Biofuels Vs Artificial Fuels: The 5 Factors That Favor Waste Biomass To Fuels

Join every day information updates from CleanTechnica on e-mail. Or comply with us on Google Information!

Not too long ago a post-doctoral researcher at Ghent College in Belgium reached out with considerations about my place on biofuels vs artificial fuels. They have been skeptical about biofuels and regarded artificial fuels to be a extra promising pathway.

Right here’s a quick paraphrase of their considerate factors:

Biofuels face a number of challenges that elevate skepticism about their viability as a sustainable vitality supply. One of many main considerations is the inherent inefficiency of photosynthesis, which operates at a mere 1% effectivity. This limitation is additional compounded by the seasonal nature of plant progress, that means that biomass isn’t accessible all year long in lots of areas. Moreover, the processes of harvesting and transporting plant biomass are labor-intensive, including to the general inefficiency. Utilizing meals waste as a substitute feedstock presents its personal set of challenges, together with its low vitality density, excessive water content material, and the logistical hurdles of accumulating and storing such a perishable useful resource.

Artificial fuels, generally known as synfuels, provide a number of benefits that place them as a promising different to conventional fuels. A major profit is their skill to supply carbon dioxide (CO2) from massive level sources, akin to waste incinerators, biogas manufacturing services, and chemical vegetation. That is complemented by the maturity of know-how accessible for capturing CO2 at these websites. Moreover, the potential to gasify waste into syngas supplies an avenue to categorise the ensuing synfuel as a biofuel if derived from natural waste. Established processes, just like the Water-Gasoline Shift (WGS) and Fischer-Tropsch, can be found to effectively convert CO2 and hydrogen (H2) into liquid fuels. Nevertheless, the problem stays in procuring inexpensive hydrogen, although biogas presents a possible supply, albeit at a big scale.

My place on biofuels relies on a couple of issues, and whereas I agreed with the factors the post-doc was elevating, I stay of the opinion that biofuels will dominate. Why?

First, the volumes required are a lot decrease than the volumes required for present fossil fuels. Electrification of all floor transportation and far of aviation and maritime transport, renewable era of electrical energy, warmth pumps for business, residential, and industrial warmth, and different electrification of business warmth above 200° Celsius signifies that the entire tonnage of liquid fuels required will likely be a tiny fraction of at this time.

Might I be improper concerning the diploma of liquid gasoline displacement? Not in a world the place we remedy local weather change, value carbon and the fundamentals of economics nonetheless apply, at the very least to not any materials diploma. Might I be improper concerning the pace of transformation and the lengthy tail of liquid fuels being very lengthy and fats? Completely. My 2100 eventualities are simply that, eventualities. As I inform everybody, I feel that they’re merely much less improper than most I evaluate.

That electrification will likely be pushed largely by the upper value of any substitute fuels, whether or not biofuels or artificial ones. Artificial fuels will likely be much more costly than biofuels, and so is not going to be aggressive, for my part.

Low-cost hydrogen is an issue, and that drawback isn’t going away. I’ve accomplished the mathematics on that too many occasions for too many functions, together with artificial fuels, liquid hydrogen for maritime transport, African export to Europe and offshore hydrogen through wind farms, amongst a number of others, to suppose low-carbon hydrogen will likely be cheap.

Might I be improper about inexperienced hydrogen prices? Unlikely. Clear thermodynamic limits and dealing with considerations at each step of the way in which, together with apparent capex vs opex tradeoffs imply it’s unlikely.

Might I be improper about different sources of low-cost, low-carbon hydrogen, for instance the geological ones? Positive. I stumbled throughout one other underground hydrogen extraction technological pathway simply yesterday, utilizing the iron redox strategy in underground excessive ferrous areas to use the hydrogen era, versus that being an issue with iron redox batteries like Kind Power’s. I may very well be improper concerning the volumes of naturally occurring hydrogen, their geographical comfort, and the cheapness of extracting, capturing, and processing it. I may very well be improper concerning the madness of deliberately creating huge underground oil fires to seize the hydrogen that bubbles off whereas magically preserving the CO2 contained, all with out absurd geological penalties.

I feel it’s unlikely, however I’m additionally not a geologist or petrochemical engineer, simply as I’m not a biofuels chemical course of engineer.

Might I be improper concerning the inadvisability of blue hydrogen at any scale, the unlikeliness of ample carbon seize and sequestration, the prices of all of that, and the comply with on problematic prices of all of the hydrogen produced together with its distribution? Unlikely, as I’ve checked out all these issues in some depth a number of occasions.

A bunch of unlikelys for my part is, after all, value precisely that, my opinion. Many different individuals are working arduous to show me improper with out, after all, understanding I exist or being motivated in any approach by my opinion. As a reminder, regardless of my efforts to study as a lot as potential and get as a lot breadth and depth as potential, printed opinions are the bottom tier on the pyramid of proof. I’ve participated peripherally in systematic opinions, the very best tier, however that’s not what I do or publish.

Second, there are quite a lot of pathways to biofuels from waste biomass. I’m not dedicated to any of them, and don’t contemplate myself an skilled within the chemical engineering for them.

I’m merely betting on continued advances of all these completely different streams of applied sciences and good folks. If it seems that options like carbonauten GmbH‘s steady pyrolysis resolution take advantage of sense, ok. If second- or third-generation stalk cellulosic pathways get the win, certain. If livestock dung to jet gasoline is the one which pencils, out, I’m completely happy.

Might I be improper and the a number of waste biomass and know-how pathways don’t add as much as an answer? Positive. I feel it’s unlikely in comparison with the alternate options above.

Third, the sheer quantity of waste biomass and assortment chokepoints the place automation might be utilized is staggering in comparison with the necessity for liquid fuels. Waste stalks at harvest time. Livestock dung in industrial feedlots, dairy barns, and abattoirs. Meals waste at manufacturing vegetation, distribution warehouses, and large-scale grocery shops. Wooden scraps at timber mills. Separation of meals scraps in city composting schemes.

I’m utterly unconcerned about efficiencies when we now have 2.5 billion tons of meals waste globally, and 1.5 billion tons of livestock dung in Europe alone.

Fourth, we’re already making biodiesel in ample portions for all of maritime transport in my projections. Per the IEA’s 2023 renewables roundup, we’re making about 100 million tons of biofuels yearly, nearly all of it, round 70 million tons, is biodiesel, and that 70 million tons is coincidentally and with none forcing to suit the tonnage required for maritime transport in 2100 in my state of affairs. Shut sufficient.

Making that biodiesel extra environment friendly, much less problematic, and even decrease carbon is an iterative course of, and carbon pricing such because the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism, inclusion of transport and aviation of their emissions buying and selling scheme, and elimination of huge credit for these modes of transportation will float the boat of quite a lot of analysis.

We’re not almost as far down the pathway of aviation fuels, however we’re already placing thousands and thousands of tons a yr of SAF biokerosene into jets and it’s rising quickly as effectively. IATA and the ICAO are lastly waking up, and the EU is taking away aviation ETS credit. A hearth is being lit.

Lastly, all of the waste biomass I lean into is a serious local weather drawback. At current, the volumes are so massive that the stuff piles up in middens or is buried in landfills. Anaerobic decomposition happens for the stuff that’s not on the floor, and methane ensues.

The World Carbon Challenge’s evaluation is that that may be a larger supply of methane than all the fossil gasoline trade, probably even with current realization that the the fossil gasoline trade has been considerably understating the issue.

We now have to unravel that anthropogenic biomethane drawback. There are a number of pathways to minimizing it, however we’re nonetheless going to have an terrible lot of waste biomass which is a methane bomb, and turning that into biofuels utilizing processes that don’t undergo creation of methane makes quite a lot of sense. Waste biomass by means of CO2 creating processes is simply high-quality, returning CO2 to the ambiance, however methane is a special kettle of rotting fish.

Am I minimizing the challenges for the post-doc and their colleagues? Doubtless, however I’m not fussed if a couple of of the pathways and applied sciences don’t pan out, as a result of there are such a lot of of them.

Might I be improper? After all. I’m, clearly, betting on collective sanity, rational habits of governments, and funding entering into the suitable arms versus into the arms of individuals engaged on ineffective frippery. That’s an excellent guess within the decade-by-decade perspective I’ve, however a horrible guess for the subsequent two years.

Hopefully this contextualizes sufficiently why I’m much less involved concerning the challenges the post-doc highlighted. And to be clear, it’s very simple for me to take a seat right here with my laptop computer a good distance from any biofuel processing plant or biofuels lab and kind these phrases. Challenges are very welcome. As I’ve famous a couple of occasions prior to now couple of years, I work on a post-publication skilled evaluate course of, preferring to stay with the occasional humiliation of being utterly improper and correcting it than the very gradual course of of educational or different institutional publication.


Have a tip for CleanTechnica? Need to promote? Need to recommend a visitor for our CleanTech Speak podcast? Contact us right here.

EV Obsession Day by day!

I do not like paywalls. You do not like paywalls. Who likes paywalls? Right here at CleanTechnica, we carried out a restricted paywall for some time, nevertheless it all the time felt improper — and it was all the time robust to resolve what we should always put behind there. In idea, your most unique and greatest content material goes behind a paywall. However then fewer folks learn it!! So, we have determined to utterly nix paywalls right here at CleanTechnica. However…


Like different media firms, we’d like reader help! Should you help us, please chip in a bit month-to-month to assist our group write, edit, and publish 15 cleantech tales a day!



Tesla Gross sales in 2023, 2024, and 2030



CleanTechnica makes use of affiliate hyperlinks. See our coverage right here.