulk gasification is probably not the most efficient method of making motor fuels from pyrolysis oils. GCC had an item recently on work to stabilize bio-oils for refining by more standard methods, unfortunately there were no details.
this confirms what many of us know to be the case: 1- there is no truly scaleable replacement for gasoline, 2. electrification of our transportation system is absolutely a necessity. I enjoy entertaining the idea of this plant being more of a biomass waste to energy plant, almost a super incinerator, but the conversion to liquid fuels demolishes the EROI. Quick calculations - the annual output of this plant will supply 1/5 of the daily US gasoline consumption, or 1/5 of 1/365 of the annual US consumption. OUCH.
There's a lot more than 68,000 dry tons of stuff available each year in the USA. Municipal solid waste alone comes to roughly a quarter billion tons (not dry, and not all combustible), and the eliminated landfill costs (with possible recycling of metals sifted out of the ash) might pay for a lot of it.
I'm not sure how you define "true waste". Waste is a human invented term; in our ecosystem, everything gets used and recycled. With BTL, or any system that uses biomass to extract the energy, will end up destroying some of that biomass (converting it, ultimately, to heat) so that it can't be recycled into the earth. Don't you think it's impossible to not degrade soils by using processes such as this? If so, that may be why there are those who insist that using biomass for fuels can never be sustainable.
I'm not sure how you define "true waste".
As someone accurately pointed out above, where do you think our coal, oil, and natural gas came from in the first place? There are lots of areas - where if the biomass is allowed to grow unchecked - the depth of the topsoil increases. We don't see that too much anymore in the U.S., because we strip mine the soil. But take a piece of property, and just let it go. You will see biomass grow and die, year after year. The depth of the soil can increase over time, as carbon is pulled out of the air and put in the ground. It can be a slow process, to be sure, but it is certainly possible to use biomass without degrading soils.
Or do you not believe that organic agriculture can be sustainable on any scale? After all, you are pulling biomass off the earth, therefore it must not be sustainable?
That soil building process is very slow but I'm not sure what you're suggesting. That it is alright to expropriate some biomass because there are enough areas that are building soil elsewhere? If so, how much is sustainable? Has anyone looked at that first, before launching into yet another way to keep our cars running?
Organic agriculture can be sustainable, though I don't know if much is. The key would be to ensure that it all gets recycled locally. Grow, eat and shit locally. Doesn't sound that hard, actually, but don't leave fields bare.
As for the oil, coal and gas, why do you think it was OK to use that?
So what is "true waste"?
Heat radiated to space, maybe. That's the closest thing to "true waste" I can think of.
As for the oil, coal and gas, why do you think it was OK to use that?
That is ancient, buried biomass. You know, the kind of biomass that would appear to be in excess. The kind that people keep claiming doesn't exist. The point is, the existence of all that coal and oil demonstrates that excess biomass occurs.
I concur.
And not only was this waste once biomass, the corresponding CO2 was also in the atmosphere, up to the 12 time the current concentrations.
Moreover, this waste now becomes a treasure because of the quality of stored energy.
One of the densiest chemical sources of energy is Oil. It gas 300 times the energy density of lead-acid batteries. It can be distributed almost without loses, your gas tank can be recharged without loses, it keeps stored for months without loses. It cannot be burned without loses, due to thermodynamics, but we can push those limits much farther than they currently are. And remember, electricity already incured the burning loses in the power station.
That's why any viable synthetic oil technology should be highly considered as the best battery ever invented.
But that biomass was buried and not harming the environment. That was the point I was making. Whether it can be classified as excess or not, I don't know, since one could regard it as "nature's way" of removing a lot of CO2, so humans could evolve. (I know, nature has no intentions, it was poetic license). But the existence of a huge amount of excess biomass from millions of years ago, does not mean that, in our current environment - the one that matters to us - there is excess biomass just waiting for us to classify it as "true waste". We've reached some, possibly precarious, balance and are possibly tipping it too far in the wrong direction. Why don't we figure out a way to use what energy we can safely pull from nature sustainably instead of trying to go one better?
But that biomass was buried and not harming the environment.
I don't see the relevance to your argument about biomass harvesting being unsustainable.
Why don't we figure out a way to use what energy we can safely pull from nature sustainably instead of trying to go one better?
That's exactly what we are doing.
