Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

CHP Electricity Powers Cars 22 Times Farther Than Ethanol!

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

28 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 28
July 27, 2009
I do want to point out if ethanol uses corn biomass plus the corn kernal, production of BTU goes way up. Also want to point out there are ethanol plants using CHP technology now except they are burning Natural gas.

Also want to point out charging a Telsa with CHP technolgy as the example means Telsa is direct plugged into the Generating plant. Once the electricity leaves the plant it starts to loose line loss. In an ordinary situation, a Telsa would be plugged into a 33 % net energy for charging. That is not efficient either.
Comment
2 of 28
July 27, 2009
There are some serious problems with this analysis. An 85% efficient CHP is producing both thermal water and electrical power. The thermal is not used to power vehicles! Or is the author claiming 85% of the biomass energy content is converted to electricity? I'm skeptical.

Then line losses, etc, are ignored for CHP while for corn one third is taken off the top for "heat source," whatever that means.

The best metric for comparing alternative biomass uses is "miles per acre." This would yield a similar, but more defensible, conclusion.

The reason for superior electric vehicle performance is the far superior energy utilization of electric motors over the internal combustion engine. Not that we're close to replacing all the ICE's out there with EVs. Maybe the best route to go for maximal carbon pollution reduction is to use cellulosic ethanol in plug-in hybrid electric vehicles?

Add to this that biomass almost always entails (nonenergy) coproduct development which is usually ignored. For ethanol that's animal feed and other. Also, you're comparing state-of-practice (in North America) ethanol plant with best practice (from Europe) CHP.

I'm all in favor of biomass CHP and friendly to that being a superior energy pathway, just want to make sure we're making fair arguments. I do expect all biomass to go through the type of bad press that ethanol has gotten. Especially if national forests are used as a biomass source.

Thanks,
Comment
3 of 28
July 27, 2009
I think the key observation is that CHP only makes sense to the extent that there is proportion demand for heat and power in relation to the output of a CHP generator taking seasonality into account. For example, if a CHP setup is a 35% efficient simple cycle turbine for power generation and recovers 50% for heat, this only makes sense if these are in demand in proportion (or there is a market to sell excess power). The problem is that the countries cited as examples all appear to be Nordic countries with a large need for heat. A CHP plaint that provides heat and power may be very efficient in the winter months, but when heat is not needed; the power generated is less efficient than if it were generated at a central power plant. There clearly are some industrial settings where CHP makes sense; but these are generally large industrial entities.

Right now modern combined cycle gas turbines are 60% efficient and forced air heaters are 97% efficient. If I needed 40% electricity and 60% heat, figuring in a grid lose of 7%, the result is 80% efficient, not too shabby and on par with CHP.

Also, until commercially viable fuel cells are proven, I think it wise to not consider them part of the discussion and focus only on tradition energy conversion approaches (turbine, steam, and ICE).

Also, for the example of biomass, AFAIK there is no real commercially viable way to gasify biomass on a small scale to provide syngas to a CHP plaint. The only way I am aware of to use biomass in a CHP is to burn the biomass in a boiler, which may be only 25-30% efficient at generating electricity. Better to store it and just use it purely for heat.
Comment
4 of 28
July 28, 2009
I'm amazed at the amount of misinformed negativity. Please follow some of the links in the article which show small gassifiers that work on one straw bail at a time and houshold microCHPs that are 85% efficiency. There is also a link to a report on a large number of CHP plants, many of which are 90% efficient. One of the fuel cell links is FCEL. From their brochure:" our patented, carbonate Direct FuelCell products have generated more than 275 million kilowatt hours of electrical energy to date at more than 50 locations worldwide" http://www.fuelcellenergy.com/files/DFC3000%20B3%20Product%20Sheet.pdf
Fuel cells are new but definatly out of the lab as far as doing useful work is concerned.
Since the US is embarasingly behind in development of biomass power it's easy to miss the amazing work that is already being done in europe. This is not pie in the sky.
Andy the reason I ignored line losses for gasification is that they are insignificant. Once the fire is started it powers itself, unlike ethanol which needs cooking, refrigeration and dewatering using lots of energy.

