Making Biodiesel from Bio-Coal

[jbNYS]

I just saw this item about using bio-coal to make fuels and chemicals.

http://chinaconfidential.blogspot.com/2013/07/bio-coal-based-energy-could-be-third.html

Anybody know anything about gasifying bio-coal? There seems to be progress in this direction instead of gasifying biomass directly. Woodchips to bio-coal to syngas to fuels. Seems like a better use of wood and bio-coal than just burning it in a power plant. More money to be made selling a higher value product. That could mean more money for landowners.

[beenthere]

That could mean more money for landowners.

Doubt that, as the several added "middlemen" will be taking all that, and maybe more. Right now, they are looking at landowners holdings as a source of cheap or free no-good material that isn't being used now. In the future, it won't be any different, or if it is, not by much.
Only when the demand gets so great that there are no alternatives (like cheap oil or easy to mine coal), will there be an increase in price dealt to the landowner. And I don't see that happening, unless it is just a flat subsidy by the Feds.

[Kansas]

Back when we were looking at getting a biofuel plant here in this part of Kansas. I asked a lot of hard questions. This plant wanted cedar, but would have used wood waste from other sources, plus big bales of corn stover, switchgrass, and such. The prices they were quoting were a lot higher than I expected. Can't remember exactly what now, but remember thinking it would have been worth it.

[beenthere]

I would expect they would tout a good price that they say they would pay. But for how long?

I recall the days when the chinchilla business was promoted. Raise the chinchilla's and they would buy the pelts. Really looked lucrative, but those who got into the business soon found out that the promo price was high, and in fact getting anyone to buy the pelts was difficult to do. But the company doing the promoting already had your money in their pocket and had nothing to do with buying pelts. Not saying this is really the same as the Bio business, but just hinting that it is easy to quote good payouts when promoting, but it is the supply and demand that affects the actual price. Most of these are a ploy to get the federal up-front monies to research, design, and build proto-types. And they have been forthcoming for many years with promises too.

Don't mean to sound so negative, as there are likely some silver threads intwined amongst the onrush of the wind.

[Paul_H]

...so do you have anymore Chinchillas or did you eat them?

[beenthere]

 :D :D
Neither, as I didn't "bite" on the bait.

But did raise tame rabbits for table fare.
Don't know how chinchilla would taste, but imagine they are edible.

[Ron Wenrich]

Is bio-coal just charcoal?  If its profitable, how would the US compete with eucalyptus plantations in the tropics?  We have a hard time competing with them for our own domestic chip consumption.  High prices for a resource are often associated with government subsidies for the building of the plant.  After the subsidies are gone, then what?

[OneWithWood]

I agree with Beenthere and Ron.  This is all about procuring government funds in the short run.

[Kansas]

I get all the e mails from Biofuel Digest. I remember an article covering it. Found it. Everything you ever wanted to know about Biocoal. Some of the math can make your eyes glaze over, but they explain the figures down below the graph. Basically the gist of the article is that it isn't really feasible in the USA. In Europe, with the carbon credits, the math would be different. I know the vast majority here are against carbon credits. But if it ever happens, its likely to open up new markets. Not that I really expect it to happen. Here is the article.

http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2011/10/10/what-to-burn-thermal-coal-or-bio-coal/

[thecfarm]

jbNYS,welcome to the forum. What's your interest with wood?

[John Mc]

I'm guessing this is the same thing as Bio-char.  That concept made the rounds in our area a couple of years ago.  Sounded interesting, but I never heard much about it after the first few papers and a workshop/conference on it were presented.

[Thehardway]

Most of these "alternative, renewable, green" energy projects have a couple serious flaws.

1. The process by which they produce and extract the fuel requires energy intense processes
2. The process is not cost effective without heavy subsidization
3. The process has undesired or unanticipated consequence (ie. higher food prices from crop displacement, micro-particulate emissions, soil depletion, deforestation etc.)

There are few exceptions.  I investigated the possibility of my employer engaging in a syngas project a couple years ago.  Most of these projects look good on the front end but are not sustainably profitable.  For instance, in the case of wood chips, switchgrass, biomass,  the first couple years, feedstocks are readily available and cheap, as the local supply is exhausted, they become more expensive due to transportation and increased demand.  Competition will hold the market stable for an additional 3-5 years and then their is an exponential rise in the price of obtaining high quality feed stock.   Either the plant must accept lower quality feed stock which increases operational cost, or they must ship stock from longer and longer distance via rail which increases cost as well due to multiple handling points and construction of loading/off loading for rail cars.  After about 10 years of operation you reach point where you are producing power at the same cost as you can purchase it from the local utility but you have to deal with all the procurement, management and maintenance logistics rather than just writing a check to the power company and focusing on your companies core business practice.

Unless you are manufacturing a high value product from which the waste can be utilized as feedstock and used for on-site or near on-site power these types of operations are usually at best a break even venture.  Sawmills have this benefit.

Community waste to energy syngas projects can work but scaling needs to be well planned and controlled tightly.

A relative of mine got involved in the bio-diesel "business" back when low-sulphur diesel was approaching $5 gal.  It reminded me of the chinchilla farming scam.  His "sponsor" sold him a "franchise" to produce bio-diesel in a specific area using a "patented process with a patented system".  He was to use specific chemicals which he purchased at a "discount" from his sponsor.

While diesel prices were up, he made a little money but as soon as they began to fall, and the local competition for used oils by producers increased, he found himself doing nothing more than breaking even.   Usually at this point the "sponsor" steps back in and offers to buy back the equipment for pennies on the dollar and then goes in search of another aspiring businessman and repeats the process all over again.  Some might remember Amway...

Back to syngas, syngas can be produced from just about anything with calorific content.  One company out there is claiming to be able to produce enough syngas to run an electric generating gas turbine and produce low pressure process steam with the only fuel input being waste water and the only byproducts being medical grade pure water and some trace amounts of heavy metals.  They supposedly have a demonstration truck going around the country but it never seems to be able to stop in your neighborhood or be available unless you are willing to pay for a feasibility study at your site. 

I am a firm believer in the waste not, want not policy.  We are much to wasteful of fuel and energy as a society.  This is why we "want" so much.  Until we curb our waste, we will always be wanting.  Increased price merely opens up new fields of exploration and leads to increased supply and increased waste.  This is why our taxes should be based on consumption rather than income and profit.  If we can curb waste, all of society benefits as well as the environment.

[Kansas]

Thehardway, I agree with much of what you say. But there is one line I take exception to. That is, the process has undesired or unanticipated consequences (higher food prices from crop displacement, emissions and depletion, deforestation.

As someone that has a smaller amount of farmground, I want the most profitable crop I can grow. The government does not have the right to say, we don't want this because food prices will be higher. That line was used when crop prices got so high back in the 70's, and the government balked at allowing exported grain. That is a good way to run off customers. There could be a lot of unanticipated consequences. Marginal ground might go into switchgrass, which would slow down erosion. Some might go into pine plantations. Yes, that would reduce the amount of farmground, but most all this land is privately owned, and people should be able to plant what they want. The same thing with deforestation. If a person so desires I don't see where anyone has any right to tell them they can't. Every winter we spend most of our time salvage logging hardwood timber that is getting pushed out to for more farmground. I don't like it, but I have no right to tell someone they can't. As far as I know the only restriction is on wetlands.
People that own timber have the right to sell chips to a pulp mill, biofuel company, wherever they get the best market, same with loggers.

[Thehardway]

Kansas,

I do not advocate the government mandating what can and cannot be done, unfortunately however, we live in a country where it is illegal to do what you wish on your own property.  The government does have the right to say what you can grow because it effects "Commerce" which they have the power to regulate.  This has been specifically decided in regards to agricultural crops by the Supreme Court in one of their worst moments on record.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

It is also one of the premises on which they argue for the authority to mandate health insurance.
Mind you, that was decided in dealing with legal crops.

If you wish to plant a crop which yields the highest market value, go ahead and plant hemp or poppies and see where you land!

I know that is an extreme example but there are many more realistic limitations.  Try hog farming in many areas.  Profitable venture but very regulated, try aqua-culture, once again very profitable but very regulated. 

There are also zoning boards which tell you what you can and cannot do and or grow or raise.

The fact is, no one really owns land and has any kind of sovereignty (with the exception of those who fall under King's Grant or Native American's and even there it's subject to regulation)

I live in the heart of tobacco country.  There has been a lot of legal regulation on the growing of tobacco.  You may grow it for personal use and sell it in a raw, unprocessed state, any other form is highly regulated and taxed.

I don't think this is right or just, but it is a fact of life.  It is one thing to get a high price on a crop in the free market unsubsidized, it is another thing to get a high price because an industry is being propped up by unfair laws, regulations and subsidies with tax dollars.  This is what has happened in the ethanol markets, it will also happen in other alternative fuel markets. 

There was an event called the Great Dust Bowl,  which came from farmers planting the crops which yielded the highest market price without regard for the land.  There must be some reasonable regulation to control reckless greed, but big government is not the best answer. 

I advocate energy policy which holds the welfare of the land in highest regard and health of the people second.  Profits should rank third.  If you take care of the land, the land will take care of you.  Greed kills indiscriminately.