Page added on January 29, 2013
Pour a few handfuls of chopped-up corn stalks or switchgrass into a hopper. Heat rapidly. Funnel the resulting mixture through an intricate network of metal pipes and canisters.
Out the other end – drip, drip – comes a thick brown liquid that looks an awful lot like oil.
Called bio oil, it is not quite the same as what comes out of a well. But it is close enough that government scientists think the process, called fast pyrolysis, is a promising way for farmers to enhance energy security.
The room-size network of pipes and canisters is a pilot-scale reactor in Wyndmoor, at the eastern regional research center of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Scientists there are confident that, with some tweaking, they can turn any “biomass” – even manure – into oil that can be refined into gasoline or diesel fuel.
“We want to engineer this for the farm,” said Akwasi A. Boateng, the chemical engineer who is leading the effort for the Agricultural Research Service.
Agriculture has long been touted as a source of automotive fuel, the prime example being ethanol, to the tune of billions of gallons each year. But most U.S. ethanol is made from corn, grown through an energy-intense process that typically uses a lot of fertilizer. Critics also knock the use of corn for fuel because of the potential for raising food prices. And ethanol, no matter the source, is not fully compatible with the infrastructure for petroleum.
The goal of Boateng and his colleagues is to make oil, and ultimately gasoline, that is interchangeable with the traditional kind. And they would make it from nonfood crops such as switchgrass, which can be grown on lower-value land. Or from the inedible part of corn – the stalks and other residue called stover.
Farmers use stover to build up carbon in the soil, but that is not a very effective use of the material, said Robert C. Brown, director of the Bioeconomy Institute at Iowa State University.
Brown, who is familiar with the USDA research, said pyrolysis was potentially a much better use for stover and other agricultural by-products.
“Dr. Boateng’s work is producing the equivalent of an oil well,” Brown said.
The private sector is getting into the pyrolysis act as well, with several efforts toward commercialization under way.
One is Envergent, a joint venture between Honeywell-owned UOP and Ensyn, a Canadian company, that has built a demonstration plant in Hawaii.
Pyrolysis means heating something in the absence of oxygen so that it does not burn but decomposes, yielding a mixture of charcoal, gas, and oily liquid. It has been around at least since ancient Egypt, when it was used to make tar for sealing boats. But the ancients were performing slow pyrolysis, heating the material slowly in an enclosed pit – a process that does not yield much oil.
In the 1980s, scientists learned they could increase the yield of oily liquid by applying heat rapidly, hence the name fast pyrolysis. Yet, unlike oil from a well, pyrolysis oil contains oxygen, and thus cannot be readily processed in a traditional refinery.
Boateng is working with research chemist Charles Mullen, mechanical engineer Neil Goldberg, and others on refinements, such as using a catalyst, that would remove oxygen from the oil.
Boateng, a native of Ghana whose nickname is Kwesi, jokingly refers to the pilot plant as the Kwesinator, which can process about 10 pounds of material per hour. With a new $6.8 million USDA grant, the team is building a much bigger reactor that can be moved from farm to farm on a trailer.
That device would handle two tons a day, yielding about 300 gallons of oil, Boateng said. Someday he wants to build a full-scale reactor that would make 100 times that much oil, by taking in raw material from multiple farms in a 25-mile radius.
The material is heated rapidly by feeding it through a “fluidized bed,” a mix of gas and hot sand.
“The gas and the sand are behaving like a boiling liquid,” Boateng said.
Kevin Hicks, who oversees all biofuels research at the Wyndmoor research center, said bringing the reactor to the farm is key. It is much easier to make oil on site rather than trucking the grasses or corn stalks a long distance, as these raw materials are not very dense.
“The cost for transporting a ton of that stuff gets really high, so it just destroys the economics,” Hicks said.
Economics, after all, are what will determine if this process catches on in a big way. Boateng’s analysis suggests that pyrolysis oil can be cost-competitive with the traditional variety, though a lot depends on what raw feedstocks are available. And once there is demand, the cost of the materials goes up.
Helping the equation are the two other products of pyrolysis – the gas and the charcoal, more commonly called biochar. The Kwesinator runs on electricity, but the gas and charcoal could be burned to power the reactor – with an estimated energy efficiency of about 60 percent. And any leftover charcoal can be used to improve soil quality, much as the ancients did.
The team is working with more than a dozen academic and private-sector partners on the project, including the University of Delaware, Drexel University, Villanova University, the University of the Sciences, and Swarthmore College, where Boateng once taught engineering.
One goal of getting fuel from plants is to achieve carbon neutrality. The idea is that burning fuel does not result in a net gain of heat-trapping carbon in the atmosphere, because growing more plants will absorb it again.
But since some of the biochar would be returned to the soil, where it would remain for long periods, the USDA scientists argue that their process could be better than neutral.