You are right that the thermal output of the CHP plant doesn't power cars. Think of the biomass input as being divided into two catagories. The part that makes electricity and the part that makes heat. My efficiency analysis applies to the part that makes electricity. The heat portion is also quite efficiently providing heat to replace coal or natural gas. So both processes are very efficient. The efficiency I calculated applies but the catch is that you must use the waste heat. Fortunatly the world uses considerably more heat than electricity. The key then is to cogenerate the electricity where the heat is neeeded.
ron- With distributed generation line losses are negligable. We should shut down the giant coal plants, not use them as an excuse to inefficiently burn ethanol.
Comment
5 of 28
July 28, 2009
An important and viable point made in a poorly constructed and argued article. The critical comments made good points. The Author has used selective and incomplete data which leaves out positive and negitive aspects to his comparisons. Why headline this article "CHP Electricity Powers Cars 22 Times Farther Than Ethanol!" I don't know if you are just anti ethanol or pro electric cars. Neither seems to be the point. CHP can be a viable approached to efficiency which is positive both from an economic perspective and a GHG perspective.

But with your statement "Corn ethanol is one of the worst wastes of biomass" you need to get some realistic figures on ethanol production and use. Just as CHP has two products, so does ethanol production. When adjusting for the DDG production off set value of corn. A better facility using integrated biomass energy is getting 800 Gal of ethanol per acre, so you are off by a factor of four right there. Ethanol is capable of getting in excess of 42% thermal efficiency, not just th 25% limit for gasoline. There is another factor of 1.7!! You have disregarded the 10% loss in the charge/discharge battery cycle and there is always some line loss. Add it all together an electric vehicle will be a lettle better than twice as efficent as a deticated ethanol IC engine assuming an efficent electrical source. Right now wide spread electric vehicles would not be as efficent as an ethanol IC vehicle and much worse on GHG's because of coal generated electricity.

Both technologies suffer from inappropriate government regulations and restrictions. Ironically, advanced ethanol production will be a leading example of CHP technology. Both ethanol and CHP offer the promise of significant increases in operating efficiencies over existing approaches. So children, play nice together and try to get along. Ultimate sucess will come only with a complete reintegration of our energy and biomass (agriculture) sectors. Bill Brandon
Comment
6 of 28
July 28, 2009
Brandon-- The title simply states the result of the simple calculations I presented. I'm not anti anything but I'm pro facts. The ethanol yield per acre I used is pretty much a consensus. If you want to plug in other numbers you won't change the result much. The mi/kWh figure I used for the Tesla is an EPA cycle and includes charger and battery losses. True ethanol can be more efficient than gasoline but the miles/gallon are still 30% less, even on the new turbo FT Volvo.
The other products of ethanol production like distiller grain sell for about 5 cents/lb average (seasonal) not very significant (about 30c extra/gallon) Since it takes 8 lb of feed to make 1 lb of beef, this is part of another grossly inefficient process.

Certainly you can get more gallons/acre with better feedstocks but I chose to use corn for the comparison so we can ignore the wasteful use of water, fertilizer and energy in growing the corn and make a fair comparison after that point. This is plant to motor shaft efficiency.

Please open up your mind and plug in your own numbers. The facts speak for themselves.
Comment
7 of 28
July 28, 2009
"miles/gallon are still 30% less"

Do you have a source for this. While there is a ~30% btu/gal difference between pure gasoline and E85, the numbers I've seen posted by the EPA's driving test put the lose at around 25% for FFVs; none of which take advantage of the higher octane; which would be case with higher compression or a turbo--both of which would lower the difference. Not that I'm pro-ethanol, but I the 30% less mpg is simply not true.
Comment
8 of 28
July 28, 2009
I had heard that too but the Volvo with variable turbo boost actually gets 30% less mpg even though the engine is more powerful with E85 due to turbo boost.
"When running on E85, fuel consumption increases by about 30 percent"
http://news.infibeam.com/blog/news/2009/05/16/volvos_e85_engine_gets_higher_performance_lower_fuel_consumption.html
Comment
9 of 28
July 28, 2009
Ah,

A percentage decrease is not the same as a percentage increase.

If a car's fuel use increases 30% from switching from gasoline to ethanol; that means that there is a 23% decrease in mpg.

IE. If a car gets 8.8 L/100km (26.72 mpg) with gasoline and 11.44 l/100km (20.56 mpg) with ethanol (a 30% increase over gasoline) that means that the car gets 23% less mpg in the change from gasoline to ethanol.
Comment
10 of 28
July 29, 2009
Tom,
The ethanol yield per acre you used is not "pretty much a consensus." The average corn yield per acre in this country is 155 bushels per acre and the average ethanol yield per bushel is 2.81. That's 435 gallons per acre, but that's only the average.

