Photo Credit: Stephen Ausmus
article tools
Increase Text Size Increase Text Size Decreate Text Size Decrease Text Size
Share Email This Story Share Share This Story Reader comments Reader Comments (17) View image gallery Image Gallery (1) Add to favorites Add to Bookmarks Printer friendly version Printer Friendly Version
Article Tool Sponsor:

Advertise with us

More Jobs
0 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
November 25, 2008

Producing Cellulosic Ethanol Without Soil Damage

by Ann Perry, Public Affairs Specialist, USDA
Iowa, United States [RenewableEnergyWorld.com]

In the Midwest, 100 to 150 millon tons of corn stover -- crop residue -- is now left on fields to prevent erosion and return nutrients to soil. Now corn stover is being eyed as a possible source of cellulose for biofuel production. But the costs and benefits of harvesting stover need to be determined.

After pretreatment and fermentation screening, they found that the resulting ethanol yields between the normal-cut and high-cut top harvests were indistinguishable. This suggests that normal-cut stover harvest -- characterized by convenience and speed, acceptable stover water content, and potentially lower processing costs -- appears to give producers their best stover harvest option for biofuels.

"Crop residue is not just trash," says soil scientist Doug Karlen, who works at the ARS National Soil Tilth Laboratory in Ames, Iowa. "We need to find ways to develop site-specific practices for managing corn stover removal-not a ‘big-box' approach to soil management. With the right approach, corn stover can have bioenergy benefits for U.S. consumers and producers alike."

One of the bioenergy benefits would be cellulosic ethanol, also known as second generation ethanol, which is derived from non-food-based sources. The December 2007 U.S. energy bill requires that 3% of the country's federally mandated ethanol be derived from cellulosic sources by 2012 and 44% by cellulosic sources by 2022, that will mean that the U.S. will need to produce approximately 15 billion gallons per year of cellulosic ethanol by 2022.

Karlen, who is the research leader in the Soil and Water Quality Research Unit, is part of a national team conducting multiyear evaluations of the environmental and economic costs and benefits that might accrue from large-scale corn stover removal to produce ethanol. This project — the Renewable Energy Assessment Project, or REAP — is under way at sites in Alabama, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota.

Karlen recently finished a round of research that looked at how harvest practices affect fertilizer costs and the quality of the harvested stover for biofuel feedstock. His research team included Iowa State University engineer Stuart J. Birrell, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) scientist Corey W. Radtke, and ARS plant physiologist Wally Wilhelm. Wilhelm is in the Agroecosystem Management Research Unit in Lincoln, Nebraska.

It's All in the Cut

In 2005, this group — along with INL scientist Reed L. Hoskinson, who has since retired — established experiments in cornfields near Ames and then harvested the cornstalks at four different heights to measure the amount and quality of stover that could be harvested using different removal strategies.

The scientists varied the amount of biomass removed by changing the type and cutting height of the combine head. Their "high-cut top" harvest was obtained using a row-crop head and cutting the plants just below the cob so that only the cob and plant parts above it entered the combine. This left a 30-inch stubble behind on the field.

The "normal cut"— which used a standard harvester head with snapping rollers — left only 16 inches of stubble. But this cut did not increase the amount of harvested biomass, because more plant material was pulled through the rollers and left on the ground.

"Low-cut" harvests — which reaped almost the entire cornstalk and the cob — were also made with the row-crop head and left only about 4 inches of stubble. A second low-cut harvest, called "high-cut bottom," took place after the high-cut top harvest. The collected biomass from this cut consisted only of the lower 30 inches of cornstalks and any remaining leaves. In all of the harvest scenarios, the grain was separated from the cob before the researchers started their assessments.

After the harvests were complete, the scientists evaluated factors such as how stover removal could potentially affect future crop production and soil quality, how potential ethanol production might vary with harvest protocol, and how to deal with engineering challenges associated with harvesting.

The researchers found that the base of the high-cut bottom feedstock was around 64 percent water, which decreased its value as a feedstock. Any biomass with high water content is generally more expensive than dry biomass to harvest, store, and transport to an ethanol conversion facility.

