0
votes

Bioelectriciy better than ethanol for transportation?

posted May 8, 2009 - 8:06am
Bioelectriciy better than ethanol for transportation?

Bioelectriciy better than ethanol for transportation?


Image: Wikipedia

Brazil does Sugarcane. For real.

A timely report appears in Sciencexpress today. 8 May 2009

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/1168885v1.pdf

The report deals with the energy trade-offs of efficiency, emissions, food costs in the comparison of transportation energy.

"Greater Transportation Energy and GHG Offsets from Bioelectricity Than Ethanol"
By: J. E. Campbell, D. B. Lobell, C. B. Field

The report attempts to quantify more clearly the use of land for production of biofuel.

The report shows that ethanol does not perform as well as bioelectric transportation methods for the same area units of land use.

The authors comparisons detail that bioelectricity from battery electric vehicles is more efficient than using the biomass converted to biofuel (ethanol) and burned in the internal combustion engine vehicles. The authors are ignoring any predictions on which of the two systems, battery electric or combustion biofuels will reach maturity first.

Image: Wikipedia -- corn, land use, young shoots

Both pathways have potential -- and also have infrastructure demands. Using the electrical grid instead of the liquid biofuel distribution system has some advantages in bypassing the conversion of biomass to ethanol as opposed to direct biomass combustion, or joint incineration with coal. In neither case is any practical Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS)scenario fully developed. though it is given token reference in the report.

The report has current mechanisms analyzed, with bioelectricity yielding 81% MORE Kilometers per land unit, and 108% more emission offsets than land used for cellulosic ethenol.

The authors use of coal co-burning for electricity production does not balance well with the nonexistence of evaluated CCS mechanisms although they cleary state electrical advantage.


Switchgrass
image: wikipedia


SWITCHGRASS
Images-- Wikipedia

Using biofuels to produce electricity does not overload the carbon emissions since the Carbon in the biostock (Corn, Switchgrass, Willows, sugarcane ) is removed from the air by the plant in the first place to essentially reach "carbon-emission" neutrality.

Co-burning with coal DOES NOT reach carbon emission neutrality.

Read the report at Sciencexpress.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/1168885v1.pdf



Comments

bio-electricity

Thanks for the article. One thought springs to mind: has a comparison been done with just covering the same land with solar cells? I mean, thermal efficiency of any heat to electricity generator is really poor. Even nuclear power stations are just glorified kettles! Do they really call it bio-electricity? That's confusing as bioelectricity is the stuff we produce in our nerve cells all the time. Shit... they might plug us in instead! ;-) Join Xomba Here

Brazil, long ago ended its thurst for oil - With Sugar Cane

+1 Brazil has been relying on sugar cane for over 25 years. And Brazil is a big country. My experience with Bio-fuel over gasoline is that folks I know who have used both have all said the same thing, "Bio-fuel cost more, you get less mileage, and engine-thrust is lacking with bio-fuel. Very good information. Hope all is well, Les! If you liked this posting why not go to the YELLOW BOX at the top right of this piece and vote -- thank you. Creating A World That Works For All - the Common Way Institute (Portland, OR) http://www.commonway.org Make Money Writing $$$: http://www.xomba.com/referral/7777ea2e ↑ Grab this Headline Animator

 Visit: "Along The Merry Way..." - Good Reading Every Day  

 

You can't help but note the direct combustion of biomass

I do not know how many coal company [say Peabody] biomass stockholders would be consumed to get out of them the airborne carbon they have ingested, or at what efficiency. Perhaps the combustion of Soylent Green would work? I jest, of course. From a direct biomass combustion to electricity without co-burning is naturally more efficient over all than using the microbes to transform the feedstock. My interest in the liquid form is similar to yours, and I agree fossil Natural Gas can make the transition -- but has to be ended as carbon neutral biofuels can take over. Then possibly ended again as we meet the need to remove CO2 from the air, not just neutralize or balance what is there. The heat death cometh. Obama is deceiving himself, and the people; not playing straight, or setting it out for the citizenry. Fossil C use without CCS (sequestration and storage) must be abandoned. The way to fund the whole enterprise is to Tax Carbon and 100% dividend. I am in favor of algae, since I think they can be the best solar bionanomachines for nearly direct co2 to diesel with sunlight. Thanks for you comment!

Biomass

I see a mixture of all fuel technologies as the answer. I'm fond of gas to liquids, making gasoline from natural gas as the bridge, until biofuels get it together with the right bacterial strains to digest switchgrass, etc. Good article. Join Xomba and get PAID to write Articles Like The One Above Get Paid To Shorten Addresses

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Post new comment

  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You can use BBCode tags in the text. URLs will automatically be converted to links.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <p> <br> <b> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <span> <object> <param> <embed> <table> <tr> <td> <div>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

Join Xomba Today

Do you like to write? Would you like to make a little extra money on the side? These people do. Join the Xomba community today.
Become a Member