BIODIESEL for the CEBC

1
BIODIESEL for the CEBC CPE/CEBC NSF-REU
University of Kansas Summer 2004 Kate Wilbanks
and Dr. Susan Stagg-Williams

• Motivation for Research
• Since the introduction of the diesel engine,
  Rudolph Diesel intended to burn modified
  vegetable oils with the hope of furthering the
  development of agriculture in countries that used
  the engine. It is only in recent years that
  science is beginning to fully develop this
  purpose through biodiesel. In the past, the use
  of biodiesel has been discouraged due to its high
  cost compared to petroleum however, with an
  unsure and unstable petroleum availability,
  biodiesel has become a feasible option for a
  domestic renewable fuel source.
• There is environmental, economical, industrial
  and governmental motivation to increase the use
  of biodiesel.
• Environmental Motivation
• No sulfur or aromatic compounds.
• Reduced emissions in 3 of the 4 regulated
  categories total
• unburned hydrocarbons,carbon monoxide, and
  particulate matter.
• The growth of more vegetable plants consumes
  more carbon dioxide.
• Biodiesel is safer for people to breathe.
• Helps protect preserve natural resources.
• Non-toxic biodegradable.
• Economical Motivation
• Provide investments in innovation.
• New job creation manufacturing, procession,
  construction, distribution, marketing,

• Potential for Biodiesel through the CEBC
• Although using biodiesl is environmentally
  beneficial, the production process is not green.
  There are many areas in which the CEBC could
  research the improvement
• Increase Catalyst Activity
• Active Site Design Modeling
• Catalyst Characterization
• Catalyst Preparation
• Mesoporous Materials/Catalyst Supports
• Decreased Cost
• Process Modeling Optimization
• Scale-up Optimization
• Reaction Engineering
• Reactor Design Modeling
• Reduced Separation Cost
• Heterogeneous Catalysts
• Catalyst Separation
• Minimizing Saponification
• Expanded liquids/solvents
• Supercritical Fluids
• This would lead to a more environmentally and
  industrially beneficial production process for
  biodiesel.

• Initial Work
• Before beginning full fledge research, initial
  determinations need to be made.
• Solubility of products, reactants, supports
  catalysts in supercritical and CO2-expanded
  methanol.
• Solubility of products, reactants, supports
  catalysts in CO2-expanded glycerol.
• Economical analysis of potential savings using
  cheaper feedstocks.

Objective To determine the feasibility of
producing biodiesel through a novel
environmentally beneficial process using the
research and resources of the Center for
Environmental Beneficial Catalysis.
Compilation Modification of the Two Methods
There are advantages and disadvantages to both
methods. The esterification method requires no
capital investment and equipment modification
however, it requires an additional process step
during which the problems associated with
standard biodiesel production by
transesterification such as difficulty separating
glycerol and water spoilage could still be
present. The supercritical methanol method on the
other hand, is a single step process that can
also tolerate cheaper raw materials. However, it
requires significant capital investment in new
equipment and more operating costs associated
with holding the supercritical state. Some of
the problems associated with the esterification
method can be solved through the supercritical
methanol method. External mass transfer
limitations improve in supercritical fluids due
to their gas-like properties and water would have
negligible effect on the catalyst. However, the
energy and system requirements for supercritical
methanol are difficult and costly to scale-up.
Using pieces from each method would be
beneficial. A heterogeneous catalyst would
simplify the process. Using mesoporous supports
permits internal diffusion. The use of a
supercritical fluid would improve mass transfer
limitations and increased temperature has been
shown to increase yield. The use of supercritical
carbon dioxide expanded methanol or glycerol has
potential to provide the benefits of
supercritical fluids while also allowing milder
reaction requirements (temperature and pressure).

Acknowledgements The National Science
Foundation Research Experience for Undergraduates
Program The University of Kansas
References 1. Mbaraka, Isa K. Radu, Daiela R.,
Lin, Victor S.-Y. Shanks, Brent H. Journal of
Catalysis 219 (2003) 329-336 2. Kusdiana, Dadan
Saka, Shiro. Bioresource Technology 91 (2004)
289-295 3. www.ku.edu/cebc/