The team also found that stover removal resulted in per-acre losses of up to 45 pounds of nitrogen, 2 to 4 pounds of phosphorus, and 23 to 38 pounds of potassium. In some soil types, these losses could result in long-term potassium deficiencies that would reduce crop productivity unless the fields were amended with fertilizers.

Translated into dollars, the low-cut harvest scenario could cost producers US $25 to $30 per acre, depending on their fertilizer costs. Compensating for loss of other soil nutrients — including calcium, magnesium, iron, zinc, copper, and manganese — would increase producer costs even more.

Conversion Calculations for Cobs and All

Stover from the four harvest groups was then converted to fuels via thermochemical processing. Karlen's team measured the resulting energy yield and decided that the most likely factor driving conversion efficiency was the level of moisture in the feedstock.

The team also used a screening method to estimate how the four groups of stover responded to chemical pretreatment. These pretreatments partially break down feedstock, making the plant sugars more easily accessible for fermentation.

They found that using a common pretreatment with the high-cut top stover resulted in production of significantly more ethanol than the high-cut bottom stover. These results indicate that the high-cut top stover would be less expensive to prepare for ethanol conversion.

After pretreatment and fermentation screening, they found that the resulting ethanol yields between the normal-cut and high-cut top harvests were indistinguishable. This suggests that normal-cut stover harvest — characterized by convenience and speed, acceptable stover water content, and potentially lower processing costs — appears to give producers their best stover harvest option for biofuels.

"Our results indicate that the cob and upper portion of the corn stover have the best characteristics for being made into ethanol. And if we harvest just this part of the plant for biofuel, we will probably leave enough crop residue on the field for soil conservation," Karlen says.

The team plans to continue its research on how harvest height affects stover quality. They will also vary agronomic practices — such as crop spacing, fertilization rates, and use of annual and perennial cover crops — to assess how these factors affect stover quality.

These long-term studies support regional corn producers in their search for optimal combinations of sustainable practices that maximize production, reduce costs, and protect natural resources.

Ann Perry is part of the agricultural research service information staff with the USDA-ARS.

Image Gallery (1)
 
Reader Comments (17)
 
No image available
November 25, 2008
You can find more information about the Idaho National Laboratory's Biofuel and Renewable Energy projects at www.inl.gov/biofuel

There is also a YouTube channel at:

http://www.youtube.com/user/IdahoNationalLab

The main Web site is www.inl.gov
Comment 1 of 17
No image available
November 25, 2008
Why not just dry and burn the stover to produce electricity instead of chemically processing it to ethanol. It would be more economical.

A 350 million dollar ethanol plant in Saskatchewan is being built to produce 86 million liters of ethanol. That is equivalent to 1.8 million GJ (Giga Joules). Since a 100,000 ton per year wood, grass pellet or dry corn stover plant costs about 10 million and produces an equivalent amount of GJ,, the cost of this type of plant would be only about 3% of the investment for the equivalent size energy producing ethanol plant.

adrianakau2aol.com
Comment 2 of 17
No image available
November 26, 2008
In comment #2, Adrian Akau asks: "Why not just dry and burn the stover to produce electricity instead of chemically processing it to ethanol. It would be more economical."

Ethanol is useful in the transportation sector because it has a high energy density and consequently commands a premium price. Electricity does not yet compete with liquid transportation fuels to a significant degree and may never be useful for certain classes of vehicles (e.g., trucks). Additionally, oil or appropriate substitutes are scarce whereas electricity generation schemes are abundant.
Comment 3 of 17
No image available
November 26, 2008
Steven. It seems to me that it would be better to use an on board electrolysis device producing hydrogen to increase mpg which would negate the need for ethanol. These devices are already being produced for commercial trucks by a Canadian firm.

The energy content of ethanol is 2/3 that of gasoline and it is not very good for small motors because it tends to collect water.

adrianakau@aol.com
Comment 4 of 17
No image available
November 26, 2008
The conversation seems to be about using crop residue for cellusic ethanol. Here in Southern California we recently had our seasonal fire storms, which burned brush and trees on hillsides and in canyons.

If the dense brush that feeds the fires could be harvested for use as feed stock for cellulosic ethanol, it would not only serve the purpose of replacing petroleum for fuel, but would reduce the expenses involved in fighting our annual fire storms.
Comment 5 of 17
No image available
November 26, 2008
What about agrichar? If some of the corn stover is returned to the soil as very pure bio-carbon (agrichar, or charcoal) then that would retain nutrients and increase yield.

Perhaps they could do this experiment again with various amounts of agrichar to see how that works.
Comment 6 of 17
No image available
November 26, 2008
If, for example, only 10-20 percent of the corn stover has to be returned as agrichar to sustain reasonable nutrient levels and crop yield, then that leaves 80-90 percent for biofuel production.
Comment 7 of 17
No image available
November 29, 2008
>>"It seems to me that it would be better to use an on board electrolysis device producing hydrogen to increase mpg which would negate the need for ethanol. These devices are already being produced for commercial trucks by a Canadian firm.
On-board electrolysis is an impractical and unfeasible method. The hydrogen reformer (Look up Prof Lanny Schmidt, Univ of Minn) is better, but the technologies for the most efficient hydrogen use lag behind even the battery technologies needed to move us away from combustion engines.
>>"The energy content of ethanol is 2/3 that of gasoline and it is not very good for small motors because it tends to collect water. "
The energy content you speak of is measured in BTU's, which is a wonderful measure of a fuel if you want to burn it in a furnace. The benefits of ethyl and methyl alcohols are their ability to be used in higher efficiency engines than the ones currently built for gasoline. A flex-fuel car is a car with an engine designed to run on gasoline, that can also use 85% ethanol. That does not make it an ethanol-fueled engine, any more than finagling a gasoline engine to run on diesel fuel (I have done this) makes the gasoline engine a diesel. Rather than increasing efficiency to that of a diesel engine, this latter trick reduces the engine's efficiency.
It has long been said that ethanol is bad because it is hygroscopic (collects water) Racers have used water injection for years, it works. Rudolph Gunnerman's patents, while , (like most hydrogen schemes)not as wonderful as first claimed, works, utilizing mixtures of up to 50% water mixed with fuel. Just because water does not mix with gasoline and diesel fuel, does not mean that the engine cannot run with water in the fuel, if a co-solvent is used, or if water is soluble in the fuel, as with alcohols. Designing fueling systems and vehicles to use this hydrated ethanol leads to a more efficient engine.

mogblog.org
Comment 8 of 17
No image available
November 29, 2008
>>"When are people going to get it? Corn is not the answer
What you fail to understand is the amount of corn grown in this country, which industry grew for the purpose of livestock feed, Corn Syrup, Corn Syrup solids, and other products not related to producing fuel. Throughout Ohio, where I live now, the main crops have long been corn and soybeans, grown in rotation. As corn depletes nitrogen in the soil, the rhisomes of soybeans fix nitrogen back into the soil. The Americas grow a lot of corn. The use of corn as an ethanol feedstock still leaves the portion of the corn usable as livestock feed, while consuming the sugars. Every US citizen, on the average, consumes 77 pounds of corn syrup sweetener in a year, it's in many foods. It couldn't hurt us to cut back on that corn syrup (sugar) which has been linked to diabetes and obesity. The use of corn stover is just one more effort at producing the maximum from a crop that is already produced in large quantities.
The emphasis on corn is due primarily to the fact that we produce a lot of it, and have the capacity to grow much more, if the economic distortion of farm subsidies were restructured. If you will look closely, in parts of the world where corn is not alreay a major farm crop, other sources are used, including Agave in Mexico; Switchgrass in Canada; Sorghum in India, as well as wood, either trimmed from fast-growing trees like willow, or forestry by-products. When talking about cellulose as a fuel feedstock, remember, it's everywhere, it's 60% of our trash, it's the leaves and grass clippings and tree branches piled up at curbs to be hauled away. The reason corn is focused on is because the corn growers are interested in ethanol. Just wait until the trash haulers get in on the game.

