Fake Banner
    Bio-diesel production
    By Ashwani Kumar | December 8th 2009 05:12 AM | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Ashwani

    Professor Emeritus ,Former Head of the Department of Botany, and Director Life Sciences, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 302004, India At present...

    View Ashwani 's Profile
    Bio-diesel production First efforts to cultivate hydrocarbon producing plants for fuel production were made by Italians in Ethiopia and French in Morocco. Later on Calvin and his collaborators have revived the idea again and have advocated the study of petro-crops as a possible feedstock for petroleum like materials. Presently the largest fuel programme is in Brazil where government currently spends a considerable amount on subsidizing the production of alcohol, mostly from biomass of sugarcane. Production was estimated to increase so muich that around 11 to 14 million cars will use alcohol (with gasoline) by the year 2000 (Korbitz, 1996). Recently about 30 thousand tones of rape biofuel yearly is produced at the industrial chemical factories in Poland (Grazybek et al., 1996). The important source investigated during last years from 1993 to 1996 included. of water, produce sufficient biomass and are unpalatable to the cattlefolk due to their sticky latex. Degraded and denuded soils are no hindrance to their growth. Jatropha curcas Linn is potential diesel fuel oil yielding plant and details about this are given in Roy and Kumar (1988) and Roy (2000 this volume)4.3 REFERENCES 1. Bhatia, V.K., Shrivastava, G.S., Garg V.K., Gupta, Y.K. and Singh, J. (1983). Study on laticeferoous (latex bearing) plants as potential petro-crops. Fuel. 62:953-955. 2. Garg, J. and Kumar, A. (1987a). Effect of growth regulators on the growth, chlorophyll development and productivity of Euphorbia lathyris L.A. hydrocarbon yielding plant. Progress in Photosynthesis Research. J. Biggins (ed.) IV (7) : 403-406. 3. Garg, J. and Kumar, A. (1987b). Improving growth and hydrocarbon yield of Euphorbia lathyris L. In : R.N. Sharma, O.P. Vimal and A.N. Mathur (Eds.). Bioenergy Society Fourth Convention and Symposium 87, New Delhi, pp. 93-97. 4. Garg J., and Kumar, A. (1987c). Some studies on charcoal rot of Euphorbia lathyris caused by Macrophomina phaseolina. Indian Phytopathology 41 : 257-260. 5. Garg, J. and Kumar, A. (1989a). Influence of salinity on growth and hydrocarbon yield of Euphorbia lathyris. J. Insian Bot. Soc. 68 : 201-204. 6. Garg, J. and Kumar, A (1989b). Potential petro crops for Rajasthan. J. Indian Bot. Soc., 68 : 199-200. 7. Garg, J. and Kumar, A. (1990). Improving the growth and hydrocarbon yield of Euphorbia lathyris L. in semi-arid regions of Rajasthan. In : G. Grassi, G. Gosse and G. dos Santos (Eds.). Biomass for Energy and Industry Vol. I., pp. 1.527-1.531. Elsevier Applied Science, London. 8. Grazybek, A., Rogulska, M., Roszkovski, A. (1996). Rape biofuel production in Poland-overview of actual situation and perspectives. In : Chartier et al. (Eds.). Biomass for Energy and Environment. Permagon Elsevier Science, Oxford, pp. 343-348. 9. Hall, D.O. and Rosillo-Calle, F. (1998). The role of bioenergy in developing countries. In : Kopetz et al (Eds.). Biomass for energy and Industry. C.A.R.M.E.N. Germany, pp. 52-55. 10. Johari, S. and Kumar, A. (1992). Effect on N.P. and K. on growth and biocrude yield of Euphorbia antisyphilitica. Annals of Arid Zones 31 (4) : 313-314. 11. Johari, S. and Kumar, A. (1993). Charcoal rot of Candelilla (Euphorbia antisyphilitica zucc.) caused by Macrophomina phaseolina (Tassi) Goid. Indian J. Mycol, PI. Pathol. 23 (3) : 317. 12. Johari, S., Roy, S. and Kumar, A. (1990). Influence of edaphic and nutritional factors on growth and hydrocarbon yield of Euphorbia antisyphilitica Zucc. In : G. Grassi, G. Gosse and G. das Santos (Eds.). Proc. Biomass for Energy and Industry. Vol. I. Elesevier Applied Science, London, pp. 1.522-1.526. 