When you're talking about yield, I think you are comparing the current average for ethanol in the existing fleet with the potential best case scenario for mass-produced electric vehicles. Most of our ethanol plants are built in places of high corn supply, more than 200 bpa and we get closer to 3 gallons per bushel. That puts our AVERAGE near 600 gallons per acre. We're also working on producing cellulosic ethanol from the corn cobs, which can give us another 50-75 gallons per acre. With increasing yields and efficiency, we'll be 1,000 gallons per acre in the near future.

Additionally, I'm not sure what you mean by "cook it with fossil fuel" but companies like ours have eliminated the cook step for ethanol fermentation. Also, I couldn't help but notice your use of the term "fossil fuel" here when the vast majority of ethanol plants use natural gas as their energy source which you go on to say how fortunate the country is to have a glut of natural gas.

Finally, three of our corn ethanol plants use CHP as a power source.
No image available
Comment
11 of 28
Anonymous
July 29, 2009
Such a true valid article, and so many critical people who try to run it down. Idiots.

There is no "one" solution, and you can criticize any energy source on the grounds it is not "the answer". Let us use them all when and where they work well, and get rid of the one that is killing us, "dirty coal".

Today is a good day to begin.
Comment
12 of 28
July 29, 2009
Thanks Thomas, the US needs more renewable energies, including biomass cogeneration, but also hydropower, geothermal and solar. That the US allows utility monopolies to block these renewable energies is a national disgrace, especially for environmentalists and the wind energy industry sellouts. As US power supplies become more expensive by focusing on only (unreliable) wind and natural gas (from ever more costly reserves), the utility monopolies will no doubt be allowed in desperation to resume building more large coal and/or nuclear plants. Corrupt US politicians continue to allow utilities to violate antitrust laws and rig potential remedies including PURPA, competitive bidding, deregulation and even recently feed-in tariffs.
Comment
13 of 28
July 29, 2009
We, at TAIM WESER, are makers of a commercial green CHP system, 1-2 MW range, down-draft woodchip gasification plant. We strongly support the idea of biomass based CHP being an excellent solution for places were energy is needed and biomass is available. And it's not birds on the roof; it's efficient, and it works now.

Luis Monge
lmonge@taimweser.com
Comment
14 of 28
July 29, 2009
Tom, I was going to try to beat back some of these arguments but you're doing a good enough job as it is. :) I'm associated with Recycled Energy Development, a company that does CHP and waste energy recovery. The principals of the company are Tom and (his son) Sean Casten, two of the national leaders in this field. And the potential is absolutely staggering. DOE and EPA estimates suggest there's enough recoverable waste energy to slash U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 20%. That's as much as if we removed every passenger vehicle from the road. Meanwhile, costs would fall due to increased efficiency. The main obstacle here is a set of regulatory barriers.

I'll make one quick point in response to someone above who said the need for heat is seasonal. In an apartment building, that's true. In a manufacturing facility, where heat is used for for industrial processes like drying, smelting, etc., it's not. And there's an enormous opportunity for CHP in manufacturing facilities.
Comment
15 of 28
July 29, 2009
Apart from their energy efficiency, electric vehicles outshine combustion engine vehicles in a number of other ways too, no toxic fumes, low noise, no catalytic converter, low service/maintenance requirements… Their current main drawbacks are cost and 'refuelling' rate, 200+ mile range plus highway performance is already possible.

A couple of figures for comparison

A midrange diesel car doing about 10,000 miles per year would need about 2,000 sq-m (~1/2acre) of agricultural land (albeit low grade) to grow the biomass required to produce the required amount (~1,000 litres) of 2nd generation bio-fuel.
A similar performance battery electric vehicle doing the same mileage requires only about 2 sq-ms of CPV solar panels covering less than 10sq-m of land in an, otherwise non productive, desert.
Comment
16 of 28
July 29, 2009
Most important is creating jobs here not overseas. Also this helps us to quit sending our$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to our enemies.
Keep up the good work and we will be ENERGY independent by 2015.
Comment
17 of 28
July 29, 2009
From a State Energy Policy standpoint, a Feed-In Tariff system similar to that used to encourage distributed Solar installations, would also be very effective for small scale Biomass and Fuel Cell CHP facilities. For example, the California Solar Initiative has a 10 year $2 Billion Declining Rate Program for 1,750 MW of distributed solar installations.

http://www.gosolarcalifornia.org/csi/index.html

For states that have Biomass resources, a similar program can be used to create Jobs and Industries particular to that state. It may cost a couple extra dollars a month for ratepayers, but the benefits of employing thousands of people, millions in infrastructure investments and gaining energy independence (VA currently is a net importer of energy) can eventually allow for those costs to be less than what we currently pay.
Comment
18 of 28
July 29, 2009
Lame article. You start with a valid point. Gasification of biomass is more efficient than fermentation. Then you destroy all credibility with a muddled rant about ethanol.
Comment
19 of 28
July 30, 2009
--------"
•The Tesla electric car goes 4 mi/kWh (EPA) 4 X 29,274 = 117,096 miles! "=============

The Tesla car costs $120,000, has a range of only 100 miles before it needs to be recharged, and takes 24 to 36 hours to recharge on regular household current, and 3 to 4 hours on 240 volt 70 amp current. You are not too likely to pull over anywhere and find a place to plug in your Tesla.

It is not likely that the Tesla will ever be anything except a rich man's toy.

There are no electric cars.

There are however, over 240 million cars on the road now that can use E10 (and already are) with no problem.
Comment
20 of 28
July 30, 2009
Fred- There will be about 10 new plug-in hybrids including the Chevy Volt coming out in 2010. These cars will get 4mi/kWh or better in the electric mode. For the Chevy Volt that means up to 40 miles. As long as your commute is less than 40 miles you will never need gas and you can drive 117,096 miles on an acre of corn.
Comment
21 of 28
July 30, 2009
--------"Use the ethanol as a heat source and the net yield drops to 214 gallons/year. Car gas mileage is 30% lower with ethanol. At 25 miles/gallon we can only drive 25 X 214 = 5350 miles per year on an acre of corn."---------

USDA estimates pulpabe biomass from cull timber on managed timber lots to be 2,000 to 3,000 tons per acre(depending on species). At the present time, this is stacked and burned to reduce damage from fire and insect infestations. Current demonstrated yields of ethanol using biomass is 70 gallons of ethanol per ton of cellulosic biomass. 100 gallons per ton are considered possible. For the most part, cull timber is stacked and burned at present to reduce damage from fire and insect infestation.

2000 X 70 = 140,000 X 25 = 3,500,000 miles/acre
3000 X 70 = 210,000 X 25 = 5,250,000 miles/acre

And you still have the manged timber left over.

-------"The Tesla electric car goes 4 mi/kWh (EPA) "--------

It takes one ton of coal to produce 2.5 kWh of electricity.

4 / 2.5 = 1.6 miles per ton of coal.
(not counting inefficiencies due to transmission, charging and discharging loses----and the batteries going dead because you were stuck waiting so long in line at the drive thru)

I think I'd rather use ethanol. My flex fuel van cost exactly the same as a gasoline van---has both an air conditioner and a heater, unlike a Tesla, and can haul two German Shepherds and a LOT of gear, unlike the Tesla. I don't have the acceleration that a Tesla does, but I can drive from Kansas City to Denver in about 10 hours instead of taking a week which a Tesla would counting recharging times for household current. I'm still a LONG LONG way from burning up one acre worth of cull timber in ethanol. And when I cann't get E85---it runs ok on gasoline.
Comment
22 of 28
July 30, 2009
Gee, I just noticed a mistake. I should have muliplied instead of divided.

4 mi. per kWh X 2.5 = 10 miles per ton of coal.

The Tesla will get from Kansas City to Denver on just 65 tons of coal. That's a huge improvement.

PHEV is fine, but if you are burning a ton of coal to go 10 miles---doesn't seem too practical to me. Otherwise, you are still burning petroleum.
A PHEV that runs on ethanol or biodiesel would not be burning petroleum. But then you would not need all the expense and extra weight of the batteries and electric motors, since the point of a PHEV is to not burn as much petroleum.

--------"Fred- There will be about 10 new plug-in hybrids including the Chevy Volt coming out in 2010. These cars will get 4mi/kWh or better in the electric mode. For the Chevy Volt that means up to 40 miles."--------

Maybe only 9. Let's see if there is even a Chevy in 2010, let alone a Chevy Volt. Of the remaining 9, nobody has bought one yet.

There are however, over 8 million flex fuel vehicles on the road in the US alone. Not even counting diesels which need no modification at all to use biodiesel.

China is producing the Dongfeng 120---which runs on hydrous ethanol. Straight from the still, no blending. Accurate news is hard to get from China, but production schedules called for 1.8 million vehicles last year, and 2.6 million vehicles this year.
Comment
23 of 28
July 31, 2009
Fred, please provide links to all your claims about China. My contact there doubts your claims.
Comment
24 of 28
August 7, 2009
After reading Tom Blakeslee's article again, I find his calculations to be incorrect. He states:

"An acre of corn yields about 8.4 dry tons/yr or 8.4 X 3485 = 29,274 kWh per year."

But then he uses this entire energy output to calculate for how many miles it would power a Tesla electric car. This figure of 29,274 kWh is the total heat energy evolved on burning the corm, not the amount of electricity generated. Since only 35% of the energy results in electricity generation, then the theoretical miles for a Tesla would be 117,096 X 35/85 = 48,216 miles. The article should therefore be renamed: "CHP Electricity Powers Cars 9 Times Farther Than Ethanol!"

Andy Olsen points out this error:

"There are some serious problems with this analysis. An 85% efficient CHP is producing both thermal water and electrical power. The thermal is not used to power vehicles! Or is the author claiming 85% of the biomass energy content is converted to electricity? I'm skeptical."

But Tom Blakeslee's reply does not seem to adequately pick up on this:

"You are right that the thermal output of the CHP plant doesn't power cars. Think of the biomass input as being divided into two catagories. The part that makes electricity and the part that makes heat. My efficiency analysis applies to the part that makes electricity."

He leaves the incorrect calculation in place.
Comment
25 of 28
August 12, 2009
Please carefully reread my comment #3 which explained my reasoning. There is no computational mistake. Perhaps you feel that the thermal energy is totaly worthless, even though it does more work than the car. This is work that was previously done by fossil fuels.
If you want to retitle the story you could more accuratly call it "CHP Electricity Powers Cars 9 Times Farther Than Ethanol And Delivers Even More Heat Power to Replace Fossil Fuel"
Comment
26 of 28
August 12, 2009
Burning or converting annually planted crops for energy will not serve for long.
Depletion of topsoil will soon be below baseline of that required for food production, if not already. World population is increasing.
Burning of wood products only delays the process a little. The USA's people are still living in the dream of unlimited resources for our wasting and pleasure.
Only the use of current sunshine for energy will release the world from devastation. Do you realize what devastation is? The destruction of life support for people is one that stands out to me. Do you really believe the biosphere gives a tinkers damn for your love of go-fast autos and national economy? Look again, puppies.
Comment
27 of 28
August 15, 2009
Tom Blakeslee says:

"If you want to retitle the story you could more accuratly call it "CHP Electricity Powers Cars 9 Times Farther Than Ethanol And Delivers Even More Heat Power to Replace Fossil Fuel.""

Yes, thank you, that is much more accurate.

Please don't think I don't appreciate your articles - beacuse I emphatically do! This current one has set me thinking. We have an approximately 18 acre pasture in TN that has produced 77 round bails of Timothy & Orchard grass (about 800 lb. each) in 2 cuttings this year so far. Enough, I calculate, to give us more electricity & heat than we need, if burned in a suitably sized CHP system. The question is: Is their a USA manufacturer of domestic-sized CHP units?
Comment
28 of 28
January 19, 2010
Excellent article, good job, I think Tom has the key to the future, biomass. The numbers are right on with the real world impact. Biomass certainly needs to be one of the partial solutions. We are working on a bio-mass burner to make heat, hot water, and electricity; sized for a residence.
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

Thomas Blakeslee

View Thomas Blakeslee's Profile
About: Thomas R Blakeslee’s books have been published in nine different languages. After serving for three years in the U.S. Navy, he earned a degree from CalTech in P... more »

Advertise With Us

American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE) Das Haus: Innovation in Renewables and Energy Efficiency The Interstate Renewable Energy Council Intertek Biomass Thermal Energy Council (BTEC) Midwest Renewable Energy Association Upsolar
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters