Scaling Bioenergy to A Cubic Mile of Oil

Ripudaman Malhotra, Ph.D. SRI International Menlo Park Washington, DC August 14, 2012

Energy Challenge: Tough Choices Ahead Time to reframe the debate about energy supply

• Current practices of energy production and consumption are unsustainable

• Energy use is central to our way of life and essential to reducing poverty

– 16,000 children die each day as a result of poverty

• Quadrupling of energy consumption between 1981 and 2005 allowed China to lift over 400 million people out of poverty

• Tension between protecting the environment and social justice

• A comprehensive energy policy must acknowledge the magnitude of the problem

How Much Energy Do We Use? A good question to ask, but we confront a tower of Babel

• We get energy from many sources: oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear…

• We use different units for different sources

– Gallons or barrels for oil

– Tons or BTUs for coal

– SCFs for natural gas

– kWh for electrical energy

• Lack of uniform units

– Presents a serious impediment to meaningful discussion

– Creates confusion: millions, billions, trillions, quadrillions!!!

A Cubic Mile of Oil – CMO Understandable unit: mental image

CMO is a unit of energy coined by SRI’s Hew Crane in the 1970s while waiting in line to buy gasoline. His realization: annual global oil consumption was then approaching one cubic mile!

Statue of Liberty

Oil 1.06

Coal

0.81

Natural gas 0.61

Hydroelectric 0.17

Biomass 0.19

Wind + Photovoltaic +

Solar Thermal <0.03

Geothermal <0.01

Nuclear 0.15

Annual Global Energy Consumption We are living off our inheritance – how long will it last?

2006 Data

Total 3.0 CMO/yr

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

En

erg

y D

em

an

d:

CM

O

Year

2.6%

1.8%

0.8%

Projected Energy Demand by 2050 Energy needed to support the world’s 5.5% GDP growth rate

3.0 CMO/yr today 9.0 CMO/yr in 2050?

270 CMO

214 CMO

163 CMO

179 CMO

Σ

Variable profile

The Sun Offers 23,000 CMO/yr And we are looking for just a few CMO per year, but…

Questions to Consider

• Does the source have CMO-scale potential to supply energy?

• What infrastructure is required for large-scale CMO use?

– Is it plug-and-play?

– New pipelines and transmission structure?

• What is its environmental footprint?

– Energy return on fossil energy invested?

– Competing land use issues?

– Biodiversity, habitat destruction?

• Can it compete with oil at $50/bbl, the cost of producing deep oil?

– If not today, in the foreseeable future?

8

Competition for green energy comes from cheap fossil

sources, not other green sources

Producing 1 CMO Per Year from Various Sources Enormous task requiring trillions of dollars

• Hydro: 200 dams • 1 every quarter for 50 years 18 GW with 50% availability (3 Gorges Dam)

• Nuclear: 2,500 plants 1 a week for 50 years 900 MW with 90% av.

• Solar CSP: 7,700 solar parks 3 a week for 50 years 900 MW with 25% av.

• Windmills: 3 million 1200 a week for 50 years 1.65 MW with 35% av.

• Solar Roofs: 4.2 billion 250k roofs a day for 50 years 2.1 kW with 20% av.

Biomass Resource Potential

• IEA Biofuels Roadmap’s 3500 Mtoe = 147 EJ

• World energy use today (primary energy) = 500 EJ, of which 50 EJ is biomass (IEA Bioenergy Report of 2009)

• Double world energy by 2050 would be 1000 EJ, and 3x is “business as usual” but GHG con-cerns will increase conservation/efficiency

• Consider 300 EJ as the biomass potential

10

Oil Equivalents:

36.0 MMBtu/ton (short ton, oil)

44.4 lbsC / MMBtu

1598 lbsC / ton (short)

162.8 lbs CO2 / MMBtu

1055 J / Btu

41.9 GJ/tonne (metric ton)

3500 Mtoe = 147 EJ

760 Mtoe = 32 EJ

11

Bioenergy Growth to 2050

Biomass Source/Technology EJ in EJ in

2006 2050

Traditional --> modern 36.50 50

Modern biomass (5%, 40 y) 7.50 100

MSW (municipal solids) 1.50 8

"biogas" (LFG, wet wastes) 3.00 12

Algae (aquaculture) 0.04 10

Energy crops (agriculture) 1.50 120

------- -------

Totals 50.04 300

12

Flaws and Limits

• Biomass is limited, only a 15%-25% source.