“We like to think we’re carbon negative,” said Goldberg, the engineer.
A negative that could be a big positive.
8 Comments on "Turning agriculture into oil – bio oil, that is"
Hugh Culliton on Tue, 29th Jan 2013 2:29 pm
Carbon negative? You’re also energy-negative, you jerks! EROEI. Besides, in the coming years, even marginal land will be needed for food crops – not switchgrass for gas to keep the Buicks that no one will be able to afford rolling down the highways that are falling apart because there isn’t enough tax revenue to keep them fixed. Oy Vey!
BillT on Tue, 29th Jan 2013 2:56 pm
He ‘discovered’ moonshine methods..lol. Dream on. EROEI says that biofuels will disappear when the government money stream disappears. It would never have existed without tax and grant help from Uncle Sam. And a law requiring it be mixed with gasoline to make it ‘cleaner’. Fools are everywhere these days…
Beery on Tue, 29th Jan 2013 4:46 pm
As long as people need liquid fuels, EROEI doesn’t matter. They will fuel this kind of thing using fuels that are less transportable. We can keep going on about EROEI all we want, but it’s not going to change the fact that, when it comes to transportation, EROEI is meaningless.
The real problem for biofuels is competition from food crops. Biofuels are never going to produce the energy we need, because the land that grows them will be needed for food.
Plantagenet on Tue, 29th Jan 2013 6:05 pm
EROEI isn’t meaningless except in the phony world of government spending.
Kenz300 on Tue, 29th Jan 2013 6:45 pm
Biofuels can now be made from trash or waste.
This makes the inputs to the process very inexpensive since the trash is already being collected.
Every landfill can now be converted to produce biofuels, energy and recycled raw materials for new products.
This is more sustainable than burying the waste.
autonomous on Tue, 29th Jan 2013 9:23 pm
Is the EROEI (or net energy value) for bio-oil higher than fossil-based gasoline?
“The NEV is 1.09 MJ km-1 for pyrolysis-derived gasoline and 0.92 MJ km-1 for pyrolysis-derived diesel, both higher than the NEV for conventional fossil-based gasoline of -1.2 MJ km-1. A positive number indicates that there is more energy in the fuel than is used to create it – or a positive gain in total energy. Note the negative number for fossil-based gasoline indicating a net loss of energy. The gain in energy for biomass-based fuels is a major reason why this technology is being considered.”
http://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/pyrolysis_to_produce_gasoline_and_biodiesel
“On a weight basis, 60 to 80% of the incoming biomass is converted to bio-oil, depending on the conversion process and the type of biomass feedstock being converted. The char and gases can be used as fuel to provide heat to dry the incoming biomass feedstock and to run the pyrolysis conversion process. If the incoming biomass has less than about 50% moisture content, there may be residual heat available for other industrial heat applications. Alternatively, the char can potentially be sold for higher-value uses (e.g., for the production of activated carbon, various chemicals, or charcoal).”
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/tmillett/course/geog_304B/pub34.pdf
DC on Tue, 29th Jan 2013 10:11 pm
Sorry Ken, to have to remind you, yet again, but the energy embodied in that trash or waste is anything but ‘inexpensive’. The ‘inputs’ in this case are extremely high energy trash and waste moved around at no small expenses with guess what, oil, will never create new ‘net’ energy. The feedstock for all these schemes is 100% reliant on massive oil flows continuing infinitly into the future, in big-ags case, they use 9 units of oil to make 1 unit of food.
My math says this will never fuel anything on any scale. And if making fuel from poo was such a good idea, why didn’t we do it 100 years ago when cities were literally drowning in the stuff? Well they didn’t do that did they Ken? They used oil to pump all the poo into the nearest lake,river stream instead(along with no small amount oil as well). Now you you figure were going to use poo to power our mobile trash bins? They literally would be sh*t boxes in that case in every sense of the word haha That’s how we humans roll….sorry to remind you of that.
Now this this matters because net energy, as I shouldn’t need to remind anyone here (cept SOS\ECON), is what ‘fuels’ economic growth. No net energy, be it from yesterday table scraps or the tar-sands,or poo or politicians emissions, means no more growth.
BillT on Wed, 30th Jan 2013 1:54 am
For those who think that ‘renewables’ will even begin to power our world, think again. You use a lot of aluminum if you are the average American. One ton of aluminum requires about 72,000 kilowatt-hours of electric to make. Then it requires even more to be made into things.
Using figures from my research, it would take 4,200,000 commercial wind generators, for a full year, to make the ANNUAL tonnage of aluminum used in the world today. Then add the number of wind generators needed to actually use that aluminum. And remember that we actually make more steel than aluminum by ton, more concrete, etc. We would be talking billions of wind generators just to keep up with today’s world not to mention the replacement parts for all those machines and the rare earths by the ton needed to make each one.
Reality is a bitch isn’t it?