Biofuel Research Journal

Biofuel Research Journal

First-order estimates of the costs, input-output energy analysis, and energy returns on investment of conventional and emerging biofuels feedstocks

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors
Katrina Christiansen 1
David Raj Raman 2
Guiping Hu 3
Robert Anex 4
1 Stalende, LLC 310 4th Ave SE Jamestown, ND 58401, USA.
2 Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA.
3 Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 50011, USA.
4 Department of Biological Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
10.18331/BRJ2018.5.4.4
Abstract
Here we report on a static, algebraic, spreadsheet-implemented modeling approach to estimate the costs, energy inputs and outputs, and global warming potential of biomass feedstocks. Inputs to the model included literature sourced data for: environmental factors, crop physiological-parameters such as radiation use efficiency and water use efficiency, and crop cost components. Using an energy-input-output life-cycle-assessment approach, we calculated the energy associated with each cost component, allowing an estimate of the total energy required to produce the crop and fuel alongside the energy return on investment. We did this for crop scenarios in the upper Midwest US and Far West US (for algae). Our results suggested that algae are capable of the highest areal biomass production rates of 120 MG/(ha·a), ten times greater than Maize. Algal fuel systems had the highest costs, ranging from 28 to 65 US $/GJ, compared to 17 US $/GJ for Maize ethanol. Algal fuel systems had the lowest energy returns on investment, nearly 0, compared to 25 for Switchgrass to ethanol. The carbon equivalent emissions associated with the production schemes predictions ranged from 40 (Maize) to 180 (algae PBR) CO2eq/GJnet. The promise of low cost fuel and carbon neutrality from algae is demonstrated here to be extremely challenging for fundamental reasons related to the capital-intensive nature of the cultivation system.

Graphical Abstract

First-order estimates of the costs, input-output energy analysis, and energy returns on investment of conventional and emerging biofuels feedstocks

Highlights

  • Compared fuel production metrics from various biomass feedstocks.
  • Estimated the carbon equivalent emissions associated with biofuel produciton.
  • Predicted algae biomass production rates of 120 MG/(ha.a), ten times greater than Maize.
  • Predicted algae biofuel costs ranging from 28 to 65 US $/GJ compared to 17 US $/GJ for Maize ethanol.
  • Estimated biofuel energy returns on investment near zero for algae and 25 for Switchgrass.

Keywords
Algae
Biofuel
Biomass feedstocks
Bioenergy
LCA
Input-output analysis
[1] Beal, C.M., Gerber, L.N., Sills, D.L., Huntley, M.E., Machesky, S.C., Walsh, M.J., Tester, J.W., Archibald, I., Granados, J., Greene, C.H., 2015. Algal biofuel production for fuels and feed in a 100-ha facility: a comprehensive techno-economic analysis and life cycle assessment. Algal. Res. 10, 266-279.
[2] Biofuels, 2015. In OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2015. OECD Ilibrary, Paris.
[3] Carlton, J.S., Perry-Hill, R., Huber, M., Prokopy, L.S., 2015. The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists. Environ. Res. Lett. 10(9), 094025.
[4] Carnegie Mellon University Green Design Institute, 2008. Economic input-output life cycle assessment (EIO-LCA). US 1997 Ind. Benchmark model.
[5] Chisti, Y., 2007. Biodiesel from Microalgae. Biotechnol. Adv. 25(3), 294-306.
[6] Clark, S., Klonsky, K., Livingston, P., Temple, S., 1999. Crop-yield and economic comparisons of organic, low-input, and conventional farming systems in California's Sacramento Valley. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 14(3), 109-121.
[7] Cook, J., Oreskes, N., Doran, P.T., William, R.L., Anderegg, W.R., Verheggen, B., Maibach, E.W., Carlton, J.S., Lewandowsky, S., Skuce, A.G., Green, S.A., Nuccitelli, D., 2016. Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Environ. Res. Lett. 11(4), 048002.
[8] Detwiler, P.K., 2013. As solar panel efficiencies keep improving, it's time to adopt some new metrics. Forbes.com.
[9] Efroymson, R., Coleman, A., Wigmosta, M., Schoenung, S., Sokhansanj, S., Langholtz, M., Davis, R., Microalgae. In. U.S. Department of Energy, 2016. 2016 Billion-Ton Report: Advancing Domestic Resources for a Thriving Bioeconomy, Volume 1: Economic Availability of Feedstocks, M.H., Langholtz, B.J., Stokes, L.M., Eaton (Leads), ORNL/TM-2016/160. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. 448.
[10] Energy Information Administration, 2018. U.S. ethanol exports rise 26% in 2016 to second-highest level on record. Today in Energy.
[11] Ethanol Producer magazine, 2018. U.S. Ethanol Plants.
[12] Gomiero, T., Paoletti, M.G., Pimentel, D., 2015. Biofuels: efficiency, ethics, and limits to human appropriation of ecosystem services. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics. 23(5), 403-434.
[13] Gornall, J., Betts, R., Burke, E., Clark, R., Camp, J., Willett, K., Wiltshire, A., 2010. Implications of climate change for agricultural productivity in the early twenty-first century. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. B. 365(1554), 2973-2989.
[14] Hess, J.R., Wright, C.T., Kenney, K.L., 2007. Cellulosic biomass feedstocks and logistics for ethanol production. Biofuels, Bioprod. Biorefin. 1(3), 181-190.
[15] Hill, J., Nelson, E., Tilman, D., Polasky, S., Tiffany, D., 2006. Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels. PNAS. 103(30), 11206-11210.
[16] Hill, J., Tajibaeva, L., Polasky, S., 2016. Climate consequences of low-carbon fuels: The United States renewable fuel standard. Energy Policy. 97, 351-353.
[17] Huisingh, D., Zhang, Z., Moore, J.C., Qiao, Q., Li, Q., 2015. Recent advances in carbon emissions reduction: policies, technologies, monitoring, assessment and modeling. J. Cleaner Prod. 103, 1-12.
[18] Jaggard, K.W., Qi, A., Ober, E.S., 2010. Possible changes to arable crop yields by 2050. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. B. 365(1554), 2835-2851.
[19] Keyzer, M.A., Merbis, M.D., Voortman, R.L., 2008. The biofuel controversy. De Economist. 156(4), 507-527.
[20] Langholtz, M.H., Stokes, B.J., Eaton, L.M., Brandt, C.C., Davis, M.R., Theiss, T.J., Turhollow Jr, A.F., Webb, E., Coleman, A., Wigmosta, M., Efroymson, R.A., 2016. 2016Billion-ton report: advancing domestic resources for a thriving bioeconomy, volume 1: economic availability of feedstocks. Oak Ridge National Lab.(ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States).
[21] Leung, D.Y., Caramanna, G., Maroto-Valer, M.M., 2014. An overview of current status of carbon dioxide capture and storage technologies. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 39, 426-443.
[22] Lobell, D.B., Cassman, K.G., Field, C.B., 2009. Crop yield gaps: their importance, magnitudes, and causes. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.  34, 179-204.
[23] Mearian, L., 2015. SolarCity claims it has created the world's most powerful solar panel. Computer World.
[24] Nielsen, R.L., 2017.  Historical Corn Grain Yields for the U.S. Corny News Network.
[25] Otto, C.R., Roth, C.L., Carlson, B.L., Smart, M.D., 2016. Land-use change reduces habitat suitability for supporting managed honey bee colonies in the Northern Great Plains. PNAS. 113(37), 10430-10435.
[26] Pacala, S., Socolow, R., 2004. Stabilization wedges: solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science. 305(5686), 968-972.
[27] Pienkos, P.T., Darzins, A.L., 2009. The promise and challenges of microalgal‐derived biofuels. Biofuels, Bioprod. Biorefin. 3(4), 431-440.
[28] Richard, T.L., 2010. Challenges in scaling up biofuels infrastructure. Science. 329(5993), 793-796.
[29] Schuur, E.A., Bockheim, J., Canadell, J.G., Euskirchen, E., Field, C.B., Goryachkin, S.V., Hagemann, S., Kuhry, P., Lafleur, P.M., Lee, H., Mazhitova, G., Nelson, F.E., Rinke, A., Romanovsky, V.E., Shiklomanov, N., Tarnocai, C., Venevsky, S., Vogel, J.G., Zimov, S.A., 2008. Vulnerability of permafrost carbon to climate change: implications for the global carbon cycle. BioSci. 58(8), 701-714.
[30] Singh, J., Suhag, M., Dhaka, A., 2015. Augmented digestion of lignocellulose by steam explosion, acid and alkaline pretreatment methods: a review. Carbohydr. Polym. 117, 624-631.
[31] Taylor, D.K., D.R., Rank, D.R., Keiser, B.N., Smith, R.S., Criddle, L.D., 1998. Modeling temperature effects on growth-respiration relations of maize. Plant, Cell Environ. 21(11), 1143-1151.
[32] Tomei, J., Helliwell, R., 2016. Food versus fuel? going beyond biofuels. Land Use Policy. 56, 320-326.
[33] Wang, M.Q., 1999. GREET 1.5-transportation fuel-cycle model-Vol. 1: methodology, development, use, and result. ANL/ESD-39, Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Lab. Argonne, IL (US).
Biofuel Research Journal
Volume 5, Issue 4 - Serial Number 4
Autumn 2018
Pages 894-899