This article is primarily about whether harvesting methods could be altered to produce more ethanol, not a suggestion that all fuel should be made from stover.

mogblog.org
Comment 9 of 17
No image available
November 29, 2008
>>"What about agrichar? If some of the corn stover is returned to the soil as very pure bio-carbon....
This article is primarily about whether harvesting methods could be altered to produce more ethanol. "....normal-cut stover harvest ....appears to give producers their best stover harvest option for biofuels."
"Our results indicate that the cob and upper portion of the corn stover have the best characteristics for being made into ethanol. And if we harvest just this part of the plant for biofuel, we will probably leave enough crop residue on the field for soil conservation."
The limited scope of the article is what it is.
Comment 10 of 17
No image available
November 29, 2008
David. Thank you for all of your comments; you certainly have much to offer. I do not believe that you have adequately looked into on-board hydrogen production devices. As you have said, this article is primarily about whether haversting methods could be altered to produce more ethanol but that leads to the question of whether ethanol is the right path to take in the first place and that point is highly disputable.

"Every US citizen, on the average, consumes 77 pounds of corn syrup sweetener in a year, it's in many foods. It couldn't hurt us to cut back on that corn syrup (sugar) which has been linked to diabetes and obesity." Concerning your above comment, I only wish to add that corn syrup sugar is not natural to the body. While it gives a guaranteed good income to corn producers, it in no way has been proven healthy and yet is being forced upon consumers as a cheap replacement for sugar. Actually, pure, raw suger is very good for the health. The corn syrup is found in many of our foods, even foods such as catsup. If we want better health in our country, our congress has to pass laws against the use of substances such as corn syrup and processed cooking oil (very low in omega-3 oils which are needed by the heart).

I doubt if flex fuel cars will solve the problem; it looks as if our big 3 may even have difficulty staying afloat. Their philosophy of producing gas hogs for so many decades has finally caught up to them and I believe that corn stover cellulose to ethanol production will not be the answer to their woes.

adrianakau2aol.com
Comment 11 of 17
November 29, 2008
First, we must keep in mind that there is no commercially produced, economically competitive cellulosic ethanol. It is always just five years away. This topic is academic until or if it ever actually arrives.

Adrian makes a very good point when he says:

"...Why not just dry and burn the stover to produce electricity instead of chemically processing it to ethanol. It would be more economical...."

The main single cause of global warming is coal combustion. Finding ways to displace coal is the highest priority when it comes to global warming. Of course, some people don't "believe" in global warming.

Steve says:

"...Ethanol is useful in the transportation sector because it has a high energy density and consequently commands a premium price. Electricity does not yet compete with liquid transportation fuels to a significant degree and may never be useful for certain classes of vehicles (e.g., trucks). Additionally, oil or appropriate substitutes are scarce whereas electricity generation schemes are abundant...."

Steve has it backwards. By simply trading in our 24 mpg Outback for a 48 mpg Prius, we doubled our gas mileage. Schemes to cut home energy use in half are not that simple or inexpensive.

All Americans need to do is shift from SUVs and pickup trucks driven purely for the status they bestow to high mileage cars. We could cut oil use in half, double the amount of time is lasts.

We put an area of corn the size of Indiana into our gas tanks last year to increase liquid fuel supplies roughly 2%. The only reason farmers make money on corn ethanol is because of the welfare fellow citizens are forced to pay via taxes and mandated blends into their fuel.
Comment 12 of 17
No image available
November 29, 2008
--------"The energy content of ethanol is 2/3 that of gasoline and it is not very good for small motors because it tends to collect water. "--------(Adrian)