– wastes (MSW, etc.) only a 2%-5% source

– arable land competes with food/feed

– requires large amounts of water (sunlight + CO2 + H2O) and irrigation is expensive

• Low energy density (especially per m3 or ft3 , and this makes transport and size an issue)

• Never as clean as natural gas

• Expensive compared to coal

• Technical: moisture, tars and alkali content

13

Feedstock/Technology Paths

• Wood: handling, drying, combustion, gasification, pulping, hydrolysis, enzyme treatment, tar reforming, refining, syngas & liquid upgrading, hydrotreat, etc.

• Ligno-cellulosics (straw, stalks, leaves, etc.): same

• Herbaceous crops (miscanthus, switchgrass, grasses, etc.): similar list to wood and lignocellulosics

• Food processing residues and waste waters: biogas via anaerobic digestion (AD), and fermentation

• Other categories: municipal solid wastes (MSW), wastewater treatment streams (sludge, biosolids), industrial solid and liquid wastes (e.g., black liquor), and more

14

Changes in Global Energy Mix Have Occurred Before Transitions take scores of years

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1850 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010

Per

cen

t To

tal P

rim

ary

Ener

gy f

rom

Var

iou

s R

eso

urc

es

Year

Wood/Biomass

Oil

Gas

Hydro

Coal

Nuclear

Wood/Biomass

Oil

Coal

~1880

~1940

~1960

Biomass The only renewable that produces storable fuel • Lots of hope and hype

• Global potential: 0.5 to 2 CMO/yr

• May not reduce greenhouse gases

– Some options release more greenhouse gases than direct use of fossil fuels

• Can strain water supplies

• Can disrupt food supply and result in undesirable land-use practices

Broad range of biomass feedstock and process options

Source E4Tech, 2009, Ref 14

Broad range of biomass and process options

Source: IEA Good Practice Guidelines: Bioenergy Project Development & Biomass Supply. 2007.

Water footprint of biofuels

Dominguez-Faus, et al., Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43 (9), 3005-10.

What About Greenhouse Gas Emissions?

• Differentiated response

– Societies at different stages of development will make different choices

• Focus on items that can make the most impact

– Minimize natural gas emissions

– Replace wood burning with natural gas or LPG: it improves quality of life and reduces GHG emissions

• Fewer “Black Carbon” emissions, and

• Maintains natural forests

– Reduce red-meat from diet

– Improve efficiency of fertilizer use: its a two-fer

• Cuts energy use in fertilizer production

• Reduces water pollution and subsequent NOx emissions

– Focus on gallons consumed; not miles per gallon

– Promote mass-transit and car-pooling

20

What Is the Path Forward? Innovation is needed on all fronts to meet future energy demand

• Reducing demand from 9 to 6 CMO will be a major international effort requiring new technologies

• Our planning cycle needs to

– Last for 40 years not four

– Transcend the prevailing price of oil

• We need a family of innovations

– Short term: public education, efficiency, conservation, nuclear, CSP

– Intermediate term: Unconventional hydrocarbons, new engines, biofuels, electrify transportation

– Long term: Thin-film PV, nuclear fusion,???

• “AND” is the operative conjunction

– To make an impact, we need all technology options:

• Efficiency AND conservation, AND nuclear AND solar AND wind AND…

21

Headquarters: Silicon Valley SRI International 333 Ravenswood Avenue Menlo Park, CA 94025-3493 650.859.2000 Washington, D.C.

