Transformative Biomass Energy Benefits:

1
Transformative Biomass Energy Benefits
Technical Opportunities Challenges
Lee R. Lynd Thayer School of Engineering
Department of Biology Dartmouth College, Hanover,
New Hampshire, USA
Plenary Roundtable on Opportunities from Science
Technology Meeting of the National Council for
Science Environment
January 26, 2006
Washington DC
2
Transformative Biomass Energy Benefits What
Could be Achieved?
Mature process production technology, supported
by results of the Role of Biomass in Americas
Energy Future (RBAEF) project
3
Responsiveness to Societal Challenges
4
Transformative Biomass Energy Benefits - Not Just
I Think So
RBAEF project
Considers supports the possibility of biomass
fuels being a primary transport energy storage
medium - not a bit player, not only a transition
option
5
Transformative Biomass Energy Benefits - What do
we Need to Do?
Science Technology
Societal Policy
Conversion Technology
Overcoming the recalcitrance of cellulosic biomass
Biological
Non-biological
Product diversification
6
Biomass Processing Research Frontiers
7
Focusing Our Attention
The cost of processing, not feedstock, is the key
factor impeding cost-competitiveness
Feedstock
Representative Price
/GJ
Low-Cost Cellulosic Residues
0 to 30/dd ton
0 to 1.7
Cellulosic Energy Crops
35 to 50/dd ton
2 to 2.9
8
_____________
9
Cost Comparison SSCF with Advanced Cellulase vs
CBP
0.21
0.18
Cost of Biological Conversion (/gal
EtOH)
0.15
Utilities
0.12
Raw materials
9.85
Capital related
0.09
5.59
0.06
1.63
0.03
0.83
1.80
0.00
SSCF
CBP
Cellulase Production
Total
Plant scale, 5,000 tpd Hydrolysis conversion,
95 Fermentation yield, 95 Ethanol
concentration, 50 g/L Temp, 37oC
SSCF costs from RBAEF process models, 7 day
reaction time
Cellulase costs based on Wooley et al., 1999.
Lynd et. al., Curr. Opin. Biotechnol., 2005
10
Highly-Efficient Integrated Processing (mature
technology, one scenario)
Power 3.6
2
NH3 1
Steam 10
8
100
100
97
96
Feedstock
54
Ethanol
7
Solids 25
Liquid 16
2
9
6
4
21
26
Residue
WWT Sludge 1

Biogas 13
BIOLOGICAL
Ag Inputs (Farming, feedstock transport) 5
11
Scenario Comparison Fuel price variable, power
price constant, 5,000 tpd
0.04/kWh 0.20/lb protein 40/60 D/E 7.5 loan
rate
12
Scenario Comparison Fuel price variable, power
price constant, 5,000 tpd
Bioethanol (max fuels)
Bioethanol TC processing
TC Fuels
Power
0.04/kWh 0.20/lb protein 40/60 D/E 7.5 loan
rate
13
New Crops Cropping Systems
Land use is usually either held constant or
extrapolated in analyses of the role of biomass
energy production.
14
Lets Think Big
Miscanthus, One Seasons Growth Courtesy Steve
Long, University of Illinois
15
Integrating Feedstock Production Processing
Observations
The most attractive mature configurations for
biomass processing feature biological conversion
followed by gasification
Gasification features a reducing chemical
environment in which nitrogen - originating from
biomass feedstocks, microbial cells, or enzymes -
exists primarily as ammonia
N-recovery already practiced industrially - SASOL
recovers most of the nitrogen present in coal as
ammonia
16
Reimagining Biomass-Based Mobility Chains as if
Sustainability Energy Security Challenges Were
Important to Solve
CRP Land (30 MM)
U.S. Cropland (400 MM)
LDV
HDV
1,200
600
200
400
800
1,000
0
New Land Required (million acres)
These values do NOT capture benefits from
increased crop productivity due to new crops,
cropping practices rotations - likely gt VMT
increase
17
Approaches to Energy Planning Analysis
1. Bury our heads in the sand. Pretend that
energy challenges are not real or will go away.
2. Extrapolate current trends.
1 and 2 do not offer solutions to
sustainability and security challenges.
3 should be pursued but is too risky to rely on.
4 is the most sensible choice if it is assumed
that challenges associated with sustainability
and security are important to solve.