While ethanol contains less BTU per gallon than gasoline, it is better suited as a fuel than petroleum based gasoline. Alcohol base fuels have a higher flash point than petroleum, which allows their use with much higher compression ratios without preignition(knock). Regular gasoline can only be used with a compression ratio of up to about 9:1 before you begin to experience preignition---where as, with alcohol fuels, you can raise the compression ratio safely to about 18:1. This improves efficiency and specific power output. This is why the fastest race cars in the world, the Indy Racing Circuit cars all use ethanol exclusively, and have for about the last 35 years. There is a small loss of mileage with Flex Fuel engines that are limited in the compression ratios they can achieve by the need to be able to use petroleum gasoline(about 20%). However, higher compression engines tuned to use ethanol only without the need to be able to use petroleum, are efficient enough to achieve the same mileage or slightly better than petroleum engines even with the chemical BTU difference.
In a well sealed tank, hydrophilia(moisture absorbance) is not a problem. In fact---adding alcohol to remove moisture from petroleum tank systems due to condensation has been standard practice for over 100 years. You simply add enough alcohol to dilute the water in the system until the alcohol content is over 40%---at which point the mixture will burn.
The resulting waste from thermal cracking by the Fischer-Tropsch method of synthesis is potash. Basically this is the same thing you shovel out of your fireplace. Ash is a very rich fertilizer and has been natures way of fertilizing the soil for billions of years. There is always an explosion of plant growth after a fire.
Comment 13 of 17
No image available
November 29, 2008
------"If the dense brush that feeds the fires could be harvested for use as feed stock for cellulosic ethanol, it would not only serve the purpose of replacing petroleum for fuel, but would reduce the expenses involved in fighting our annual fire storms."-------

YUP.

------"What about agrichar? If some of the corn stover is returned to the soil as very pure bio-carbon (agrichar, or charcoal) then that would retain nutrients and increase yield. "----------

YUP. It is the richest fertilizer you can get. It is also completely natural, this has been nature's way of recycling dead plant material for billions of years. It is cheap. It can also be mixed with water as a suspension and sprayed directly on fields with no need for tilling making it easy to handle and quick and easy to use.
Comment 14 of 17
No image available
November 29, 2008
-------"We put an area of corn the size of Indiana into our gas tanks last year to increase liquid fuel supplies roughly 2%. The only reason farmers make money on corn ethanol is because of the welfare fellow citizens are forced to pay via taxes and mandated blends into their fuel."--------

It also fed a hell of a lot of livestock and provided jobs for workers here in the US. I'd heck of a lot rather give my $$$ to American Farmers and workers than two bit Arab royalty and commodity speculators whose only interest is getting richer and richer at our expense.

Russ---what do you have against American farmers and workers making an honest living by providing a useful product we all need? That isn't welfare. Giving HUGE bailouts of hundreds of billions of $$$ to the largest banks in the world because they are too incompetent to run their businesses safely and get themselves into financial trouble is welfare. The government has poured more money into insolvent banks and insurance companies in the last six months than it has ever paid to farmers.
Comment 15 of 17
No image available
December 3, 2008
Adrian and Russ,
Regarding your comments #4 and #13, it seems that you have interpreted my comment #2 as support for the use of ethanol as a fuel; it actually expresses no opinion on this issue and merely points out certain economic realities--namely that producing liquid fuels has the potential for profit whereas burning corn stover to generate electricity is unlikely to be competitive with other electricity generation schemes (such as wind turbines, etc.).

Producing ethanol from corn is a dubious endeavor leading mainly to expensive subsidies and higher food prices, but the study reported above is useful for considering the tradeoffs associated with production from cellulosic materials if that ever becomes viable.
Comment 16 of 17
No image available
December 4, 2008
----------"Producing ethanol from corn is a dubious endeavor leading mainly to expensive subsidies and higher food prices, but the study reported above is useful for considering the tradeoffs associated with production from cellulosic materials if that ever becomes viable."------------

Germany ran its entire wartime economy on synthetic and biofuels produced using the Fischer-Tropsch process during World War 2. This includes everything from Panzer tanks, the fastest and heaviest in the world at the time, the world's first operation jet aircraft, and even ballistic missles.

This was all over 60 years ago, and Fischer-Tropsch process has been around and in use for over 80 years.

Previous to that, ethanol was produced from wood in commercial quantities as a by product of paper production in both Germany and the United States. This dates back to the late 1880's. These processes were chemical processes.

Producing ethanol from cellulosic sources is not only commercially viable now, it has been for over 120 years.
Comment 17 of 17
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
Featured Total Access Partners
Click company logos to learn more
Comdel SolarTech Consortium Latin American Wind Energy Association ATAS International, Inc. ULVAC Technologies, Inc. focus solar
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo