Beyond Ethanol: Drop-In Biofuels Squeeze Gasoline From Plants
Cut southern yellow pine trees are stacked up outside the first commercial cellulosic biorefinery, KiOR's plant in Mississippi. The wood that once fed paper mills will be chipped up, as seen below, and converted directly into gasoline and diesel fuel in a process its advocates say will be more sustainable than corn ethanol.
Fred Cannon was working at a Dutch chemical company when he had a conversation with a chemist about the movie Back to the Future—in particular, the scene near the end in which Doc Brown refuels his time-travel car with household garbage.
Corn distilled into ethanol was touted as a way to reduce civilization's dependence upon fossil fuels, but it required different pipelines—and only a specially equipped car could run on a mix of fuels made mostly of ethanol. (See related quiz: What You Don't Know About Biofuel.)
Wouldn't it be better if you simply could take waste material, or biomass, and transform it into fuel?
Not quite a decade later, that fantasy may be starting to become reality. Cannon is now chief executive of the alternative energy start-up KiOR. A few weeks ago, the company produced and shipped what it says is the world's first commercial volume of cellulosic diesel fuel from its new biorefinery in Columbus, Mississippi. KiOR's product, made from pine wood chips, is chemically identical to the petroleum-based fuel it is designed to replace, the company says. (Vote and comment: "Are Biofuels Worth the Investment?")
KiOR's breakthrough is one part of a wide-ranging effort by a number of companies and government-supported researchers to develop and perfect "drop-in" biofuels—fuels so similar to their petroleum-based counterparts that they could be pumped through the same pipelines and used to power the engines of cars and trucks without any modifications. Drop-in biofuels proponents say they could help free modern civilization from its dependence upon petroleum, without requiring extensive rebuilding of the fuel-supplying infrastructure or the junking of vast numbers of existing vehicles.
"Globally, we've invested trillions of dollars into our transportation infrastructure—our refineries, pipelines and distribution systems, our cars—so we need biofuel solutions that 'drop-in' to this infrastructure," Cannon said. "And today that infrastructure is made for hydrocarbon-based fuels. So what that means is that drop-in biofuel must be a hydrocarbon—molecularly indistinguishable from the gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel making the world mobile today."
Before drop-in biofuels become the transportation energy source of the future, there are still significant technological, economic, and environmental hurdles to overcome. Producers would need to be able to manufacture large quantities of drop-in biofuels at a cost that's competitive with gasoline and other petroleum products, and without expending excessive amounts of energy in the process. Some critics warn that drop-in biofuels would still release carbon into the atmosphere and contribute to climate change; they argue that electric cars powered by renewable energy provide a cleaner path to alternative fuel for transportation.
But biofuel believers point out that as long as coal—the most carbon-intensive fuel—generates 40 percent of U.S. electricity, greenhouse gas emissions remain a problem for electric cars.
"One of the things we have to do is get real," said clean technology investor Vinod Khosla, whose Khosla Ventures is controlling shareholder of KiOR. "Biofuels . . . even with [today's] inefficient engines, can do something like an 80 to 85 percent reduction in carbon emissions with very little increase in cost. It's the cheapest way to get carbon reduction in transportation at scale." More from Khosla in the video below:
Mimicking Fossil Fuels
Since the oil in the ground came originally from ancient living things, it might seem that creating its equivalent from biomass wouldn't be that much more difficult than, say, turning corn into alcohol, the process that produces today's most widely used biofuel, ethanol. (Related: "Ethanol Future Looking For More Fuel") Not so, according to Bill Brady, chief executive of Massachusetts-based alternative fuel company Mascoma (another firm in which Khosla has invested). "Ethanol is a simple molecule," he said. "How do you make a complicated molecule like what you have in gasoline? That's a lot more difficult." (See related: "Whisky a Go Go: Can Scotland's Distillery Waste Boost Biofuels?")
But soy oil biodiesel remains a niche product in the United States; the feedstock, a food crop, is expensive and the price at the pump is higher than any other alternative fuel tracked by the U.S. Department of Energy—about 30 cents per gallon more than petroleum diesel as of April. And Fischer-Tropsch processing is both expensive and energy-intensive. One company working in this area, Rentech, announced in March that it would shut down an $85 million research-and-development facility in Colorado, and end its efforts on Fischer-Tropsch synthesis.
Brady, of Mascoma, estimates that manufacturers of drop-in biofuels would need to reduce their production cost to no more than $1.75 or $2 a gallon to be competitive with petroleum-based fuels. "It will be a technical challenge," he conceded. But even so, he envisions that within a decade, drop-in biofuels will be a viable option at the filling-station pump.
