2

Biofuel Supply Chain

The biofuel supply chain involves producing biomass feedstock; harvesting, collecting, storing, and transporting the feedstock to the biorefinery; converting the biomass to fuel at the biorefinery; distributing biofuels to end users; and, finally, using the fuel. Biomass is procured from diverse environments, each associated with different economic costs for production and collection. These differing conditions contribute to a range of economic costs for feedstocks and environmental effects. Each subsequent stage of biofuel production and use could incur positive or negative effects on the economics of producing biofuels, the economic effects on other sectors, and the environment. This chapter examines the supply chains of food-based biofuels that are produced and nonfood-based biofuels that are likely to be produced in the United States within the 2022 timeline as established by the Renewable Fuel Standard amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (RFS2). Other feedstocks and conversion technologies that are not likely to be deployed by 2022 also are discussed.

FOOD-BASED BIOFUELS

Corn-Grain Biofuels

Feedstock

As of 2010, the primary feedstock for biofuel produced and consumed in the United States was corn grain. The majority of corn acreage is found in the Midwest (Figure 2-1). Corn yield in the United States has been increasing over recent decades (Cassman and Liska, 2007). The national average reached 165 bushels per acre in 2009 and was 156 bushels per acre in 2010. An advantage of grains as biofuel feedstock is that they are relatively dense and efficient to store and transport; have well-established production, harvest, storage, and transport supply chains or systems; and are commodity crops with well-established grades and standards that facilitate marketing and trading.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 29
2 Biofuel Supply Chain T he biofuel supply chain involves producing biomass feedstock; harvesting, collecting, storing, and transporting the feedstock to the biorefinery; converting the biomass to fuel at the biorefinery; distributing biofuels to end users; and, finally, using the fuel. Biomass is procured from diverse environments, each associated with different economic costs for production and collection. These differing conditions contribute to a range of economic costs for feedstocks and environmental effects. Each subsequent stage of biofuel production and use could incur positive or negative effects on the economics of producing biofuels, the economic effects on other sectors, and the environment. This chapter examines the supply chains of food-based biofuels that are produced and nonfood-based biofuels that are likely to be produced in the United States within the 2022 timeline as established by the Renewable Fuel Standard amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (RFS2). Other feedstocks and conversion technologies that are not likely to be deployed by 2022 also are discussed. FOOD-BASED BIOFUELS Corn-Grain Biofuels Feedstock As of 2010, the primary feedstock for biofuel produced and consumed in the United States was corn grain. The majority of corn acreage is found in the Midwest (Figure 2-1). Corn yield in the United States has been increasing over recent decades (Cassman and Liska, 2007). The national average reached 165 bushels per acre in 2009 and was 156 bushels per acre in 2010. An advantage of grains as biofuel feedstock is that they are relatively dense and efficient to store and transport; have well-established production, harvest, storage, and transport supply chains or systems; and are commodity crops with well-established grades and standards that facilitate marketing and trading. 29

OCR for page 29
30 RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD FIGURE 2-1 Distribution of planted corn acres in the United States in 2008. SOURCE: USDA-ERS (2010). Conversion Starch from grains can be convertedigure 2-1.eps F to ethanol by biochemical pathways. Most corn is dry milled—that is, the grain is bitmapped, uneditable the starch from the grain is ground to a meal, and then hydrolyzed by enzymes to glucose. The 6-carbon sugars are then fermented to ethanol by R01935 natural yeast and bacteria. The fermented mash is separated into ethanol and residue by distillation (Figure 2-2). The residue can be marketed wet as a dairy or cattle feedstuff or as dried distillers grain with solubles (DDGS) as a dairy, cattle, swine, and poultry feedstuff (Schwietzke et al., 2008). The theoretical yield of converting corn starch to ethanol is 112 gal- lons per dry ton (Patzek, 2006). A survey of U.S. ethanol plants conducted in 2008 reported average ethanol yield of 100 gallons per dry ton (Mueller, 2010). Products and Coproducts DDGS is a coproduct of grain ethanol production. Starch from grains is fermented to ethanol and the remaining protein, oil, yeast, minerals, and fiber form the coproduct DDGS, which is mostly used as an animal feedstuff (Nichols et al., 2006). For every bushel of corn grain used for ethanol production, about one-third comes out as DDGS, one-third as ethanol, and one-third as carbon dioxide (CO2). The wet-mill process also produces corn oil and high-fructose corn syrup as coproducts. Distribution and Use Many biofuels, including ethanol, are more soluble in water than petroleum-based fuels, requiring biofuels to be stored and handled more carefully to avoid water contamination. If

OCR for page 29
31 BIOFUEL SUPPLY CHAIN FIGURE 2-2 Processing steps for converting corn grain to ethanol. SOURCE: Schwietzke et al. (2008). Reprinted with permission from IEA Bioenergy. ethanol picks up water, it might not meet the fuel-ethanol specifications because the fraction of water exceeds the allowable amount. For that reason and because it is highly corrosive, ethanol cannot be transported in existing pipelines used for petroleum and is distributed Figure 2-2.eps by rail cars, barges, and trucks in the United States (USDA-AMS, 2007). bitmapped uneditable Ethanol has been used as a gasoline blending component or substitute for many years (see Chapter 1). It is almost exclusively R01935 outside a normal petroleum refinery and produced shipped to the refiner or distributor for blending into finished gasoline. The industry has developed stringent specifications for ethanol quality, such as ASTM D4806, so that all batches of ethanol can be treated equally and the final user is assured of getting a product that is fit for its desired purpose. All ethanol that meets this specification can be assumed to have the same performance as a fuel, regardless of its source. The refiner or blender does not have to be concerned about the source of the ethanol or how it was transported to the facility as long as it meets the specifications when it arrives. Ethanol has a high octane value,1 a beneficial characteristic, but it requires petroleum- refinery operational adjustments that reduce the value of the additional octane. It also has a high blending Reid vapor pressure (RVP)2; RVP is about 20 pounds per square inch (psi; or 136,895 Pascal) at 10-percent ethanol and even higher at lower concentrations. This high RVP can cause drivability problems for the fuel, namely vapor locking,3 even if all other specifications are met. Therefore, the petroleum refiner has to reduce the amount of light hydrocarbons, such as butanes and hexanes, blended into gasoline. If ethanol is used as a gasoline substitute, there will be a reduction in the amount of hydrogen produced by the naphtha reformer in a standard petroleum refinery. Hy- drogen is a valuable coproduct of petroleum refining because it is used in upgrading hydrocarbons to more valuable products. This loss in hydrogen production would have to be compensated with either an increase in hydrogen production from within the refinery or an increase in purchased hydrogen produced via steam-methane reform- ing. Refiners that have access to a hydrogen pipeline system will usually just increase hydrogen purchases. Those facilities without access to merchant hydrogen would have 1 Octane value is a measure of the maximum compression ratio at which a particular fuel can be used in an engine without some fuel and air mixture self-igniting or so-called “engine knocking.” 2 Reid vapor pressure is a measure of volatility. 3 Vapor locking is the interruption of flow of fuel in an internal-combustion engine caused by vapor.