SRI International 1100 Wilson Blvd., Suite 2800 Arlington, VA 22209-3915 703.524.2053 Princeton, New Jersey

SRI International Sarnoff 201 Washington Road Princeton, NJ 08540 609.734.2553 Additional U.S. and international locations www.sri.com

Thank You

Don’t waste Be informed Get involved

cmo-ripu.blogspot.com

Plant a Tree Urgent because we are late

The great French marshal Lyautey once asked his gardener to plant a tree. The gardener objected that the tree was slow growing and would not reach maturity for 100 years. The marshal replied, “In that case, there is no time to lose; plant it this afternoon!”

IEA Roadmap envisions a substantial increase in the production of biofuels

• Significant contribution of 1st generation biofuels means improved efficiencies in their production will also have a significant impact

• From 750 Mlge* in 2009 to 7.5 Blge in 2015 mostly from 1st generation biofuels

• To 300 Blge by 2030, mostly from 2nd generation biofuels

* lge = Liters gasoline equivalent

25

Water Scarcity

Physical water scarcity

Australi a, China (north), Middle East, West Coast of

the United States

Economic water scarcity

Mid-Africa, South Asia, West South America

Source: Scientific American, August 2008

70 % of Total water demand

is for Agriculture

26

New on-site Biomass Drying Method

Advanced sheet can reduce water content down to <20% !

Harvesting,

Baling after drying

in the sun

Storing bale covered

with moisture permeable

and water-proof sheet 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Hokkaido Niigata Fukuoka

Water content （%）

Just afterharvesting

After drying inthe sun

After 6 m onthsstorage w ithsheets

pore diameter

< 0.2 μm

water ⇒ impermeable

vapor 0.0004μm ⇒ permeable

27

28

Slow-release Coated Fertilizer

Ammonium Sulfate

& Urea Coated Fertilizer

(Coated Urea)

ca ca Utilization

(%)

29

Feedstock augmentation (e.g. soil amendments)

• Biochar

– Preliminary results in a greenhouse study: biochar plus fertilizer outperformed fertilizer alone by 60%

– Biochar co-produces a soil amendment and energy

– Total benefit would be equivalent to removing about 1.2 billion tpy carbon from the atmosphere

Status: Pre-commercial scale In Boulder Co, Biochar Engineering Corp building portable $50,000 pyrolyzers that researchers will use to produce 1–2 tons biochar per week. Larger units that could be trucked into position are planned. Pyrolysis units located near the biomass source are economically preferable to larger, centrally located facilities, even when the units reach commercial scale

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/02/major-co2-mitigation-methods-carbon.html

SRI Proprietary

Factors enabling expanded biofuels production and use

• High crop yields (Mt/Ha-yr) from the limited available land area to grow such crops are needed to yields make possible $3/GJ, rather than the $6-$9/GJ from low-yield crops

– Continued development of soil management such as sustainable amendments, crop-targeted fertilizers, slow release fertilizers

– Land and water ultimately constrain the role of biomass, a resource than could

someday supply 10 – 20% of global energy needs

• Develop high-yield energy crops and crop strains for use on less arable areas

• Purify water for re-use and or desalinate

• Improve efficiency of processes for biofuels production

Many barriers to expanding biofuels production

• High moisture content of biomass requires energy inputs for drying

• Low energy density and periodic availability of biomass requires large storage facilities and raises cost

• Cost of cellulase enzymes to hydrolyze cellulose to fermentable sugars is high

• Distillation of ethanol from the dilute fermentation broth is energy intensive

• Low value of animal feed or soil amendment co-products

Chemical industry know-how can help overcome these barriers

32

Technology developed by Mebiol

Water and Food

“Hydromembrane” (water absorbent film)

Ground

Strong point

（１）All of the water and nutrients are

assimilated by the plant.

low cost and ecological

（２）Separate from the ground

”Possible at any place”

no problem of continuous culture,

residual chemicals, soil quality

(pollution, salts etc).