I grew up on a farm. If we didn't keep the pastures maintained, they would get overgrown with biomass. They would fill up with brush, blackberry bushes, and eventually trees. Biomass would accumulate. I have seen it with my own eyes, and I have seen enormous piles that people are trying to get rid of. So when people try to tell me there is no excess biomass, I have to laugh because they don't know what the heck they are talking about. The irony is that the same people who argue that there is no excess biomass will argue that there are too many humans. Hmm....
I don't see the relevance to your argument about biomass harvesting being unsustainable.
The relevance was to the use of fossil fuels and leaving that buried carbon buried.
So when people try to tell me there is no excess biomass, I have to laugh because they don't know what the heck they are talking about.
Your anecdote doesn't prove that there is excess biomass, it only proves that leaving land alone will let nature make use of that land. Was it excess because you had to clear it, then replace it with fertilizer and mulch to start to use that land the way you'd prefer? The way you portray it, excess biomass would completely smother the earth if humans left the earth alone. Just because some other species are making use of what you have left alone, that doesn't mean those other species are "excess". And I'm not talking about morality but about getting to a sustainable system where the earth can meet our reasonable needs as well as the needs of other species (indirectly benefiting us).
The relevance was to the use of fossil fuels and leaving that buried carbon buried.
Your argument was "in our ecosystem, everything gets used and recycled." Buried coal and oil contradict that argument - which is the point. Your "why should we use them" tangent is irrelevant.
The way you portray it, excess biomass would completely smother the earth if humans left the earth alone.
Again, where do you think all of that coal and oil came from? Indeed, if humans left the earth alone, carbon would be sequestered in plants, and it would end up as more coal and oil.
Just because some other species are making use of what you have left alone, that doesn't mean those other species are "excess".
It's their residues that are excess, not the species themselves. The residues are built up out of atmospheric carbon. I don't suppose you think there are too many people, though? After all, there is no excess biomass, and "too many people" would represent excess biomass. Per your definition, there can't be too many people, as that implies an excess.
I knew when I put this essay up there, a certain segment would shout, because there are some who argue that nothing at all is sustainable, and there can be no solutions except a massive die-off. But all of these extremists are busy using fossil fuels today, and most of them aren't doing much except shouting useless comments from the sidelines.
This is a move in the direction of something more sustainable. Go figure that some people would be upset. Of course if cancer is cured tomorrow, the same people will be upset because of the population implications.
Robert, I wondered if in the roughest approximation you could put any figures on the excess biomass available for such use without depleting the soil?
Is it 10%, 20%, 30%?
I am just trying to get some sort of handle on the magnitude of the available resource.
Thanks again for your article.
Dave, it is going to be highly dependent on the specific crop. Some don't take up a lot of nutrients, and leave a lot of roots in the ground. You could harvest a lot more of something like that than something that ends up soaking a lot of nutrients out of the ground, or something that is highly erosive.
Also:
If it were possible to grow sugarcane in the US then I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that growing sugarcane *adds* to the soil fertility. Perhaps sugarcane as a "fallow" crop?
They grow quite a bit in Louisiana, and in fact I had that in mind when I wrote that. Sugar cane is pretty easy on the soil, but I recently confirmed that it is a fallacy that it adds to soil fertility. Some cousins of sugar cane fix nitrogen, but a plant biologist who works on sugar cane told me that sugar cane itself does not fix nitrogen.
Your "why should we use them" tangent is irrelevant.
Are you saying that we should use whatever resources we can lay our hands on, at whatever rate we want, regardless of the effect? I'm sure that can't be what you mean, but it looks like that's what you mean.
Indeed, if humans left the earth alone, carbon would be sequestered in plants, and it would end up as more coal and oil.
I'm still not sure why that would be regarded as excess.
It's their residues that are excess, not the species themselves.
What are the residues of trees and bushes and why are they regarded as "excess"? Excess to what?
Per your definition, there can't be too many people, as that implies an excess.
Right, now we get down to it. Of course, the measure of excess is a human thing. The earth doesn't care, and evolution or migration takes care of new niches. From a human point of view, there can be too many people and, should there be too many for the resources available at any point in time, that number will decline, with their nutrients and their resources being used by other species.
So what is your definition of excess, and what is "true waste"?
Are you saying that we should use whatever resources we can lay our hands on, at whatever rate we want, regardless of the effect?
Are we speaking the same language here? Of course that's not what I am saying. I am saying that this isn't relevant to the question you were asking, anymore than if you were asking if murder is wrong. If I say that's irrelevant, it doesn't mean that I am arguing that murder is OK.
I'm still not sure why that would be regarded as excess.