OCR for page 29
32 RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD to modify their operations to maintain or increase hydrogen availability. This modifica- tion can sometimes be achieved by increasing reformer severity, but as petroleum-based gasoline demand declines and diesel demand increases, the refinery ultimately would need to build a hydrogen plant. Hydrogen production from methane releases CO2 as a byproduct. This additional CO2 production offsets some of the CO2 reduction from using the biofuels.4 Status as of 2010 The amount of corn used for corn-grain ethanol has been increasing since 2000, and the percentage of U.S. corn production used for fuel ethanol increased dramatically from 2005 to 2009 (Figure 2-3). In 2010, about 40 percent of corn yield was used to produce 13.2 billion gallons of ethanol (USDA-NASS, 2010; RFA, 2011b). Given that RFS2 consumption mandate for conventional ethanol is 15 billion gallons per year from 2015 to 2022, the mandate can be achieved with a small increase in corn grain for ethanol. The number of corn-grain ethanol biorefineries in the United States and the total ca- pacity to produce ethanol has been increasing rapidly since 2002 (Figure 2-4). The average capacity build rate of ethanol biorefineries from 2001 to 2009 was about 25 percent with a substantial expansion in 2006 and 2007 (RFA, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010). In January 2011, there were about 200 biorefineries (Figure 2-5) that converted corn starch into ethanol and had a combined installed (also known as nameplate) capacity5 of 14.1 billion gallons of ethanol per year (RFA, 2011a). A list of food-based ethanol refineries is available in Appendix H. Motor gasoline consumption in the United States was about 9 million barrels per day (or 138 billion gallons per year) in the same period (EIA, 2010). As of 2010, gasoline for light-duty vehicles in the United States was sold mostly as 90-percent gasoline blended with 10-percent ethanol by volume (E10). In October 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protec- tion Agency (EPA) approved a waiver that allows the use of E15 in model year 2007 or newer light-duty vehicles. In January 2011, EPA extended the waiver to model year 2001 to 2006 light-duty vehicles (EPA, 2011). Despite the regulatory change, E15 had not been implemented at the time this report was written because gasoline retailers would have to install new tanks and pumps to accommodate the blend and no reliable system had been developed to prevent misfueling of older vehicles. Some ethanol is sold as E85 blend for use in flex-fuel vehicles. As of 2010, there were about 2,000 E85 stations in the United States. Corn starch also can be converted to biobutanol via the acetone-butanol-ethanol (ABE) fermentation pathway (Ezeji et al., 2007). Coproducts include alcohols with lower molecular weight than butanol and acetone. However, only a small number of compa- nies have pursued biobutanol from corn starch, and the development of that technology remains in the precommercial stage. Challenges to producing biobutanol include its toxicity to the microorganisms that ferment sugar for its production and reducing the yield of coproducts to maximize butanol yield. If corn grain is the source of the sugars for fermentation, a residue similar to DDG will also be produced. However, the DDG from conversion of corn grain to biobutanol might require additional processing to remove any toxic biobutanol and acetone residue before it could be used as an animal feed - stuff. Biobutanol is significantly less soluble in water than ethanol. It could be a drop-in 4 At constant diesel production, every gallon of ethanol increases diesel CO2 emissions by about 1.4 lbs. This offsets the reduction in the CO2 attributable to ethanol use by about 10 percent. 5 The full-load continuous rating of the process plant as designed.

OCR for page 29
33 BIOFUEL SUPPLY CHAIN 15,000 Corn Harvested Corn Used for Fuel Ethanol Million Bushels 10,000 5,000 0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Year Percent Harvest Used for Fuel Ethanol 40 30 Figure 2-3a.eps R01935 20 10 0 2010 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Year FIGURE 2-3 U.S. corn production and use as fuel ethanol from 1980 to 2009. DATA SOURCES: USDA-ERS (2010), USDA-NASS (2010). fuel: that is, a nonpetroleum fuel that is compatible with existing pipelines and delivery mechanisms for petroleum-based fuels. However, extensive testing would be required Figure 2-3b.eps to confirm its compatibility with existing infrastructure. Its blending RVP is much lower than that of ethanol, and its octane is similar to regular-grade gasoline. As of 2010, there R01935 were no industry standard fuel-grade specifications and no accepted limits on the amount of biobutanol that can be safely blended into gasoline without damaging engine com- ponents. Because biobutanol properties are similar to regular gasoline, its major impact on the operation of the other refinery units would be a displacement of conventional petroleum-based, gasoline-blending components.

OCR for page 29
34 RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD 14,000 Installed Capacity (Million Gallons) 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Year FIGURE 2-4 Installed capacity of all ethanol biorefineries in the United States combined, from Janu- ary 2002 to January 2010. DATA SOURCES: RFA (2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010). Biofuels from Vegetable Oils and Animal Fats Figure 2-4.eps R01935 Feedstock Several countries, mostly in Europe, produce biodiesel from a variety of feedstocks, including rapeseed oil, palm oil, and soybean oil (Reijnders, 2009; de Vries et al., 2010). In the United States, biodiesel is produced mostly from soybean oil. Other vegetable oils and animal fats constitute a small fraction of biodiesel feedstock. As in the case of corn, soybean is mostly grown in the Midwest (Figure 2-6) and has established markets and infrastructure for storage and delivery. Conversion The most widely available commercial chemical conversion technology is transesterifi- cation of triglycerides to produce biodiesel (Knothe, 2001). Soybean is the typical feedstock in the United States even though corn, canola, oil palm, camelina, jatropha, used yellow grease, and animal fats can also be used to produce biodiesel through this process. A typical biodiesel refinery will extract the oil from the feedstock and use acid or base catalysts in excess alcohol (methanol) to convert the triglycerides into fatty acid methyl esters (FAMEs) or biodiesel. The process flow of biodiesel production is shown in Figure 2-7. Thermochemical processes use a combination of heat and chemical catalysis to alter the biomass and convert it into a hydrocarbon closer in composition to diesel and gasoline than

OCR for page 29
35 BIOFUEL SUPPLY CHAIN FIGURE 2-5 Location of ethanol biorefineries in the United States as of September 2010. NOTE: Green flags indicate locations of operating biorefineries and red flags indicate locations of biorefineries under construction. SOURCE: Urbanchuk (2010). Figure 2-5.eps uneditable bitmapped R01935 FIGURE 2-6 Distribution of planted soybean acres in the United States in 2008. SOURCE: USDA-ERS (2010). Figure 2-6.eps

OCR for page 29
36 RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD Vegetable Oils Recycled Greases Dilute Acid Sulfur and Esterification Methanol Methanol and Transesterification Potassium Hydroxide Methanol Crude Crude Recovery Glycerin Biodiesel Glycerin Refining Refining Biodiesel FIGURE 2-7 Process flow of biodiesel production. SOURCE: Bain (2007). conventional FAMEs. Neste Oil’s NExBTL process (Neste Oil, 2011a), CANMET’s “Super- CetaneTM” (CETC, 2008), and “green diesel,” developed and marketed by UOP, use large volumes of hydrogen and a catalyst to hydrogenate triglycerides recovered from animals Figure 2-7.eps or crop oils into a high-cetane diesel fuel (Kalnes et al., 2009). The severe hydrotreatment R01935 removes all of the oxygen from the triglyceride and saturates all of the olefinic bonds in the fatty acids. The primary products from this hydrogenation are water, CO2, propane, and a mixture of normal paraffins. The normal paraffin mixture is called green diesel. This renewable diesel is fully compatible with petroleum-based diesel. It can even be produced by coprocessing triglycerides along with other petroleum streams in conventional refinery diesel hydrotreaters. In late 2010, Neste Oil announced the start-up of a dedicated 265 mil- lion gallons per year biodiesel NexBTL unit in Singapore using palm oil, waste fats, and greases as feedstock. At the time this report was written, a similar sized unit was scheduled to start up in Rotterdam in the first half of 2011 (Neste Oil, 2011a). As of early 2011, Neste Oil was operating two smaller units in Finland with a combined capacity of 125 million gallons of biodiesel per year (Neste Oil, 2011b). Most large refining companies and technology vendors have performed laboratory studies and commercial trials that have demonstrated the feasibility of coprocessing triglyc- erides with existing diesel hydrodesulfurization (HDS) units (Renewable Diesel Subcom- mittee of the WSDA Technical Work Group, 2007; Melis, 2008). The amount of triglyceride that can be coprocessed is a function of the current limitations of the hydrotreater and the properties of the triglyceride. Conoco-Phillips and Tyson formed a joint venture to

OCR for page 29
37 BIOFUEL SUPPLY CHAIN coprocess animal fats in Conoco-Phillips existing diesel hydrotreaters to produce 175 mil- lion gallons of renewable diesel each year. This coprocessing was discontinued when the U.S. Internal Revenue Service ruled that the tax credit for biodiesel did not apply to material coprocessed with petroleum. Products and Coproducts A typical transesterification plant can produce biodiesel from virgin oil and requires methanol, potassium hydroxide, and heat and electricity. The process results in the genera- tion of glycerol and other impurities. Glycerol can be sold commercially for pharmaceutical formulation, soap production, and other uses before the market saturates. It also can be used as a feedstock to produce hydrogen, but technical improvements are needed to prove this pathway scalable and economically viable. Soybean seeds yield about 18-percent oil and the remaining meal, the primary product of soybean production, is sold as a highly nutritious animal feedstuff. Because of the high yield of the meal, this coproduct provides better monetary returns per ton of seed than the oil used in biofuel production. Green diesel or renewable diesel generally has poor cold-flow properties (many prod- ucts are solid at room temperature). Aside from the poor cold-flow properties, it is fully compatible with petroleum diesel and can use the existing distribution infrastructure. Production of green diesel does not result in any coproducts of significant volume. The coproducts from the production of green diesel are primarily water, CO2, and propane. Distribution and Use Because of the flexibility in feedstocks that can be used to produce biodiesel, biodiesel refineries are more widely distributed geographically than refineries that produce corn- grain ethanol and include many that are processing waste oil as a feedstock rather than agricultural products (Figure 2-8). It is currently the largest volume class of biofuels after ethanol. FAME biodiesel is also mostly distributed by truck, barge, or rail. Although pipe- line distribution would be the most economical option, it requires further experimentation. FAME has poor cold-flow properties, which could pose problems for delivery in colder climates. The fuel needs to be stored in special heated tanks to keep it fluid if it is to be used in northern tier states. The current specifications for FAMEs do not set limits on cold-flow properties, which are required to be reported to the customer only. The lack of limits makes refinery planning and operation more difficult. For many conventional petroleum crude oils, cold-flow properties limit the amount of diesel that can be produced. Operating a refinery capable of accepting FAMEs with different cold-flow properties would be difficult and costly. The base petroleum streams would have to be produced for the “worst case sce- nario” of poor cold-flow properties. Cold-flow properties do not always blend predictably, so the refineries have to produce conservative blends. It is costly for a refinery to reblend or reprocess product that is off specification for cold-flow properties. Commercially relevant quantities of FAME have been blended into diesel fuel for sev- eral years. Quality control and economic and feedstock availability issues, however, have limited its growth as a petroleum-diesel replacement. FAME is more chemically active than petroleum-based diesel, and it degrades and forms corrosive acids during storage. Exposure to air and water accelerates this degradation. In addition, FAME can undergo biological degradation in contact with water. This process forms a “scum” at the oil-water interface that will plug downstream filters, including those owned by the final user, such as vehicle fuel filters or home heating system filters. Although ASTM specifications exist