Hydromembrane OH

OH

OH OH

OH

OH

OH

OH PVA film cross-linked

by micro-crystalline

Water & Nutrients

土壌使用量 　液肥使用量 設備コスト

　（Ｌ／株） （Ｌ／株、日） （万円／反）

アイメック ０．８ ０．２ ３００

養液土耕 ２．０ １５０

水耕 ０ ０．８～０．９ ２，０００

栽培法

Drip Tube on “Hydromembrane”

(Water+Nutrients)

Non-Woven

Fabrics

Waterproof

Sheet

Drip Tube beneath

“Hydromembrane”

(Water+Nutrients)

Methods Soil Volume

(L/plant)

Medium volume

(L/plant･Day)

Equipment cost (million yen

/tan(992m2))

Imec 0.8 0.2 300

Drop Soil

culture

40 2.0 150

Hydroponic 0 0.8 2000

Chemical industry brings critical expertise for expanded biofuels use

Sector Representative examples Core competencies

Commodity chemicals Dow, DuPont, BASF, Mitsubishi Chemical, Solutia, Mitsui Chemicals

Chemicals, materials, process engineering, catalysis

Specialty Chemicals Rohm and Haas, Lubrizol, Kuraray, Celanese, Arkema, Akzo, Albemarle, Cognis, Toray

Catalyst, process chemistry

Pharmaceuticals Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda Drug discovery, synthesis, formulation, chemical processing

Biopharmaceuticals Genentech, Amgen, Novo-Nordisk, Genetic engineering

Biotechnology Monsanto, Codexis, Genencor, Amyris, Ineos, Nippon Shokubai,

Genetic engineering, chemical processing

Industrial gases Air Products, Air Liquide, Praxair Gas purification

Oil and Gas Exxon-Mobil, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Nippon Oil, Total, Repsol, Neste Oil

Resource development, fuels processing

Petrochemicals Braskem, Eastman, Honam, Ube, Tosoh Catalysis, process development, co-products

Chemical technology options for improving the efficacy of 1st generation biofuels

• Bioethanol

– Improve feedstock production and handling

– Reduce energy for recovering ethanol from fermentation broth

• Develop yeast strains with increased tolerance to ethanol

• Develop membrane processing to improve the energy efficiency of product recovery

• Biodiesel

– Develop more efficient technology for extracting vegetable oil

– Enable efficient removal of phospholipids and other impurities

– Develop better catalysts for trans-esterification

– Use glycerol for other value-added co-products

Managing the Demand Side Low-hanging fruit

• Efficiency: Using less energy to do what we do

– Easiest and most economical path

– Does not go all the way

– Historically, we end up increasing total consumption!

• Conservation: Avoid what we need not do

– Tough to change lifestyles

– Switch to high-density urban living and mass transit anyone? Vegetarian diet?

– Can have a substantial impact

1 CMO ≅ 100 billion CFLs!

Energy and Economic Growth Correlation but not a destiny

China Ireland

60

40

20

0

Ene

rgy

pe

r C

apit

a in

Gal

lon

s o

f O

il

0 $10k $20k $30k $40k

GDP per Capita

• • • • • •

USA from 1985 to 2005

Reserves Depend on Technology and Price Additional resources become viable at higher prices

Their continued use increases atmospheric CO2 levels They will be needed while we switch to other sources

How Much Oil, Gas, and Coal Do We Have Left? We have plenty of fossil fuels, but mostly in unconventional sources

46 42

120 Reserves

94 Additional

Resource

66 Additional

Resource

400 Unconventional

Tar sands, oil shales

5,000 Unconventional

Gas hydrates

1500 Additional

Resource

Reserves

Oil Gas Coal

Nuclear Power An option we cannot ignore

• Opportunity – Established scalable technology

– Low footprint

– Ample reserves

• Risks – Fears

• Radiation Exposure

• Explosions

– Political Challenges

• Nuclear proliferation

• Terrorism

– Technical

• Long-term storage

– Cost (in part fed by fears)

• Nuclear fusion, if realized, would ameliorate these risks

NPR, 3/15/11

Boiling-water reactor

Direct Solar Storage systems are needed

• Cost

– PV about 35 cents/kWh

– Concentrating Solar Power competitively priced

• Intermittency

– Reduces availability to 20%

– Need > 4 times the installed capacity

• Location

– Solar homes and offices (PV): close to use, but not enough

– Utility scale systems: remote from population centers

– Electricity transmission limited to < 1000 km

Wind Power Runs up against NIMBY

• Pluses

– Huge potential: several CMO per year

– Relatively low cost

• Minuses

– Intermittent: 25-30% availability; needs gas backup and/or storage

– Dilute: 8-10 MW/sq. mile

– Whose land? Habitat?

– Often remote from energy consuming centers

CMO: Cubic Mile of Oil Equivalent A unit appropriate for global energy flows

– 1 CMO ≅ 1.1 trillion gallons of oil 26 Billion (109) bbl oil

• 1 CMO ≅ current annual worldwide oil consumption

• 1 CMO is equivalent to:

– 153 Quadrillion (1015) Btu (Quads)

– 6.4 Billion (109) tons of hard coal

– 15.3 Trillion (1012) kWh electricity (At 10,000 Btu/kWh; not 3412 Btu/kWh)

8 hours of cardio ≅ 1kWh ≅ 0.1 gal of oil

1 Btu ≅ the energy from a

burning match

Transportation 29%

Industrial 32%

Commercial/Residential 39%

Distribution after apportioning the energy for electricity into sectors that use it

Transportation 29%

Industrial 22%

Electricity 36%

Commercial/Residential 13%

More than a third of primary energy goes into producing electricity, which is then used in other sectors

How Do We Use Energy?

What Drives Energy Consumption? Standard of living, not population alone, drives energy use

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Per

Cap

ita

An

nu

al E

ner

gy C

on

sum

pti

on

(G

O)

Population (Millions)

Cen

tral

/So

uth

A

mer

ica

Ru

ssia

n G

rou

p (

0.2

6)

Asia/Pacific (0.94)

Euro

pe

(0.5

1)

Mid

-Eas

t/N

ort

h A

fric

a

No

rth

Am

eric

a (0

.72

)

Sub-Saharan Africa (0.06)

Additional 1.48 CMO

Additional 0.68 CMO

Global Average

Where Is Energy Produced and Consumed? Asia Pacific and North America produce more energy than the Middle East Region; they also consume more!

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

North America

Central/South America

Europe Russian Group

Asian/Pacific Middle East/ North Africa

Sub-Saharan Africa

CM

O

Oil

Hydropower

Gas

Coal

Nuclear Power

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

Why So Long to Get to Scale? Many roadblocks along the way

• Expansion slowed by

– Inertia of the incumbent system (sheer size)

– Market acceptability (cost)

– Infrastructure requirements

– Lack of trained personnel

– NIMBY, NOPE, and BANANA*

• More rapid penetration possible when aided by

– Strategic importance to military

– High-value products for niche markets

47

Jimmy Margulies, The Record, New Jersey, 2006

* Not in my backyard

Not on planet earth

Build absolutely nothing, anywhere near anything!

Value Added per Unit Energy Consumed in the U.S. Industrial Sector, 1985–2005

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

Val

ue

Ad

ded

(d

olla

rs/G

O)

Year

Manufacturing

Nonmanufacturing

Combined

Biomass The only renewable that produces storable fuel • Lots of hope and hype

• Global potential: 0.5 to 2 CMO

• May not reduce greenhouse gases

– Some options release more greenhouse gases than direct use of fossil fuels

• Can strain water supplies

• Can disrupt food supply and result in undesirable land-use practices

Residential and Commercial Buildings Low-cost options abound

• Consumes about 51% of primary energy – 39% in operations: HVAC, lighting, appliances

– 12% in materials: steel, concrete, glass, sheetrock

• Energy saving practices can pay off – Better insulation, efficient lighting, efficient heating

• Smart grid – Allows for added savings and increased use of wind and solar sources

• Green construction materials

50

Commercial Residential

The Cost Challenge Meeting the Chindia Price

• Opportunity in developed countries

– Over $500 billion in renovations in the US

– Impact of adopting green practices is ~0.1 CMO/yr

• Bigger opportunity in developing nations

– New construction equivalent to the entire US is projected for China/India over the next 10 years

– Several trillion dollars

• Potential impact of adopting green practices

– Ca. 2 CMO/yr

– Cost of using green materials in construction is prohibitive

51

CHINDIA

Major innovations needed to produce cost effective solutions

Comparing Conventional & SRI Coal-to-Liquids Processes

52

ASU Capital Cost: $6,790/daily bbl

SRI Approach: $0/daily bbl

Gasifier Capital Cost: $29,890/daily bbl

SRI Approach: $13,200/daily bbl

Gas Cleanup Capital Cost:

$3,220/daily bbl

SRI Approach: $3,400/daily bbl

Synthesis Capital Cost:

$7,630/daily bbl

SRI Approach: $7,070/daily bbl

Product Upgrading Capital Cost:

$2,730/daily bbl

SRI Approach: $820/daily bbl

Total CO2 Emissions: 1,550 lbCO2/bblJP-8

SRI Approach: 0.0 lbCO2/bblJP-8

Offsite Capital Cost: $19,740/daily bbl

SRI Approach: $7,300/daily bbl

Total Capital Cost: $70,000/daily bbl

SRI Approach: $32,000/daily bbl

Breakthrough Ideas… Real-World Solutions

© 2011 SRI International - Company Confidential and Proprietary Information

Introducing SRI International

Who We Are SRI is a world-leading R&D organization

• An independent, nonprofit corporation

– Founded by Stanford University in 1946

– Independent in 1970; changed name from Stanford Research Institute to SRI International in 1977

– Sarnoff Corporation acquired as a subsidiary in 1987; integrated into SRI in 2011

• 2,100 staff members

• More than 20 locations worldwide

• 2010 revenues approximately $495 million

New Jersey

Washington, D.C.

Pennsylvania Virginia Florida

Silicon Valley - Headquarters

Tokyo, Japan

SRI’s Impact on Society 65 years of technology breakthroughs

SRI received the first logon to the ARPANET (1969); made the first TCP-based Internet transmission over three dissimilar networks (1977)

Internet SRI invented the mouse and other foundations of personal computing (1968)

Computer Mouse Magnetic ink character recognition enabled automatic check processing (1950s)

Banking

SRI made ultrasound practical for medical diagnostics (1980s).

Health Smart Materials Electroactive

polymers for sensing, actuation, and energy harvesting (1990’s)

SRI technology allows surgeons to remotely perform minimally invasive surgical procedures. (1990s)

Telerobotic Surgery

SRI’s natural language platform automates delivery of customer support (1996)

Speech Recognition

Intelligent Computing Decision support software helps the Internet be your personal assistant (2000s)

Bioinformatics Genomic databases combined with artificial intelligence and symbolic computing techniques accelerate research (2000s)

Portable power Renewable energy (biomass, solar, wind, wave)

Alternative fuels

Energy efficiency

Reliable

infrastructure

Carbon capture

SRI’s energy research addresses client needs

Bioinformatics

Catalysis

Chemistry

Combustion, pyrolysis,

gasification

Cybersecurity

Economic development

Education

Energy harvesting,

conversion, storage

Engineering

Environmental studies

Materials

Optics

Safety

Sensing

Separations

Software

Synthetic biology

Core Capabilities Applications R&D Activities

Solar Silicon Wave Power

Fuel Compounds Cyber Security

Batteries, Fuel Cells Cavity OLEDs

1 cubic mile = 1,000 sports arenas

Visualizing a Cubic Mile of Oil