They are excess in that the planet got along just fine while they were buried. In other words, turning plants into coal and burying it caused no irreparable harm. Taking some of today's plants instead and recycling them back to fuel is similar in principle, except you are just recycling today's carbon emissions (whereas in the case of coal you are releasing ancient, sequestered fossil carbon, which can screw up the climate).
What are the residues of trees and bushes and why are they regarded as "excess"? Excess to what?
Excess to what was there before the plant grew. Let's say your soil elevation is set to zero inches. Over time, as those plants grow and die, that soil elevation will increase due to the carbon that is being pulled from the air and sequestered in the soil. What I am saying is that you can grab a portion of that carbon for other uses without depleting the soil.
So what is your definition of excess, and what is "true waste"?
What can be harvested in a sustainable manner. If I grow a field of grass, harvest a portion, burn it, and return the ash, is that sustainble? It has a good chance to be. The carbon that I burned was carbon that had been pulled out of the air, not the soil.
If I say that's irrelevant, it doesn't mean that I am arguing that murder is OK.
True, but offering reasons why the fossil fuels should not have been pulled out in the first place is not irrelevant because effects on our habitat should always be considered in anything we do. I'm not sure that has been done at Choren, in advance of trying to make some money out of using what some people consider waste.
In other words, turning plants into coal and burying it caused no irreparable harm.
From the earth's point of view that will always be the case. Humans weren't around when this stuff started to be formed but I agree that it seems that us humans did OK out of that one (except that we started to use it).
Excess to what was there before the plant grew. ... What I am saying is that you can grab a portion of that carbon for other uses without depleting the soil.
That's not a great definition of excess, since the produce of some acquired or reclaimed farmland could be so regarded. And where is the evidence that grabbing a portion of the carbon and nutrients from the soil doesn't deplete it? Some organic growers claim that it's impossible to grow food in a sustainable way, without external inputs. I hope that's not true but, if it is, then there is no portion of the soil's goodness that you could capture sustainably.
If I grow a field of grass, harvest a portion, burn it, and return the ash, is that sustainble?
Is that what Choren is doing? That would certainly be a lot better than nothing but what happened to the nutrients, the microbes and the life within the soil? And how much was soil erosion increased by the harvesting/reseeding process? I've noticed that mulch-mowing my lawn (when I had one) improved the condition of the lawn, over removing the mowed grass. I don't know if just returning most of the carbon would have had the same effect.
I'm not sure that has been done at Choren, in advance of trying to make some money out of using what some people consider waste.
I presume you have not read the LCA?
And where is the evidence that grabbing a portion of the carbon and nutrients from the soil doesn't deplete it?
From the chemical analysis of the biomass, you can tell exactly what was removed.
Is that what Choren is doing?
I got the exact same question on my blog. Here is my answer:
what happened to the nutrients, the microbes and the life within the soil?
Since you aren't harvesting the soil, nothing happened to them. As long as you aren't strip-mining the soil, why would you expect anything to happen to them?
I presume you have not read the LCA?
Good guess! However, from the summary link you provided, I'm not sure that all environmental impacts have been taken into account (e.g. soil degradation). Having said that, it does look as though some reasonable analysis has been done, even though the summary concentrates on comparisons with normal diesel, rather than absolutes. I.e. will SunDiesel still have detrimental impacts?
From the chemical analysis of the biomass, you can tell exactly what was removed.
And? Does that somehow show no soil degradation?
On my recent trip to India, I saw that they capture the ash from burning bagasse, mix it with compost derived from one of the waste streams, and give it all back to the farmer as fertilizer to put back on the soil.
That sounds like a positive step. But I guess the confidentiality agreement means you can't say if the Choren plant is doing, or planning to do, that.
Since you aren't harvesting the soil, nothing happened to them.
How do you know? What is the harvesting method and how does that (possibly temporary) destruction or degradation of a habitat affect the habitat, long term? It may be that it's difficult to answer that question in the short term, but can we afford to wait for the long term experimental observations?
This may seem finicky and trivial to you but I think we've made too many assumptions about what effect our actions have on the place we live (often because they seem minor). If we continue to make those assumptions as we try to continue economic growth, then we may be literally dicing with death.
Does that somehow show no soil degradation?
I guess since you keep asking me for a definition of excess, I am going to have to ask you to define degradation. It means something specific to me, and what they are doing doesn't degrade soil. Maybe it means something different to you, so could you tell me how you personally would measure soil degradation?
Anything that reduces the ability of the soil to produce food for us and habitats for other species that are in integral part of the eco-system we inhabit. This may include the reduction of organic matter, the reduction or change in proportions of minerals and other important compounds, the compaction of the soil layers, and the reduction or change in the species that keep the soil, itself, alive and active.
Technofix fetishists see a thriving plant community as "excess biomass" and coal & petroleum as "true waste" because they don't understand biogeochemical cycling dynamics nor are they capable of taking an ecocentric view on a biospheric scale. This lack of understanding & perspective is due to successful socialization & limited access to education. Relationships between the biosphere, lithosphere, atmosphere & hydrosphere are beyond them, as they narrowly fixate on making $$ in a buisness as usual economy. Fortunately, that economomy is falling into ruin all around them as cheap energy becomes rapidly depleted. The techno-fetishists are panicing as the social order they are so well socialized & attuned to collapses. Hence the shrill defenses we see of technology that only hastens the demise of all they hold dear - and of all that's natural & wonderful they appear to hate.
Stereotype much?
Its a question of scale. We are currently oxidising around 1 million years worth of fossilized "waste" every year. I take this to mean that we are consuming past-era biological "waste" around 1 million times faster than the sustainable rate. On that measure, it is clear that digging into the biomass currently produced is going to be either i) ecologically unsustainable or ii) insignificant in terms of extra energy supply.
Although I utterly reject his nihilistic philosophy, I think darwindog is dead right about the ecocidal implications of all such attempts to put biomass up the chimney.
We have got to get real about reducing our consumption of all forms of fossil energy without recourse to pseudo-new sources.
My view only appears nihilistic from the narrowly humanist perspective. I take the long view and as such am an optimist. I believe that biodiversity will recover once the perterbating influence of the ecocidal ape has been mitigated by extinction. My alliegance is to the biosphere not to some group selectionist fantasy about the "good of the species." And of course I am correct about using biomass as fuel being futile, insignificant and environmentally counterproductive.
Brilliant presentation thanks Robert !
That said … those folks cannot see the end of the ICE ! From top of my head and cutting all corners there are … I “can see at least 3 times” the numbers of vehicles run on electricity from the same amount of wood. And at an entirely different and cheaper cost / process!
In the rearview mirror I see they have been planning this since way back “in a different time of 1998” …. For a different scenario, which never actually came around”. My 2 nickels only and ... forget it .... ehhh EROEI .... ehh never mind
As I see it, CHOREN came online just "between reality" neither fish nor bird...
This may be of interest. It is from an article by David Strahan, How do you solve a problem like jet fuel?
In theory you could increase biomass yield by increasing the speed of the carbon cycle, or equivalently the fraction of solar energy captured by photosynthesis. However that won't be done by intensive farming as we know it since it is a major net energy loser courtesy of fossil fuels. At some point there will have to be an optimum mix of somewhat intensive farming for food, low input farming or foraging for BTL and direct sunlight capture via thermal and PV. The problems are how do we get there from here and how many people will it support?
Very good point. Accelerate the carbon cycle!
Photosynthesis needs 3 ingredients:
- H2O
- light e-nergy
- CO2
Photosynthesis: 6H2O + 6C02 + e = H12C6O6 + 6O2
Outside of deserts, the speed of carbon cycle is limited by the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Leaves are soaked with water, sun delivers constant stream of energy but the CO2 molecules are hard to come by.
Increase of atmospheric CO2 indeed is teh biggest factor in increase of the photosynthesis rate and thus the whole carbon cycle
Indeed an interesting point - thx for elaborating
CO2 is not always the limiting nutrient; it can be nitrate, phosphate, potash or water.
In rain forests, light can be the limit. Increased CO2 can also promote low-biomass vines over high-biomass trees. And if the oceans acidify to the point where carbonate-shelled organisms can't grow, what happens to their productivity?
None of this is simple.
I am glad you brought these points, and there is answer to them.
1. Minerals: Nutrients are trace elements which are much easier to supply than CO2. The easiest way is to distribute the residuals (ashes) after the bopmass processing back to the soil, but perhaps there are even easier and cheaper ways.
The nitrates, for instance, can be supplied via planting bean plants (from the fabacae family), it if they are not supplied via acid rain.
2. Light: In rainforests, light is limit the growth of lower canopy. Wines are off mark, because they are middle to lower canopy. The tops of the trees get the light first and the total increase in biomass is positive. But you noticed one interesting paradox; that althought lower canopy is light-limited, higher CO2 actually fosters growth in some of them (e.g. vines)!
3. Water: I mentioned "outside desert". But series of research papers suprisingly found, that water-limited plants not only grow faster at higher CO2 concentrations; The growth acceleration is actually higher than well watered samples.
4. Oceans: Oceans are the strongest arguments for CO2. They will sure become more acidic. But because they are alkaline now, it will actually make them more liveable for most if not all biosphere. Actually, the biggest terrestrial biomass increase per additional 1ppm of CO2 concentration comes from phytoplankton and algae, which are at the botom of oceanic food chain.
Trees absorbing less CO2 as world warms, study finds
Ocean Plant Life Slows Down And Absorbs Less Carbon
Oceans soaking up less carbon
Rube Goldberg lives. Just looking at this mess tells me that the real EROEI is negative. It's not just the hardware that requires oil, natural gas and coal, but all of the people using fossil fuels to get to work, the factories, their heating and lighting, and all of the international transportation in the parts, sales, marketing, installation, and on and on. Facing Peak Oil means conservation, not wasting the energy endowment.
The problem with this process is that it is too expensive to be an on site installation on a farm or saw mill. To be competitive, it has to be scaled up to reduce operating costs, which means the biomass must be trucked in from far away, and then the waste products must be trucked far away to be disposed of. Due the to high temperature gasification, the ash turns to glass, and has no fertilizer properties. The benefit is you can use coal rich in heavy metals and they will be trapped safely in the glass.
As the cost of oil, fertilizer, stainless steel and train labor rise, so will the cost of operating this plant giving it rather flat profit margins. This plant is really just a coal to liquids plant in disguise, since this is the only biomass cheap enough to converted this way. Waste wood and crops could be added to the mix, but it will not boost profit margins except by possibly improving process efficiency or reducing emissions.
In my opinion, only a low temperature process that produces valuable charcoal fertilizer in addition to liquid fuel and electricty can be sustainable. Without the char returned to the site of harvest, our soils will slowly lose carbon and their ability to hold nutrients. We must fertilize our wood land just as we do our crop land. Otherwise you are just mining the soil to exaustion.
I believe a low temperature gasification + hot charcoal gas filtering can be made affordable for average saw mill or farm with increasing returns as the price of fertilizer and fuel rise, but presently there is no market for charcoal fertilizer, so that type of system is on the back burner.
You are quite right.
Perhaps a better way to answer it answer:
1. I calculated the process EROI = 9.06 few posts above.
Please point error in my calculations or kindly receive this correction.
2. Of course, considering all the people, their lighting, driving, eating and so on, EROI = 1, because that's all what's needed. In other words, The whole point for making energy is to spend it and not to stockpile it.
- To the charcoal ferilization I would add, that it is better to burn all available carbon of the charcoal, reduce it to much lighter ashes and then recycle it as fertilizer.
- Our soil can lose all the carbon it has and still remains a fertile soil. The carbon is transported to the trees via air as CO2.
- The ash does contain a lot of glass, but not glass alone. At higher temperature, some minerals are burned and have to be distributed via air or scrubbed from the exhaust.
My idea is to conserve fossil fuels to keep people alive longer.
LoL You "troll." That's what the frightened techno-fix fetishists will call you when you point out their foolishness. Well socialized blog-bonded regs will circle the wagons & go into attack mode for your trouble. It's the predictably apeish thing to do, after all.
Yep, I have noticed that many "scientists" are ideologues. And you are right about the response. As a political scientist I should know better.
So which part of the LCA convinced you that the EROEI is negative? It's not, incidentally. But of course the reason for that should be readily obvious.
I am sure you guys read the LCA, right? I mean, if I thought a process wasn't sustainable, the first thing I would go after is the LCA. Where do you feel it failed?
To repeat, it's not just the hardware that requires oil, natural gas and coal, but all of the people using fossil fuels to get to work, the factories, their heating and lighting, and all of the international transportation in the parts, sales, marketing, installation, and on and on. Need I go on and on? I can do it, that is, go on and on, but I'm sure you can figure it out yourself. The question is, when are the technofixers really going to be honest about EROEI. And when are the technofixers going to even begin to think about the concept of opportunity costs, ie, what opportunities are lost with this approach, ie, what else can you do with the biomass. One thing is very certain. You won't be able to run this plant without oil, and oil is running out fast, so the life cycle for this plant is very, very short, and the end for all of us is coming quicker because the technofixers are using up oil on projects that have a very short life span and will just deplete oil faster.
Need I go on and on? I can do it, that is, go on and on, but I'm sure you can figure it out yourself.
Well you know, that's why we have things like LCAs - to actually go in and quantify these things. Nobody can just look at this process and say the EROEI is bad based on their "gut feel." You have to actually analyze the inputs and outputs. When you do so, you will get an actual EROEI.
One thing is very certain. You won't be able to run this plant without oil...
That's just the thing. If the EROEI is good enough, of course you will. The reason is that you could start to cannibalize the outputs to run the inputs. This is why I tell people they are wrong when they suggest that natural gas is a limitation for tar sands. Since tar sands production gives oil as an output, it can be used as an input given the EROEI. (Water, on the other hand, is a real limiting factor in tar sands production).
The "on and on" stuff refers to all of the energy inputs that are not accounted for BEFORE LCA, as noted above, and that is just a fraction of all of these energy inputs, and add to that, all of the people working on all of the phases in the development, construction, ore mining, trains, trucks, commuting to work, 50,000 parts transported from all over the world, advertising, factories, secretaries, etc, etc. for these contraptions and then........the salaries of EVERYONE........ when they spend salaries, they consume oil, natural gas, and coal on everything they buy etc. We are now at Peak Oil, according to everyone, even Yergin. The contraption that you are promoting is going to die a quick death as soon as oil production begins to decline -- because the capital costs will be enormous and because the international transportation of the high tech parts that run that contraption will end. And, your contraption is going to rust away...after consuming a lot of oil, natural gas, and coal in it's development, construction, operations, and maintenance. You will not have enough contraptions and biomass to produce enough oil to keep things going. Will your contraption produce enough liquid fuel to run tractors/combines, trucks, loading equipment, and what is needed for the electric grid, and that is just the start. Not even a small fraction. When you do your LSA, factor in that you have about 2-5 years before your contraption bogs down. Look at this for example: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3919#more
When you do your LSA, factor in that you have about 2-5 years before your contraption bogs down.
Couple of things. First, it's an LCA, not an LSA. Second, I can see that you still haven't read it, as it does in fact attempt to quantify those "on and on" issues. If you take the time to read it, perhaps you can comment from a more knowledgeable position, instead of continuing to shoot from the hip. Third, it's not "my" contraption. I just went over to have a look at a first of a kind technology.
Fourth, your link refers to electrical power. Since Choren's plant actually produces liquid fuel, and it's liquid fuel that runs the trucks that bring the biomass to the plant, then you have an apples and oranges comparison. In the example of the wind turbines, 1). The output is intermittent; and 2). It is electrical, which means it can't run a lot of the machinery required to build it.
I did read the LCA, and it does not take into account all of the energy inputs, as discussed above in my posts. No one counts these energy inputs, for example, this assessment has never been done for the EROEI for oil production. Most "scientists" have never even thought about it. This is the main reason that we will have a far faster decline in oil production than anyone realizes -- we are using far more energy to produce energy than anyone has calculated. I will address this issue in the update of my Peak Oil report. out in a few days.
There are very heavy electric power lines feeding the motors, lights, and switches in the contraption you are promoting and defending. Even if you take liquid fuel from your contraption and use it to generate electricity, when the power grid fails so to will the contraption. Without electric power, nothing will function and no parts will be delivered for plant maintenance, and you can be sure that the high tech nature of this contraption operates on some 50,000 parts, many of which fail or wear and need replacement. This too is why oil production will stop quickly. These are complex processes that depend on parts from many other profit making companies that operate all over the world and ship parts via air freight and Fedex. The house of cards will go down quickly. BTW, I am calling the plant a contraption, because that is what it is, just another high tech contraption that will fail, and before it does, it will consume lots of valuable fossil fuel energy: precious oil, natural gas, and coal. Best, Clifford J. Wirth
Over 120 comments and no one pointed out that those 45 MW are thermal, not electric. Electrical output would be around 12 to 15 MW.
You didn't notice that at least two people noted that, and I noted that the 45 MW figure exceeds the energy input in the biomass.
These biofuel startups will give you the maximum value for each atttribute of operation, with each recorded under a different set of process variables. While each number by itself might possibly be correct, together they make up an elaborate lie.
The best way to burn wood is to mix it with coal; it ruduces pollution. You want synthetic diesel? Make it from stranded/flared natural gas which is free and plentyful.