OCR for page 29
38 RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD FIGURE 2-8 Biodiesel refineries in the United States (2008). SOURCE: NREL (2008). for FAME, they are frequently updated as new contaminants or problems are identified. FAME is produced via several processes from different feedstocks that lead to significant Figure 2-8.eps quality variations. It has good lubricity properties and can reduce the amount of lubricity uneditable bitmapped additive required for ultra-low-sulfur diesel. R01935 FAME can be blended with petroleum-based diesel at any percentage, and those blends are compatible with petroleum-diesel engines (DOE-EERE, 2010). The most popular bio- diesel blend in the United States is B20—that is 80-percent petroleum-based diesel and 20-percent biodiesel (NREL, 2005). As of 2010, there were about 650 B20 stations in the United States. Although a few dedicated green diesel hydrotreater projects are in various stages of development, most large refining companies and technology vendors have performed laboratory studies and commercial trials that have demonstrated the feasibility of copro- cessing triglycerides on existing diesel HDS units. The amount of triglycerides that can be coprocessed is a function of the current limitations of the hydrotreater and the properties of the triglyceride. Triglycerides consume roughly five times more hydrogen per barrel of feedstocks than typical diesel HDS feedstocks. The heat of reaction is also roughly five times higher than typical HDS feedstocks. These two factors usually limit the amount of triglyceride that can be coprocessed to about 10 percent of the HDS feedstocks. Unit modification to increase hy- drogen make-up capacity and to handle the additional heat of reaction would be required to coprocess significantly higher amounts of triglycerides.

OCR for page 29
39 BIOFUEL SUPPLY CHAIN Most HDS units can handle the incremental amount of water and propane that are pro- duced from limited coprocessing, but again these facilities would have to be upgraded to process additional volumes. The oxygen removed via triglyceride hydrogenation produces some CO2 in addition to water. Up to half of the total oxygen can be released in the form of CO2. Most HDS units are not designed to handle CO2 as a reaction product. If the HDS unit has a recycle-gas, amine-based hydrogen sulfide (H2S) scrubber, then the CO2 will be recovered together with the H2S. This will minimize the effect of CO2 on the HDS operation but will increase the load on the amine system and the sulfur plant, reducing the refinery’s ability to process high-sulfur crudes. Without a recycle-gas scrubber, CO2 can build up in the recycle gas. This buildup has negative effects on unit operation. Processing triglycerides can also affect the HDS pre- heat system. All biobased triglycerides contain olefinic bonds as well as some free fatty acids. The olefinic bonds can interact and form gums either in storage or in the preheat train. These gums deposit in the preheat exchangers, the furnace, and the catalyst bed and degrade unit performance. The free fatty acids can also cause additional corrosion in the preheat exchangers. HDS preheat train metallurgy would most likely have to be upgraded to process significant volumes of triglycerides. Because most refineries control diesel cold-flow properties by adjusting the back-end distillation cut point of the diesel components, including green diesel in the diesel pool requires an end-point reduction in the other blend components. Reducing the diesel end point decreases the amount of diesel that can be produced from a barrel of crude oil. This heavy stream that can no longer be included in diesel would have to be processed by fluid- ized catalytic cracking (FCC), the vacuum gas oil hydrocracker, or blended into heavy fuel oil. All of these alternate options are usually less profitable than including it in diesel fuel. Status as of 2010 In 2008, an estimated 16 percent of soybean production in the United States was used to produce biodiesel (USDA-NASS, 2010). Biodiesel production increased from 9 million gallons per year in 2001 to 532 million gallons per year in 2009 (EIA, 2010), but members of the National Biodiesel Board reported a total production capacity of 2.7 billion gallons per year (NBB, 2010). A list of biodiesel refineries is provided in Appendix I. Nonfood oils produced from algae or dedicated bioenergy crops, such as camelina, are expected to be used as biomass feedstock in the future. NONFOOD-BASED BIOFUELS Cellulosic Feedstock Cellulose,6 hemicellulose,7 and lignin8 provide the structural components of plant cells. Those plant materials can be used to produce biofuels, commonly referred to as cellulosic biofuels. Potential feedstocks for cellulosic biofuels include agricultural residues, dedicated energy crops, forest resources, and municipal solid waste. 6 A complex carbohydrate, (C6H10O5)n, that forms cell walls of most plants. 7 A matrixof polysaccharides present in almost all plant cell walls with cellulose. 8 A complex polymer that occurs in certain plant cell walls. Lignin binds to cellulose fibers and hardens and strengthens the cell walls of plants.

OCR for page 29
TABLE 2-4 Continued 68 DOE Grant Nonfederal Grantee Location Amount Amount Feedstock Source Description Gas Technology Des Plains, IL $2,500,000 $625,000 Algae from This project was selected to complete preliminary engineering design Institute PetroSun and Blue for a novel process to produce green gasoline and diesel from woody Marble; 1 T wood biomass, agricultural residues, and algae. from Johnson Timber; and corn stover from Cargill Haldor Topsoe, Inc. Des Plains, $25,000,000 $9,701,468 Wood from UPM, This project will convert wood to green gasoline by fully integrating IL, MN and optimizing a multistep gasification process. The pilot plant will have the capacity to process 23 dry tons of feedstock per day. ICM, Inc. St. Joseph, $25,000,000 $6,268,136 Corn stover from This project will modify an existing corn-ethanol facility to produce MO LifeLine Foods; cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass and energy sorghum using other feedstocks biochemical conversion processes. from unknown sources Logos Technologies Visalia, CA $20,445,849 $5,113,962 Corn stover from This project will convert switchgrass and woody biomass into ethanol Next Step Biofuels using a biochemical conversion processes. Inc.; switchgrass from Ceres; wood from central California facilities Renewable Toledo, OH $19,980,930 $5,116,072 Unknown This project will produce high-quality green diesel from agriculture and Energy Institute forest residues using advanced pyrolysis and steam reforming. The pilot International plant will have the capacity to process 25 dry tons of feedstock per day. Solazyme, Inc. Riverside, PA $21,765,738 $3,857,111 Sucrose, MSW This project will validate the projected economics of a commercial scale organics, or biorefinery producing multiple advanced biofuels. This project will switchgrass from produce algal oil that can be converted to oil-based fuels. unknown sources UOP LLC Kapolei, HI $25,000,000 $6,685,340 Unknown This project will integrate existing technology from Ensyn and UOP to produce green gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel from agricultural residue, woody biomass, dedicated energy crops, and algae.