Not everyone agrees that drop-in biofuels are the best investment for addressing climate change. Dan Becker, director of the Washington, D.C.-based Safe Climate Campaign, is concerned that biofuels might get in the way of what he sees as a more environmentally beneficial solution-switching to plug-in vehicles powered by electricity from wind, solar, and other non-carbon-burning generation methods.
Becker is skeptical of the carbon-reducing claims made for biofuels. Producing enough plants such as switchgrass to supply major quantities of fuel, he said, would require intensive, mechanized cultivation, which would add to the carbon output. "The problems don't go away just because it's drop-in," he warns.
But the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administers current policy based on its analysis that there is a significant carbon emissions reduction difference between biofuels produced by traditional methods (the refining of corn into ethanol) and those from cellulosic sources—woody or fibrous plants or plant waste. EPA has faced challenges on its approach. But the theory is that if a fuel is created from low-maintenance plants that capture carbon from the atmosphere and are continually replanted, the net effect is a significant reduction in carbon output compared to petroleum-based fuels. (See related quiz: "What You Don't Know About Food, Energy, and Water.")
KiOR's products qualify as cellulosic fuels under EPA's life-cycle analysis, meaning the agency agrees they will achieve a 60 percent or more reduction in greenhouse gas emissions over their petroleum counterparts from production through burning in the fuel tank.
KiOR says its process would work with a variety of feedstocks, but its current aim is to produce fuel from wood chips culled from the large southern yellow pine plantations that were used to service paper mills throughout the South. As the use of paper has declined, those mills have shut down. KiOR hopes to step into that void, with both its $213 million initial plant that began producing in March in Columbus, Mississippi, and another biorefinery three times larger that it is constructing in Natchez, Mississippi.
The new biofuels plants will establish supply relationships with the same plantations and lumber companies that used to service the paper mills. The wood that once was processed into newspapers, magazines, and catalogs would be grown, harvested, and chopped into biomass for fuel.
"Clearly, it's the winning technology and very, very soon I expect if we build three, four, five plants, it will be cheaper, unsubsidized, than deep offshore drilling projects or oil sands projects," Khosla said. "We can return all those paper mills that have been shut down back into business in thriving communities and replace our gasoline with something that's 80 percent lower carbon or more while not paying more."
The company has strong backing from the state of Mississippi, with $75 million in low-interest loans (former Governor Haley Barbour was instrumental in the deal). And Condoleezza Rice, former U.S. secretary of state, who works in an advisory role to Khosla Ventures, sits on the KiOR board of directors (which is picked by Khosla Ventures as controlling shareholder).
Khosla maintains his optimism on biofuels as a clean energy solution, despite a number of high-profile setbacks and disappointments. He was a lead investor in Range Fuels in Soperton, Georgia, which also aimed to use Southern wood as its feedstock (for making ethanol) before its bankruptcy in 2011. (See related, "Second Try: LanzaTech Grabs Failed Biofuel Refinery in Georgia Pine.")
Because of high hopes that Range and other cellulosic pioneers would be churning out high volumes of alternative fuel by now, Congress set ambitious renewable fuels goals in the 2007 energy law. The target was for U.S. drivers to be putting 500 million gallons of cellulosic biofuels into their gas tanks in 2012, up to 1 billion gallons in 2013, and 16 billion gallons by 2022. Instead, only 20,069 gallons of cellulosic biofuel were produced in the United States in 2012, according to U.S. EPA data.
In 2013, so far, only about 5,000 gallons of cellulosic diesel have been produced—at KiOR's plant in March. The EPA, which tracks biofuels sales, has recorded no new cellulosic diesel production since then. KiOR says it has no further operational data beyond the guidance it gave with its financial results in May: Adjustments were being made to the plant, and officials expected operating times to increase.
At this point, though, with far greater capital expenses than sales, KiOR's losses in the first quarter totaled $31.3 million. And the company's stock is trading some 80 percent below its high point soon after its initial public offering in late 2011.
It remains to be seen whether KiOR can meet its goal of producing 3 million to 5 million gallons of drop-in biofuel this year. Success would be just a small step toward replacing the 18.5 million barrels—777 million gallons—of petroleum products consumed each day in the United States. Although the numbers are daunting, Khosla, who made his mark as one of the cofounders of the pioneering tech company Sun Microsystems, believes that energy can be transformed just as communications were transformed by Internet technologies. Fuels that plug into the existing transportation infrastructure, he argues, have the potential to be the kind of revolutionary advance needed for cleaner energy.
"Things can change," he said, "and they can change very rapidly."
*Shell is sponsor of National Geographic's Great Energy Challenge initiative. National Geographic maintains autonomy over content.
"Cellulosic" means it can be made from any plant matter—not just food crops that contain lots of sugar, like sugar cane or corn. This means they can take the tree trimmings and lawn clippings from a city, or the grass and weeds growing on a semi-arid landscape (such as BLM lands), or the straw and chaff from grain farms and make them into fuel.
Farmers already produce a surplus of food in the USA, so the view that we have to choose between food and fuel is uninformed. It seems more likely that water use becomes the issue, but this KiOS production claims to have solved that issue. I wish them—and thereby the planet—the best of luck in their endeavors.
in relevance to its out standing advantages, in being better than electrical powered cars or even any other machinery powered by electric, its advantage in low carbon emission and controlling the global warming in a single perspective.
its main advantage is entirely dependent on it been "Renewable"; but, i believe that it is to intensive as it requires HUGE amount of tree harvest to fulfill the demand.
the variety and tree species used in this case require long growing and maturing time, in which it opens a time gap of at least 15 years to regrow, which will have a chain effect through out the local ecosystem.
In India we have proven commercial stage ready technology:).2nd Generation Biofuel Cellulosic Ethanol. Extracts about 300 litres ethanol from 1 tonne of straw, rice husk. Straws can be either rice or wheat depending upon the season.First Commercial scale Demonstration Plant will output per day 15,000 litres 200 proof fuel grade ethanol, 3 MW electricity from a CHP facility using biomass and process wastes, Recovers some chemicals and useful by products.Process is cheaper in capital cost and production cost.Does not require state subsidy!Looking for investors who can bring in $ 15 million as equity.
Where, oh where, is the discussion on recycled vegetable fat/waste
made into biodiesel? How can that be missing from this article? I
personally drive a normal, everyday diesel VW on 100% biodiesel made from 100%
recycled restaurant fat. It's produced locally (northern California).
It travels in a biodiesel truck to the station where I purchase it, and
it barely costs more per gallon than petrodiesel.
_does not_ have to be crop intensive/fuel intensive. The brilliant
potential in biodiesel is built around it essentially being a
"renewable"... a non-toxic fuel made from pre-existing garbage fat.
Virtually a closed-loop system (and the car also uses synthetic motor
oil). NO modification to a contemporary diesel car is needed to run it; this is not to be confused with running a car DIRECTLY on vegetable oil.
"Some critics warn that drop-in biofuels would still release carbon into the atmosphere and contribute to climate change"
Critics who say that must not understand that the carbon that is released from biomass was carbon that the plant recently pulled out of the air while it grew. If I grow a tree and then burn it, I didn't add new carbon into the atmosphere. This is different when burning fossil fuels, which releases carbon into the atmosphere that has been stored away for a very long time.
If you grow a tree and then burn it, you've lost a tree -- which was
quietly doing its job of removing carbon from the atmosphere -- and then
released to the atmosphere all the carbon that was stored in the tree.
using arable land for growing crops for biomass to be burned (releasing
more carbon into the atmosphere), instead of food to be consumed, is
And nuclear power generation -- which poses unacceptable
risks of catastrophic harm from mining to combustion to waste disposal
-- must stop.
The only solution to the world's energy/climate
problem is an all-out effort to switch to truly safe, renewable energy
-- wind, solar, geothermal, tidal... -- as quickly as possible.
this is exactly the point. What people overlook is that rotting biomass
not only releases CO2 into the atmosphere, but also methane, which is
an over 20times more potent greenhouse gas. But not only that. It is
absolutely correct that young trees collect large amounts of CO2, which
then is released again, after conversion into fuel. In other words, the
internal combustion engine turns from a greenhouse gas source into being
part of the natural CO2 cycle. If you look at it, we humans are also a
large CO2 source - our metabolism exhausts a lot of CO2. But we cannot
And back to the trees - only the young
trees collect more CO2 than they emit. Older trees are no longer taking
up CO2 and can even exhaust more then they consume.
it makes good sense to use biomass waste (rice and wheat chaff, straw,
etc.) as well as purpose-grown biomass. There are plants that grow well
on arid and fallow land, like Napier grass and Miscanthus. They are not
competing with crops. There are trees that grow in 2 1/2 years to a
girth of 1m (over 3 feet) at breast height (certain Melia Dubia
In the end there is no silver bullet. We will have to
mix many energy sources. Air planes will not fly on electricity from
solar or other renewable sources.
@Shireen Parsons Trees die anyway every day and release their carbon into the atmosphere. If you are planting trees for the purpose of using them for biofuel, then you are simply recycling carbon and not adding net carbon to the atmosphere. Further, trees can be grown on nonarable land, and they can be used to improve the soil quality on land by recycling subsoil nutrients. So it is incorrect to simply argue against using trees for fuels. It can be done in an environmentally responsible way.
Even in a small country like Finland where I live with only 5 million others our forests a growing every year more than 40 million (billion in US?) cubic meters more wood than we are felling and using.
Some trial plants are also going to sstart in near future to make biofuels of extra waste wood. Hope I'll still see the day this kind of biofuel is a commercial option for fossile fuels.