OCR for page 29
TABLE 2-4 Continued DOE Grant Nonfederal Grantee Location Amount Amount Feedstock Source Description ZeaChem Inc. Boardman, $25,000,000 $48,400,000 Wood from This project will use purpose-grown hybrid poplar trees to produce OR Greenwood fuel-grade ethanol using hybrid technology. Additional feedstocks such Resources as agricultural residues and energy crops will also be evaluated in the pilot plant. Demonstration-Scale Projects (in alphabetical order) BioEnergy Clearfield $50,000,000 $89,589,188 Corn from Lansing This project will biologically produce succinic acid from sorghum. The International, LLC County, PA Trade Group, LLC process being developed displaces petroleum-based feedstocks and uses less energy per ton of succinic acid produced than its petroleum counterpart. Enerkem Pontoc, MS $50,000,000 $90,470,217 Plant located in This project will construct a facility that produces ethanol fuel from Corporation landfill site woody biomass, mill residue, and sorted municipal solid waste. The facility will have the capacity to produce 19 million gallons of ethanol per year. INEOS New Planet Vero Beach, $50,000,000 $50,000,000 Locally sourced This project will produce ethanol and electricity from wood and BioEnergy, LLC FL organic MSW vegetative residues and construction and demolition materials. The facility will combine biomass gasification and fermentation and will have the capacity to produce 8 million gallons of ethanol and 2 megawatts of electricity per year by the end of 2011. Sapphire Energy, Columbus, $50,000,000 $85,064,206 Onsite algae This project will cultivate algae in ponds that will ultimately be Inc. NM production converted into green fuels, such as jet fuel and diesel, using the Dynamic Fuels refining process. Increased Funding to Existing Biorefinery Projects Bluefire LLC Fulton, MS $81,134,686 $223,227,314 Unmerchantable This project will construct a facility that produces ethanol fuel from timber and logging woody biomass, mill residue, and sorted municipal solid waste. The wastes from sites facility will have the capacity to produce 19 million gallons of ethanol 75 to 100 mile per year. radius from plant 69

OCR for page 29
70 RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD One potential feedstock source for biofuels that continues to be pursued is algae. The concept of converting algae to fuels has been investigated for over 30 years. For example, DOE operated the Aquatic Species Program (ASP) that was terminated in 1995 because its product was shown to be uncompetitive with petroleum. However, 1995 was also the year when the first genome of a free-living organism was sequenced, that of Haemophilus influenzae Rd (Fleischmann et al., 1995), a date considered a milestone in the advancement of genomics. Application of genomics or synthetic biology to algal biofuel production could lead to a technology that will be able to produce large quantities of biofuels at competitive costs. The past 15 years have seen a significant amount of research in genomics that has cre- ated a foundation on which a whole new set of technologies have been based. This founda- tion has led to another foray into algal biofuel research and development. Significant public and private investments have been committed, such as $600 million from ExxonMobil. OTHER FEEDSTOCKS AND PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES IN DEVELOPMENT The technologies for producing biofuels from algae and cyanobacteria and hydrocar- bon fuels16 from biomass are discussed in the report Liquid Transportation Fuels from Coal and Biomass: Technological Status, Costs, and Environmental Impacts (NAS-NAE-NRC, 2009). Technologies for those biofuels are further from commercial deployment than cellulosic biofuels. Some examples of those biofuel refineries are included in Table 2-3. Algal biofuels are attractive for many reasons. Algae and cyanobacteria can be cul- tivated in mass quantities in open ponds or in photoreactors. They would not necessar- ily compete with food for agricultural land or fresh water, and they would use CO2 as a feedstock. Several types of fuel potentially can be produced from algae and cyanobacteria, including biodiesel, ethanol, and hydrocarbons from various conversion pathways. The spectrum of research and development into algal biofuels is broad and covers both the use of naturally occurring and genetically modified (including entirely synthetic) organisms as well as engineering systems that involve open ponds, closed bioreactors, and combinations of both. Companies are building or operating pilot- and demonstration-scale facilities17 for cultivating algae and cyanobacteria and for converting them to biofuels (EMO, 2009). Algal and cyanobacterial biofuels have the potential to contribute to biofuels consumed in the United States in 2022, but the quantity and cost of production are highly uncertain and depend largely on the development of those industries in the next 5-10 years. The environmental effects of algal biofuel production are discussed in another NRC study on Sustainable Development of Algal Biofuels to be completed in 2012. Production of hydrocarbon fuels directly from biomass is mostly in the research and development phase (Huber et al., 2005; Roman-Leshkov et al., 2007; Kunkes et al., 2008; Gürbüz et al., 2010). Some technological innovations might never reach the demonstration phase. Pilot and demonstration facilities need to be coupled with research and develop- ment programs to resolve issues identified during demonstration and to reduce costs (NAS- NAE-NRC, 2009). Commercial demonstrations are critical to proving and improving tech- nologies, improving proficiency in technology operation, and quantifying the economics 16 Fuels that are organic compounds that contains only carbon and hydrogen. Hydrocarbon fuels include pe- troleum and alkanes. 17 A pilot facility is a small processing facility that is operated to gather information. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory defines a pilot biofuel facility as one that processes 1-10 dry tons of feedstock per day.

OCR for page 29
71 BIOFUEL SUPPLY CHAIN at large commercial scales (Sagar and van der Zwaan, 2006; Katzer, 2010). Demonstration, scaling up, and learning-by-doing takes time and, therefore, technologies for converting biomass to fuels that are not in pilot demonstration as of 2010 would need “fast-track” development to make any significant contribution to meeting RFS2. CONCLUSION The U.S. Congress has mandated that 36 billion gallons per year of biofuels in four categories—renewable fuels, advanced biofuels, cellulosic biofuels, and biomass-based diesel18—be consumed by U.S. transportation by 2022. The capacity of existing corn-grain ethanol facilities was estimated to be 14.1 billion gallons per year as of January 2011 and predicted to reach almost 15 billion gallons per year by 2012, essentially ensuring that production capacity is available to meet the legislated mandate for conventional biofuel. Similarly, existing biodiesel facilities are expected to meet that target for biomass-based diesel in the next several years. In contrast, whether and how the mandates for advanced biofuels and cellulosic biofuels will be met is uncertain. At the time this report was written, the technologies for producing advanced and cel- lulosic biofuels were being developed and demonstrated at pilot scale. Many potential feedstocks, including crop residues, dedicated bioenergy crops, forest residues, and MSW, have been proposed. In the near term, crop and forest residues might be the most likely feedstocks because those resources are available and only investments in harvesting, stor- age, and transport are needed for delivery to biorefineries. Although MSW is available in large quantities, recovery rate of biological fraction is low. Many species of herbaceous perennial grasses and short-rotation woody crops have been suggested as potential dedi- cated bioenergy crops, and appropriate species would have to be selected on the basis of agronomic conditions to minimize the need for inputs (for example, irrigation and fertil- izers) and maximize yield. At the time this report was written, no proven commercial-scale technologies were available for converting lignocellulosic biomass to fuels. Another report estimated that the 16 billion gallons of ethanol-equivalent cellulosic biofuels could be produced by 2022 under an aggressive deployment scenario in which the capacity build rate doubles the historic capacity build rate of corn-grain ethanol (NAS-NAE-NRC, 2009). That scenario assumes that biorefineries with a collective capacity of 1 billion gallons per year will be available by 2015. The industry will expand at an average build rate of 50 percent per year over 6 years. At the maximum build rate, 2-4 billion gallons of cellulosic biofuels will be added each year to achieve 16 billion gallons of ethanol-equivalent cellulosic biofuels by 2022. Successful commercial-scale demonstration in the next few years and aggressive deployment there- after will be key determinants of whether RFS2 could be met. The success of demonstration and the rate of deployment depend on many other factors, including research and develop- ment to improve the economics of biomass and biofuel production and to resolve issues that arise during demonstration, economic conditions, and investors’ confidence. 18 See section on “Renewable Fuel Standard” in Chapter 1 for definition of each category.

OCR for page 29
72 RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD REFERENCES Adler, P.R., M.A. Sanderson, P.J. Weimer, and K.P. Vogel. 2009. Plant species composition and biofuel yields of conservation grasslands. Ecological Applications 19(8):2202-2209. Alvira, P., E. Tomas-Pejo, M. Ballesteros, and M.J. Negro. 2010. Pretreatment technologies for an efficient bioetha- nol production process based on enzymatic hydrolysis: A review. Bioresource Technology 101(13):4851-4861. Anderson, W., M. Casler, and B. Baldwin. 2008. Improvement of perennial forage species as feedstock for bioen- ergy. Pp. 309-345 in Genetic Improvement of Bioenergy Crops, W. Vermerris, ed. New York: Springer. Andrews, S. 2006. Crop Residue Removal for Biomass Energy Production: Effects on Soils and Recommendations. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service. ANL (Argonne National Laboratory). 2010. Sustainable Bioenergy Crop Production Research Facility. Available online at http://www.bio.anl.gov/environmental_biology/terrestrial_ecology/bioenergy.html. Accessed February 7, 2011. Aristidou, A., and M. Penttila. 2000. Metabolic engineering applications to renewable resource utilization. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 11(2):187-198. Bain, R.L. 2007. World Biofuels Assessment. Worldwide Biomass Potential: Technology Characterizations. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Balat, M. 2008. Mechanisms of thermochemical biomass conversion processes. Part 3: Reactions of liquefaction. Energy Sources Part A–Recovery Utilization and Environmental Effects 30(7):649-659. Balat, M., M. Balat, E. Kirtay, and H. Balat. 2009. Main routes for the thermo-conversion of biomass into fuels and chemicals. Part 2: Gasification systems. Energy Conversion and Management 50(12):3158-3168. Beach, R.H., and B.A. McCarl. 2010. U.S. Agricultural and Forestry Impacts of the Energy Independence and Secu- rity Act: FASOM Results and Model Description. Final Report. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International. Beale, C.V., and S.P. Long. 1995. Can perennial C4 grasses attain high efficiencies of radiant energy-conversion in cool climates. Plant, Cell & Environment 18:641-650. Biofuels Digest. 2010a. Advanced biofuels tracking database release 1.3. Available online at http://www.ascen- sion-publishing.com/BIZ/ABTD13.xls. Accessed August 3, 2010. Biofuels Digest. 2010b. Industry Data. Available online at http://biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/free-industry -data/. Accessed November 12, 2010. Blanco-Canqui, H., and R. Lal. 2009a. Corn stover removal for expanded uses reduced soil fertility and structural stability. Soil Science Society of America Journal 73:418-426. Blanco-Canqui, H., and R. Lal. 2009b. Crop residue removal impacts on soil productivity and environmental qual- ity. Critical Review in Plant Sciences 28:139-163. Bongarten, B.C., D.A. Huber, and D.K. Apsley. 1992. Environmental and genetic influences on short-rotation biomass production of black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia L.) in the Georgia Piedmont. Forest Ecology and Management 55(1-4):315-331. Bransby, D.I., D.J. Allen, N. Gutterson, G. Ikonen, E. Richard, W. Rooney, and E. van Santen. 2010. Engineer- ing advantages, challenges and status of grass energy crops. Biotechnology in Agriculture and Forestry 66(2):125-154. Brechbill, S.C., and W.E. Tyner. 2008. The Economics of Biomass Collection, Transportation, and Supply to Indiana Cellulosic and Electrical Utility Facilities. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University. Carolan, J.E., S.V. Joshi, and B.E. Dale. 2007. Technical and financial feasibility analysis of distributed bioprocess- ing using regional biomass pre-processing centers. Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization 5:Article 10. Cassman, K.G., and A.J. Liska. 2007. Food and fuel for all: Realistic or foolish? Biofuels Bioproducts and Bio- refining 1(1):18-23. CETC (Canmet Energy Technology Centre). 2008. SUPERCETANETM Technology at CanmetENERGY. Ottawa: Natural Resources Canada - Canmet Energy Technology Centre. Chandra, R.P., R. Bura, W.E. Mabee, A. Berlin, X. Pan, and J.N. Saddler. 2007. Substrate pretreatment: The key to effec- tive enzymatic hydrolysis of lignocellulosics? Advances in Biochemical Engineering/Biotechnology 108:67-93. Christian, D.G., A.B. Riche, and N.E. Yates. 2002. The yield and composition of switchgrass and coastal panic grass grown as a biofuel in southern England. Bioresource Technology 83(2):115-124. Clay, D., G. Carlson, T. Schumacher, V. Owens, and F. Mamani-Pati. 2010. Biomass estimation approach impacts on calculated soil organic carbon maintenance requirements and associated mineralization rate constants. Journal of Environmental Quality 39(3):784-790. Clifton-Brown, J.C., J. Breuer, and M.B. Jones. 2007. Carbon mitigation by the energy crop, Miscanthus. Global Change Biology 13(11):2296-2307.

OCR for page 29
73 BIOFUEL SUPPLY CHAIN Coyle, D.R., M.D. Coleman, and D.P. Aubrey. 2008. Above- and below-ground biomass accumulation, production, and distribution of sweetgum and loblolly pine grown with irrigation and fertilization. Canadian Journal of Forest Research-Revue Canadienne De Recherche Forestiere 38(6):1335-1348. Davis, A.A., and C.C. Trettin. 2006. Sycamore and sweetgum plantation productivity on former agricultural land in South Carolina. Biomass & Bioenergy 30(8-9):769-777. Davis, S.C., W.J. Parton, F.G. Dohleman, C.M. Smith, S. Del Grosso, A.D. Kent, and E.H. DeLucia. 2010. Compara- tive biogeochemical cycles of bioenergy crops reveal nitrogen-fixation and low greenhouse gas emissions in a Miscanthus x giganteus agro-ecosystem. Ecosystems 13(1):144-156. De Haan, L.R., S. Weisberg, D. Tilman, and D. Fornara. 2010. Agricultural and biofuel implications of a spe- cies diversity experiment with native perennial grassland plants. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 1-2(137):33-38. de Vries, S.C., G.W.J. van de Ven, M.K. van Ittersum, and K.E. Giller. 2010. Resource use efficiency and environmen- tal performance of nine major biofuel crops, processed by first-generation conversion techniques. Biomass & Bioenergy 34(5):588-601. Demirbas, A. 2000. Mechanisms of liquefaction and pyrolysis reactions of biomass. Energy Conversion and Man- agement 41(6):633-646. Demirbas, A. 2009. Pyrolysis mechanisms of biomass materials. Energy Sources Part A-Recovery Utilization and Environmental Effects 31(13):1186-1193. DOE-EERE (U.S. Department of Energy - Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy). 2010. Alternative and ad- vanced fuels: Biodiesel. Available online at http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/fuels/biodiesel.html. Ac - cessed August 5, 2010. Eggeman, T., and R.T. Elander. 2005. Process and economic analysis of pretreatment technologies. Bioresource Technology 96(18):2019-2025. EIA (Energy Information Administration). 2010. Annual Energy Review 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy. El-Nashaar, H.M., S.M. Griffith, J.J. Steiner, and G.M. Banowetz. 2009. Mineral concentration in selected native temperate grasses with potential use as biofuel feedstock. Bioresource Technology 100(14):3526-3531. El Bassam, N. 1996. Renewable Energy: Potential Energy Crops for Europe and the Mediterranean Region. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization. El Bassam, N. 2010. Handbook of Bioenergy Crops: A Complete Reference to Species, Development and Applica- tions. London: Earthscan. Elliott, D.C., D. Beckman, A.V. Bridgwater, J.P. Diebold, S.B. Gevert, and Y. Solantausta. 1991. Developments in direct thermochemical liquefaction of biomass: 1983-1990. Energy & Fuels 5(3):399-410. EMO (Emerging Markets Online). 2009. Algae 2020: Biofuels Markets and Commercialization Outlook. Houston, TX: Emerging Markets Online. Energy Biosciences Institute. 2011. Developing prairie cordgrass as a cellulosic bioenergy crop. Available online at http://www.energybiosciencesinstitute.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=312. Ac- cessed February 7, 2011. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010a. Municipal Solid Wastes in the United States. 2009 Facts and Figures. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010b. Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2011. EPA grants E15 fuel waiver for model years 2001-2006 cars and light trucks/Agency continues review of public comments for an E15 pump label to help ensure consumers use the correct fuel. Available online at http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/8206AB91F87CEC0 88525781F0059E65C. Accessed February 9, 2011. Ezeji, T.C., N. Qureshi, and H.P. Blaschek. 2007. Bioproduction of butanol from biomass: From genes to bioreactors. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 18(3):220-227. Fargione, J.E., T.R. Cooper, D.J. Flaspohler, J. Hill, C. Lehman, T. McCoy, S. McLeod, E.J. Nelson, K.S. Oberhauser, and D. Tilman. 2009. Bioenergy and wildlife: Threats and opportunities for grassland conservation. BioSci- ence 59(9):767-777. Fleischmann, R.D., M.D. Adams, O. White, R.A. Clayton, E.F. Kirkness, A.R. Kerlavage, C.J. Bult, J.F. Tomb, B.A. Dougherty, J.M. Merrick, K. McKenney, G. Sutton, W. Fitzhugh, C. Fields, J.D. Gocayne, J. Scott, R. Shirley, L.I. Liu, A. Glodek, J.M. Kelley, J.F. Weidman, C.A. Phillips, T. Spriggs, E. Hedblom, M.D. Cot- ton, T.R. Utterback, M.C. Hanna, D.T. Nguyen, D.M. Saudek, R.C. Brandon, L.D. Fine, J.L. Fritchman, J.L. Fuhrmann, N.S.M. Geoghagen, C.L. Gnehm, L.A. McDonald, K.V. Small, C.M. Fraser, H.O. Smith, and J.C. Venter. 1995. Whole-genome random sequencing and assembly of Haemophilus influenzae Rd. Science 269(5223):496-512.

OCR for page 29
74 RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD Foust, T., A. Aden, A. Dutta, and S. Phillips. 2009. An economic and environmental comparison of a biochemical and a thermochemical lignocellulosic ethanol conversion processes. Cellulose 16(4):547-565. Fraley, R. 2010. Crop yield gains: Understanding the past, envisioning the future. Presentation to the Committee on Economic and Environmental Impacts of Increasing Biofuels Production, July 14. Geyer, W.A. 2006. Biomass production in the Central Great Plains USA under various coppice regimes. Biomass & Bioenergy 30(8-9):778-783. Gonzalez-Hernandez, J.L., G. Sarath, J.M. Stein, V. Owens, K. Gedye, and A. Boe. 2009. A multiple species ap- proach to biomass production from native herbaceous perennial feedstocks. In Vitro Cellular & Develop- mental Biology-Plant 45(3):267-281. Graham, R.L., R. Nelson, J. Sheehan, R.D. Perlack, and L.L. Wright. 2007. Current and potential US corn stover supplies. Agronomy Journal 99(1):1-11. Gürbüz, E.I., E.L. Kunkes, and J.A. Dumesic. 2010. Dual-bed catalyst system for C-C coupling of biomass-derived oxygenated hydrocarbons to fuel-grade compounds. Green Chemistry 12(2):223-227. Heaton, E.A., F.G. Dohleman, and S.P. Long. 2008. Meeting US biofuel goals with less land: The potential of Mis- canthus. Global Change Biology 14(9):2000-2014. Heaton, E.A., F.G. Dohleman, and S.P. Long. 2009. Seasonal nitrogen dynamics of Miscanthus x giganteus and Panicum virgatum. Global Change Biology Bioenergy 1(4):297-307. Heaton, E.A., F.G. Dohleman, and A.F. Miguez. 2010. Miscanthus. A promising biomass crop. Advances in Botani- cal Research 56:75-137. Heilman, P.E., and R.F. Stettler. 1985. Genetic variation and productivity of Populus trichocarpa and its hybrids. II. Biomass production in a 4-year plantation. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 15(2):384-388. Henson, J.F., and G.A. Fenchel. 2007. Plant Guide: Eastern Gamagrass. Baton Rouge, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service - National Plant Materials Center. Hess, J.R., C.T. Wright, and K.L. Kenney. 2007. Cellulosic biomass feedstocks and logistics for ethanol production. Biofuels Bioproducts & Biorefining 1(3):181-190. Hinchee, M., W. Rottmann, L. Mullinax, C.S. Zhang, S.J. Chang, M. Cunningham, L. Pearson, and N. Nehra. 2009. Short-rotation woody crops for bioenergy and biofuels applications. In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology-Plant 45(6):619-629. Huber, G.W., J.N. Chheda, C.J. Barrett, and J.A. Dumesic. 2005. Production of liquid alkanes by aqueous-phase processing of biomass-derived carbohydrates. Science 308(5727):1446-1450. Huber, G.W., S. Iborra, and A. Corma. 2006. Synthesis of transportation fuels from biomass: Chemistry, catalysts, and engineering. Chemical Reviews 106(9):4044-4098. Iogen. 2010a. Demo plant fuel production. Available online at http://www.iogen.ca/. Accessed February 16, 2011. Iogen. 2010b. Iogen’s cellulosic ethanol demonstration plant. Available online at http://www.iogen.ca/company/ demo_plant/index.html. Accessed October 19, 2010. Jager, H., L.M. Baskaran, C.C. Brandt, E.B. Davis, C.A. Gunderson, and S.D. Wullschleger. 2010. Empirical geo- graphic modeling of switchgrass yields in the United States. Global Change Biology Bioenergy 2(5):248-257. Jarchow, M.E. and M. Liebman. 2011. Incorporating Prairies into Multifunctional Landscapes Establishing and Managing Prairies for Enhanced Environmental Quality, Livestock Grazing and Hay Production, Bioenergy Production, and Carbon Sequestration. Ames: Iowa State University. Johnson, J.M.-F., M.D. Coleman, R. Gesch, A. Jaradat, R. Mitchell, D. Reicosky, and W.W. Wilhelm. 2007. Biomass- bioenergy crops in the United States: A changing paradigm. The American Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology 1(1):1-28. Johnson, J.M.F., R.R. Allmaras, and D.C. Reicosky. 2006. Estimating source carbon from crop residues, roots and rhizodeposits using the national grain-yield database. Agronomy Journal 98(3):622-636. Johnston, M., J.A. Foley, T. Holloway, C. Kucharik, and C. Monfreda. 2009. Resetting global expectations from agricultural biofuels. Environmental Research Letters 4(1) doi:10.1088/1748-9326/4/1/014004. Jokela, E.J., P.M. Dougherty, and T.A. Martin. 2004. Production dynamics of intensively managed loblolly pine stands in the southern United States: A synthesis of seven long-term experiments. Forest Ecology and Man- agement 192(1):117-130. Jordan, N., G. Boody, W. Broussard, J.D. Glover, D. Keeney, B.H. McCown, G. McIsaac, M. Muller, H. Murray, J. Neal, C. Pansing, R.E. Turner, K. Warner, and D. Wyse. 2007. Environment—Sustainable development of the agricultural bio-economy. Science 316(5831):1570-1571. Jung, G.A., J.A. Shaffer, and W.L. Stout. 1988. Switchgrass and big bluestem responses to amendments on strongly acid soil. Agronomy Journal 80(4):669-676. Kalnes, T.N., K.P. Koers, T. Marker, and D.R. Shonnard. 2009. A technoeconomic and environmental life cy- cle comparison of green diesel to biodiesel and syndiesel. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy 28(1):111-120.

OCR for page 29
75 BIOFUEL SUPPLY CHAIN Karlen, D.L., N.C. Wollenhaupt, D.C. Erbach, E.C. Berry, J.B. Swan, N.S. Eash, and J.L. Jordahl. 1994. Crop residue effects on soil quality following 10-years of no-till corn. Soil & Tillage Research 31(2-3):149-167. Katzer, J.R. 2010. Sustainable research, development, and demonstration (RD&D). Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 49(21):10154-10158. King, J.E., J.M. Hannifan, and R. Nelson. 1998. An Assessment of the Feasibility of Electric Power Derived from Biomass and Waste Feedstocks. Topeka: Kansas Corporation Commission. Kline, K.L., and M.D. Coleman. 2010. Woody energy crops in the southeastern United States: Two centuries of practitioner experience. Biomass & Bioenergy 34(12):1655-1666. Knothe, G. 2001. Historical perspectives on vegetable oil-based diesel fuels. Inform 12(November):1103-1107. Kunkes, E.L., D.A. Simonetti, R.M. West, J.C. Serrano-Ruiz, C.A. Gartner, and J.A. Dumesic. 2008. Catalytic conver- sion of biomass to monofunctional hydrocarbons and targeted liquid-fuel classes. Science 322(5900):417-421. Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center. 2011. Native plant database. Available online at http://www.wildflower. org/plants/. Accessed February 7, 2011. Larson, J.A., D.F. Mooney, B.C. English, and D.D. Tyler. 2010. Cost analysis of alternative harvest and storage meth - ods for switchgrass in the southeastern U.S. Paper read at the 2010 Annual Meeting of Southern Agricultural Economics Association, February 6-9, Orlando, FL. Lobell, D.B., K.G. Cassman, and C.B. Field. 2009. Crop yield gaps: Their importance, magnitudes, and causes. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 34:179-204. Mayton, H., J. Hansen, J. Neally, and D. Viands. 2011. Accelerated evaluation of perennial grass and legume feed- stocks for biofuel production in New York state. Available online at http://nesungrant.cornell.edu/cals/ sungrant/difference/upload/Cornell-Biofuels-Crop-Development.pdf. Accessed February 7, 2011. McCready, N.S., and R.C. Williams. 2008. Utilization of biofuel coproducts as performance enhancers in asphalt binder. Transportation Research Record (2051):8-14. McIsaac, G.F., M.B. David, and C.A. Mitchell. 2010. Miscanthus and switchgrass production in Central Illinois: Impacts on hydrology and inorganic nitrogen leaching. Journal of Environmental Quality 39(5):1790-1799. Melis, S. 2008. Albemarle catalytic solutions for the co-processing of vegetable oil in conventional hydrotreaters. Catalysts Courrier 73:6-9. Mercker, D. 2007. Short rotation woody crops for biofuels. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Agricultural Experi- ment Station. Miguez, F.E., M.B. Villamil, S.P. Long, and G.A. Bollero. 2008. Meta-analysis of the effects of management factors on Miscanthus x giganteus growth and biomass production. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 148(8-9): 1280-1292. Miguez, F.E., X.G. Zhu, S. Humphries, G.A. Bollero, and S.P. Long. 2009. A semimechanistic model predicting the growth and production of the bioenergy crop Miscanthus × giganteus: Description, parameterization and validation. Global Change Biology Bioenergy 1(4):282-296. Milbrandt, A. 2005. A Geographic Perspective on the Current Biomass Resource Availability in the United States. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Miranowski, J., and A. Rosburg. 2010. An Economic Breakeven Model of Cellulosic Feedstock Production and Ethanol Conversion with Implied Carbon Pricing. Ames: Iowa State University. Mosier, N., C. Wyman, B. Dale, R. Elander, Y.Y. Lee, M. Holtzapple, and M. Ladisch. 2005. Features of promising technologies for pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresource Technology 96(6):673-686. Mueller, S. 2010. 2008 National dry mill corn ethanol survey. Biotechnology Letters 32(9):1261-1264. Muir, J.P., M.A. Sanderson, W.R. Ocumpaugh, R.M. Jones, and R.L. Reed. 2001. Biomass production of “Alamo” switchgrass in response to nitrogen, phosphorus, and row spacing. Agronomy Journal 93(4):896-901. NAS-NAE-NRC (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, National Research Council). 2009. Liquid Transportation Fuels from Coal and Biomass: Technological Status, Costs, and Environmental Impacts. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. NBB (National Biodiesel Board). 2010. NBB member plant locations. Available online at http://www.biodiesel. org/buyingbiodiesel/plants/default.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1. Accessed November 9, 2011. NCGA (National Corn Growers Association). 2010. National Corn Growers Association: Strategic Plan. Chester- field, MO: National Corn Growers Association. Nelson, R., M. Langemeier, J. Williams, C. Rice, S. Staggenborg, P. Pfomm, D. Rodgers, D. Wang, and J. Nippert. 2010. Kansas Biomass Resource Assessment: Assessment and Supply of Select Biomass-based Resources. Manhattan: Kansas State University. Neste Oil. 2011a. Neste Oil starts up its new renewable diesel plant in Singapore. Available online at http://nest- eoil.com/default.asp?path=1;41;540;1259;1261;13291;16384. Accessed January 10, 2011. Neste Oil. 2011b. NExBTL diesel. Available online at http://www.nesteoil.com/default.asp?path=1,41,535,547, 3716,3884. Accessed January 10, 2011.

OCR for page 29
76 RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD Nevoigt, E. 2008. Progress in metabolic engineering of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Microbiology and Molecular Biol- ogy Reviews 72(3):379-412. Nichols, N.N., B.S. Dien, R.J. Bothast, and M.A. Cotta. 2006. The corn ethanol industry. Pp. 59-77 in Alcholic Fuels, S. Minteer, ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 2005. Biodiesel Blends. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 2008. United States Biodiesel Production Facilities. Map Illustra- tion. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Oliva, J.M., F. Saez, I. Ballesteros, A. Gonzalez, M.J. Negro, P. Manzanares, and M. Ballesteros. 2003. Effect of lignocellulosic degradation compounds from steam explosion pretreatment on ethanol fermentation by thermotolerant yeast Kluyveromyces marxianus. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology 105:141-153. Owsley, C.M. 2002. Review of Big Bluestem. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service. Parrish, D.J., and J.H. Fike. 2005. The biology and agronomy of switchgrass for biofuels. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 24(5-6):423-459. Patzek, T.W. 2006. A statistical analysis of the theoretical yield of ethanol from corn starch. Natural Resources Research 15(3):205-212. Perlack, R.D., L.L. Wright, A.F. Turhollow, R.L. Graham, B.J. Stokes, and D.C. Erbach. 2005. Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply. Oak Ridge, TN: U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Perry, C.H., M.D. Nelson, J.C. Toney, T.S. Frescino, and M.L. Hoppus. 2007. Mapping forest resources of the United States. In Forest Resources of the United States, 2007, W.B. Smith, P.D. Miles, C.H. Perry, and S.A. Pugh, eds. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service. Petrolia, D.R. 2006. The Economics of Harvesting and Transporting Corn Stover for Conversion to Fuel Ethanol: A Case Study for Minnesota. St. Paul: University of Minnesota. Pootakham, T., and A. Kumar. 2010. A comparison of pipeline versus truck transport of bio-oil. Bioresource Tech- nology 101(1):414-421. Prine, G.M., D.L. Rockwood, and J.A. Stricker. 2000. Many short rotation trees and herbaceous plants available as energy crops in humid lower south. Proceedings of the Bioenergy 2000, Northeast Regional Bioenergy Program. Pyter, R., E. Heaton, F. Dohleman, T. Voigt, and S. Long. 2009. Agronomic Experiences with Miscanthus x giganteus in Illinois, USA. Biofuels: Methods and Protocols:41-52. Reijnders, L. 2009. Microalgal and terrestrial transport biofuels to displace fossil fuels. Energies 2(1):48-56. Renewable Diesel Subcommittee of the WSDA Technical Work Group. 2007. Renewable Diesel Technology. Olym- pia: Washington State Department of Agriculture. RFA (Renewable Fuels Association). 2002. Growing Homeland Energy Security. 2002 Ethanol Industry Outlook. Washington, DC: Renewable Fuels Association. RFA (Renewable Fuels Association). 2003. Building a Secure Energy Future. 2003 Ethanol Industry Outlook. Wash- ington, DC: Renewable Fuels Association. RFA (Renewable Fuels Association). 2004. Synergy in Energy. 2004 Ethanol Industry Outlook. Washington, DC: Renewable Fuels Association. RFA (Renewable Fuels Association). 2005. Home Grown for the Homeland. 2005 Ethanol Industry Outlook. Wash- ington, DC: Renewable Fuels Association. RFA (Renewable Fuels Association). 2006. From Niche to Nation. 2006 Ethanol Industry Outlook. Washington, DC: Renewable Fuels Association. RFA (Renewable Fuels Association). 2007. Building New Horizons. 2007 Ethanol Industry Outlook. Washington, DC: Renewable Fuels Association. RFA (Renewable Fuels Association). 2008. Changing the Climate. 2008 Ethanol Industry Outlook. Washington, DC: Renewable Fuels Association. RFA (Renewable Fuels Association). 2009. Growing Innovation. America’s Energy Future Starts at Home. 2009 Ethanol Industry Outlook. Washington, DC: Renewable Fuels Association. RFA (Renewable Fuels Association). 2010. Climate of Opportunity. 2010 Ethanol Industry Outlook. Washington, DC: Renewable Fuels Association. RFA (Renewable Fuels Association). 2011a. Building Bridges to a More Sustainable Future. 2011 Ethanol Industry Outlook. Washington, DC: Renewable Fuels Association. RFA (Renewable Fuels Association). 2011b. Statistics. Available online at http://www.ethanolrfa.org/pages/ statistics. Accessed April 27, 2011.

OCR for page 29
77 BIOFUEL SUPPLY CHAIN Riemenschneider, D.E., W.E. Berguson, D.I. Dickmann, R.B. Hall, J.G. Isebrands, C.A. Mohn, G.R. Stanosz, and G.A. Tuskan. 2001. Poplar breeding and testing strategies in the north-central U.S.: Demonstration of poten- tial yield and consideration of future research needs. The Forestry Chronicle 77(2):245-253. Rinehart, L. 2006. Switchgrass as a Bioenergy Crop. Butte, MT: National Center for Appropriate Technology. Roberts, K.G., B.A. Gloy, S. Joseph, N.R. Scott, and J. Lehmann. 2010. Life cycle assessment of biochar systems: Estimating the energetic, economic, and climate change potential. Environmental Science & Technology 44(2):827-833. Roman-Leshkov, Y., C.J. Barrett, Z.Y. Liu, and J.A. Dumesic. 2007. Production of dimethylfuran for liquid fuels from biomass-derived carbohydrates. Nature 447(7147):982-985. Ruark, G., S. Josiah, D. Riemenschneider, and T. Volk. 2006. Perennial crops for bio-fuels and conservation. Paper read at the USDA Agricultural Outlook Forum—Prospering in Rural America, February 1-17, Arlington, VA. Sadaka, S., and S. Negi. 2009. Improvements of biomass physical and thermochemical characteristics via torrefac- tion process. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy 28(3):427-434. Sagar, A.D., and B. van der Zwaan. 2006. Technological innovation in the energy sector: R&D, deployment, and learning-by-doing. Energy Policy 34(17):2601-2608. Salon, P.R., T. Horvath, M. van der Grinten, and H. Mayton. 2010. Yield and time of harvest of tall wheatgrass for biomass energy in New York. Paper read at the 2009 American Society of Agronomy/Crop Science Society of America/Soil Science Society of America Annual Meetings, November 1-5, Pittsburgh, PA. Sanderson, M.A., R.H. Skinner, D.J. Barker, G.R. Edwards, B.F. Tracy, and D.A. Wedin. 2004. Plant species diversity and management of temperate forage and grazing land ecosystems. Crop Science 44(4):1132-1144. Schnepf, R. 2010. Cellulosic Ethanol: Feedstocks, Conversion Technologies, Economics, and Policy Options. Wash- ington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Schwietzke, S., M. Ladisch, L. Russo, K. Kwant, T. Mäkinen, B. Kavalov, K. Maniatis, R. Zwart, G. Shahanan, K. Sipila, P. Grabowski, B. Telenius, M. White, and A. Brown. 2008. Gaps in the research of 2nd generation transportation biofuels. IEA Bioenergy T41(2):2008:01. Sendich, E., M. Laser, S. Kim, H. Alizadeh, L. Laureano-Perez, B. Dale, and L. Lynd. 2008. Recent process improve- ments for the ammonia fiber expansion (AFEX) process and resulting reductions in minimum ethanol selling price. Bioresource Technology 99(17):8429-8435. Smith, W.B., P.D. Miles, C.H. Perry, and S.A. Pugh. 2009. Forest Resources of the United States, 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service. Snell, K.D., and O.P. Peoples. 2009. PHA bioplastic: A value-added coproduct for biomass biorefineries. Biofuels Bioproducts and Biorefining 3(4):456-467. Sohngen, B., and S. Brown. 2006. The influence of conversion of forest types on carbon sequestration and other ecosystem services in the South Central United States. Ecological Economics 57(4):698-708. Somerville, C., H. Youngs, C. Taylor, S.C. Davis, and S.P. Long. 2010. Feedstocks for lignocellulosic biofuels. Sci- ence 329(5993):790-792. Sonderegger, M., M. Jeppsson, C. Larsson, M.F. Gorwa-Grauslund, E. Boles, L. Olsson, I. Spencer-Martins, B. Hahn- Hagerdal, and U. Sauer. 2004. Fermentation performance of engineered and evolved xylose-fermenting Sac- charomyces cerevisiae strains. Biotechnology and Bioengineering 87(1):90-98. Soria, A.J., A.G. McDonald, and B.B. He. 2008. Wood solubilization and depolymerization by supercritical metha- nol. Part 2: Analysis of methanol soluble compounds. Holzforschung 62(4):409-416. Spath, P.L., and D.C. Dayton. 2003. Preliminary Screening—Technical and Economic Assessment of Synthesis Gas to Fuels and Chemicals with Emphasis on the Potential for Biomass-Derived Syngas. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Steinbeck, K. 1999. Thirty years of short-rotation hardwoods research. Pp. 63-65 in Proceedings of the Tenth Bien- nial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference, J.D. Haywood, ed. Asheville, NC. Stewart, J.R., Y. Toma, F.G. Fernandez, A. Nishiwaki, T. Yamada, and G. Bollero. 2009. The ecology and agronomy of Miscanthus sinensis, a species important to bioenergy crop development, in its native range in Japan: A review. Global Change Biology Bioenergy 1(2):126-153. Stricker, J.A., D.L. Rockwood, S.A. Segrest, G.R. Alker, G.M. Prine, and D.R. Carter. 2000. Short Rotation Woody Crops for Florida. Available online at http://www.treepower.org/papers/strickerny.doc. Accessed Febru- ary 8, 2011. Thomson, A.M., R.C. Izarrualde, T.O. West, D.J. Parrish, D.D. Tyler, and J.R. Williams. 2009. Simulating Potential Switchgrass Production in the United States. Richland, WA: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Tilman, D., J. Hill, and C. Lehman. 2006. Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input high-diversity grassland bio- mass. Science 314(5805):1598-1600.

OCR for page 29
78 RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD Tober, D., W. Duckwitz, and M. Knudson. 2009. Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans) Biomass Trials. North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota. Bismarck, ND: U.S. Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conser- vation Service. Tolan, J.S. 2004. Iogen’s demonstration process for producing ethanol from cellulosic biomass. Pp. 193-208 in Biorefineries—Industrial Processes and Products, B. Kamm, P.R. Gruber and M. Kamm, eds. Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH. Tuskan, G.A., S. DiFazio, S. Jansson, J. Bohlmann, I. Grigoriev, U. Hellsten, N. Putnam, S. Ralph, S. Rombauts, A. Salamov, J. Schein, L. Sterck, A. Aerts, R.R. Bhalerao, R.P. Bhalerao, D. Blaudez, W. Boerjan, A. Brun, A. Brunner, V. Busov, M. Campbell, J. Carlson, M. Chalot, J. Chapman, G.L. Chen, D. Cooper, P.M. Coutinho, J. Couturier, S. Covert, Q. Cronk, R. Cunningham, J. Davis, S. Degroeve, A. Dejardin, C. Depamphilis, J. Detter, B. Dirks, I. Dubchak, S. Duplessis, J. Ehlting, B. Ellis, K. Gendler, D. Goodstein, M. Gribskov, J. Grimwood, A. Groover, L. Gunter, B. Hamberger, B. Heinze, Y. Helariutta, B. Henrissat, D. Holligan, R. Holt, W. Huang, N. Islam-Faridi, S. Jones, M. Jones-Rhoades, R. Jorgensen, C. Joshi, J. Kangasjarvi, J. Karlsson, C. Kelleher, R. Kirkpatrick, M. Kirst, A. Kohler, U. Kalluri, F. Larimer, J. Leebens-Mack, J.C. Leple, P. Locascio, Y. Lou, S. Lucas, F. Martin, B. Montanini, C. Napoli, D.R. Nelson, C. Nelson, K. Nieminen, O. Nilsson, V. Pereda, G. Peter, R. Philippe, G. Pilate, A. Poliakov, J. Razumovskaya, P. Richardson, C. Rinaldi, K. Ritland, P. Rouze, D. Ryaboy, J. Schmutz, J. Schrader, B. Segerman, H. Shin, A. Siddiqui, F. Sterky, A. Terry, C.J. Tsai, E. Uberbacher, P. Unneberg, J. Vahala, K. Wall, S. Wessler, G. Yang, T. Yin, C. Douglas, M. Marra, G. Sandberg, Y. Van de Peer, and D. Rokhsar. 2006. The genome of black cottonwood, Populus trichocarpa (Torr. & Gray). Science 313(5793):1596-1604. Urbanchuk, J. 2010. Current State of the U.S. Ethanol Industry. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy. USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2010. USDA Agricultural Projections to 2019. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2011. USDA Agricultural Projections to 2020. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. USDA-AMS (U.S. Department of Agriculture - Agricultural Marketing Service). 2007. Ethanol Transportation Backgrounder: Expansion of U.S. Corn-Based Ethanol from the Agricultural Transportation Perspective. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. USDA-ERS (U.S. Department of Agriculture - Economic Research Service). 2010. Farm program acres. Available online at http://maps.ers.usda.gov/BaseAcres/index.aspx. Accessed October 15, 2010. USDA-NASS (U.S. Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service). 2010. Data and statistics: Quick stats. Available online at http://www.nass.usda.gov/Data_and_Statistics/Quick_Stats/index.asp. Accessed June 24, 2011. USDA-NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2002. Plant Factsheet: Little Bluestem. Beltsville, MD: U.S. Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service - National Plant Materials Center. Volk, T.A., T. Verwijst, P.J. Tharakan, L.P. Abrahamson, and E.H. White. 2004. Growing fuel: A sustainability as- sessment of willow biomass crops. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2(8):411-418. Volk, T.A., L.P. Abrahamson, C.A. Nowak, L.B. Smart, P.J. Tharakan, and E.H. White. 2006. The development of short-rotation willow in the northeastern United States for bioenergy and bioproducts, agroforestry and phytoremediation. Biomass & Bioenergy 30(8-9):715-727. Walsh, M., D.G. De La Torre Uguarte, H. Shapouri, and S.P. Slinsky. 2003. Bioenergy crop production in the United States. Environmental and Resource Economics 24(3):313-333. Weimer, P.J., and T.L. Springer. 2007. Fermentability of eastern gamagrass, big bluestem and sand bluestem grown across a wide variety of environments. Bioresource Technology 98(8):1615-1621. Wilhelm, W.W., J.M.E. Johnson, D.L. Karlen, and D.T. Lightle. 2007. Corn stover to sustain soil organic carbon further constrains biomass supply. Agronomy Journal 99(6):1665-1667. Wright, L., and A. Turhollow. 2010. Switchgrass selection as a “model” bioenergy crop: A history of the process. Biomass & Bioenergy 34(6):851-868. Wullschleger, S.D., E.B. Davis, M.E. Borsuk, C.A. Gunderson, and L.R. Lynd. 2010. Biomass production in switchgrass across the United States: Database description and determinants of yield. Agronomy Journal 102(4):1158-1168. Yan, W., T.C. Acharjee, C.J. Coronella, and V.R. Vasquez. 2009. Thermal pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy 28(3):435-440. Yang, B., and C. Wyman. 2007. Pretreatment: The key to unlocking low-cost cellulosic ethanol. Biofuels Bioprod- ucts & Biorefining 2:26-40.