13. Johari, S., Roy, S. and Kumar, A. (1991). Influence of growth regulators on biomass and hydrocarbon yield from Euphor bia antisyphilitica Zucc. In : H.L. Sharma and R.HN. Sharma (Eds.). Bioenergy for Humid and Semi-humid Regions. Bio-Energy Society of India, New Delhi, pp. 462-464.68. 14. Korbitz, W. (1996). New profitable development in biodiesel. IN : Chartier et al. (Eds.). Biomass for Energy and Environment. Permagon, Elseveir Science, Oxford, pp. 339-342. 15. Kumar, A. (1984a). Economics of bioenergy in developing countries. In : H. Egneus et al (Eds.). Bioenergy 84 Vol. 4, Bioenergy in developing countries. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London, pp. 172. 16. Kumar, A. (1984b). Unconventional Energy Sources. Proc. VIIth Botanical Conference, Jaipur, pp. 24-26 (Review). 17. Kumar, A. (1984c). Hydrocarbons from pants in arid and semi-arid regions. In : Applications on Science and Technology for Afforesation, Act, Jaipur, 81-86. 18. Kumar, A. (1987). Petrocrop resources of Rajasthan In : R.N. Sharma, O.P. Vimal and A.N. Mathur (Eds.). Bio-energy Society Fourth Convention and Symposium 87. New Delhi, pp. 98-102. 19. Kumar, A. (1990). Prospects of raising latex bearing plants in semi-arid and arid regions of Rajasthan. In : G. Grassi, G. Gosse an G. dos Santos (Eds.) Biomass for Energy and Industry. Vol. I. Pp. 1.100-1.107. Elsevier Applied Science, London. 20. Kumar, A. (1994a). Bioenergy Sources in India : Present status. Symposia focal them, Science in India Excellence & Accountability, pp. 38-39, ISCA, Jaipur. 21. Kumar A. (1994b). Laticifers as potential bioremedients for wasteland restoration. J. Environment and Pollution 1:101-104. 22. Kumar, A. (1995). Cultivation of hydrocarbon yielding plants in Rajasthan as an alternative energy source. J. Env. And Pollution 2:67-70. 23. Kumar, A. (1996a). Growth, physiology and improvement of bioenergy resources in semi-arid regions. Focal theme Symp. Science & Technology for achieving food economic & health security, ISCA, Patiala, pp. 87. 24. Kumar, A. (1996b). Bioenergy plantations : A model system for restoration of semi arid regions. In P. Chartier et al. (Eds.). Biomass for Energy and Environment. Elsevier Science, Oxford, pp. 819-824. 25. Kumar A, and Joshi, B. (1982). In virto growth and differentiation of Euphorbia lathyris, a hydrocarbon yielding plant. In : A. Scrub, P. Chartier and G. Schlesser (Eds.). Energy from biomass. Applied Science Publishers. London, p. 261-264., 1982. 26. Kumar, A. and Kumar, R. (1885). Improving the productivity of petrocrops in Rajasthan. In : Sharma, R.N., O.P. Vimal and V. Bhakthavatsalam (Eds.). Proc. Bioenergy Society Convention and Symposium, New Delhi, pp. 125-129. 27. Kumar, P. and Kumar, A. (1986). Effect of water and salinity stress on Euphorbia tirucalli L.A. hydrocarbon yielding plant. In : S. Terol (Ed.). Proc. Of the 1986. International Congress on Renewable Energy Sources. Consejo Superior de investigaciones Cientificas, Madrid. 240-252. 28. Nielson, P.E., Nishimura, H., Liang, Y. and Calvin, M. (1979). Steroids from Euphorbia and other latex bearing plants. Phytochemistry, 18 : 103-104. 29. Peopler, T.R., Alcorn, S.M., Bloss, M.E., Clay, W.F., Flug, M., Hoffman, C.W., Lee, Luna S., Mchanghlin, S.P. Steinberg, M. and Young, M. (1981). Euphorbia lathyris. A. future source of extractable liquid fuel. Biosources Dig.3. 30. Rani, A. and Kumar, A. (1992). Comparative study on biomass production and hydrocarbon yield or three different varieties of Pedilanthus tithymaloides. Act Eco 14 : 77-79. 31. Rani, A. and Kumar, A. (1994a). Effect of edaphic factors on the growth and physiology of Pedilanthus tithymaloides Var. Green. Journal of Environment and Pollution 2 (1) : 5-8. 32. Rani, A., and Kumar, A. (1994b). Micropropagation of Pedilanthus tithymaloides var. Green, a hdrocarbon yielding plant. J. of Phytol. Res. 7 (1&2) : 107-110. 33. Rani, A., Roy, S. and Kumar, A. (1990). Influence of morphological and environmental factors on growth and hydrocarbon yield in Calotropis procera. In : G. Grassi, G. Gosse, and G. das Santos (Eds.). Biomass for Energy and Industry. Vol. 1. Elsevier Applied Science London, pp. 1.480-1.483. 34. Rani, A., Roy, S. and Kumar, A. (1991). Effect of salinity stress or growth and hydrocarbon yield of Pedilanthus tithymaloides variety Green (Linn). Point. In : H.L. Sharma and R.N. Sharma (Eds.). Proc. Bio-energy for Humid and semi-humid Regions. Bio-energy Soc. Of India, New Delhi, pp. 456-461. 35. Roy, S. and Kumar, A. (1990). Prospects of wood energy production in semi-arid and arid regions of Rajasthan. In : G. Grassi, G. Gosse and G. das Santos (Eds.). Proc. Biomass for Energy and Industry, pp. 2.1153-2.1156. 36. Staff, F. (1998) Development of Biodiesel activity in France. In : Kopetz H. et al. (Eds.). Biomass for energy and industry. CARMEN. Germany, pp. 112-115. 37. World Bank (1996). Rural energy and development : improving energy supplies for 2 billion people. World Bank Industry and Energy Department. Yermanos, D.M., Francois, L.E. and Tammadoni, T.T. (1967). Effect of oil salinity on the development of jojoba. Econ. Bot. 21 : 69-80. NEW YORK - DuPont Biofuels Vice President and General Manager John Ranieri today outlined the company's growth plans in the rapidly growing biofuels industry. Speaking to investors at an ethanol conference here, Ranieri said, "DuPont is delivering advantaged products and technologies throughout the biofuels value chain. To address the energy issue, we must develop sustainable business and technical solutions that can be adapted across different geographies to successfully grow this industry." DuPont's current biofuels focus includes: rapidly developing differentiated seeds and crop protection products that will enable greater biofuel production per acre; developing and supplying new technologies to enable conversion of cellulose to biofuels; and commercializing biobutanol as a next-generation biofuel that is significantly improved and complements incumbents. Seed & Crop Protection Solutions: With more than $300 million in revenues expected this year from seed and crop protection solutions serving biofuels markets, DuPont subsidiary Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. has selected more than 135 seed hybrids marketed through its IndustrySelect(R) program. The program includes specialized grain properties that improve the efficiency of ethanol production. The seed and crop protection research pipeline includes yield traits in seeds and other products that will further improve ethanol production efficiency. Integrated Corn-Based BioRefinery (Biofuels from Cellulose): DuPont and the U.S. Department of Energy are jointly funding a four-year research program to develop technology to convert corn stover into ethanol. This is aligned with the company's strategy to develop technologies that can convert cellulosic crops into biofuels and biochemicals. The BioRefinery program will significantly increase the amount of ethanol per acre achievable by using corn grain and stover from the same amount of land. Partnership with BP for Advanced Biofuels Development: DuPont's partnership with BP to develop biobutanol is based on its strategy to bring to market advanced biofuels that can expand the transportation biofuels offering. Biobutanol's performance enhancements include: Lowers the vapor pressure of fuel blends when co-blended with ethanol; Can be more easily distributed via the existing fuel supply infrastructure; Enhances fuel stability of biobutanol-gasoline blends; Improves blend flexibility, allowing higher biofuels blends with gasoline; and, * Improves fuel efficiency (better miles per gallon) compared to incumbent biofuels. top 3 2 Biological Processes 3.2.1 Fermentation Ethanol, an anaerobic product of microbial etabolism can be recovered relatively easily through conventional distillation recovery methods. The production of industrial ethanol from integrated grain milling plants and sugar crops is a mature technology and has been successfully implemented in Brazil and the US. On the other hand, the absence of appropriate legislation has limited significantly the production of ethanol in the EU. The last decade, ethanol production from lignocellulosic materials has received increased attention by the research community and technical breakthroughs have been reported in the US and Canada. 3.2.2 Anaerobic Digestion Liquid phase anaerobic digestion (dry solid matter in the digester in the range of 5 - 10 wt%) can be considered a commercial technology and several companies offer various technical solutions to a variety of effluents and substrates. Recent work has focused on multi-substrate operation with attention on the biodegradable traction of MSW especially in Denmark. Both for biogas and landfill gas, purification technologies have been developed to remove carbon dioxide and other corrosive gases (such as hydrogen sulphide) for utilisation of the rich methane gas as transport fuel. If the biogas or landfill gas can be purified extensively, then they can be used as a renewable substitute for natural gas in several applications. Solid state anaerobic digestion (dry solid matter in the digester in the range of 30 - 35 wt%) is a technology approaching commercial status with Organic Waste Systems of Belgium and Valorga of France as the leaders and main competitors. Solid state operation results in significantly higher biogas productivity rates than liquid phase and a better quality of compost due to the mesophilic operation I (about 50 - 55 °C). 3.2.3 Composting Aerobic composting is a commercial technology with demonstrated reliable performance is several projects. However, the economics of composting are strongly related to the quality of the compost and to a strong market for the compost that is not always evident. Composting source separated or "green" waste results in compost of higher quality due to the absence of plastics or other contamination. Except for the need of standards on the quality of the compost, there is no strong justification for extensive R&D work. The R&D needs for the biological processes are related to pilot plant/industrial scale demonstration of ethanol form lignocellulosic feedstocks with increased yields, to the fine tuning of solid state digestion technologies and to the improved purification of biogas and landfill gas for various applications such as transport fuel or supply of methane in natural gas networks. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Bioenergy is considered as the resource with the highest environmental impact amongst the renewable energy sources and this does not refer to incineration or waste treatment only, but it even applies to wood combustion. This is due to the fact that there are always residues (such as ash and liquid effluents) to be disposed off and practically in all applications there is a stack or a chimney. This may induce the general public to relate bioenergy plants to coal fired plants, incinerators and in general emission of gaseous pollutants. It is therefore mandatory that all Bioenergy technologies must carefully and convincingly address the problem of emissions if they are ever going to be accepted by the general public, the political establishment and subsequently the industry. Practically in all Bioenergy applications at the end the energy carrier (biogas, fuel gas, bio-oil, ethanol, solid fuel or hydrogen) will be used in a combustionprocess to release the chemical energy of the carrier. It is therefore of critical importance that emissions from the combustion of all energy carriers are minimised to whatever possible extend. It is preferable whenever possible to try to reduce the concentration of the pollutants in the energy carrier before it's combustion so as to minimise or eliminate emissions of sulphur oxides, heavy metals, halogenated compounds and other pollutants. This can (be achieved in gasification or pyrolysis processes, however, it is not possible for combustion unless extensive feedstock pretreatment takes place which is always relative expensive. In the medium term future this can prove an advantage for gasification and pyrolysis processes for contaminated biomass or waste recovered fuels in relation to combustion. Although there has been significant progress in the reduction of emissions for all the above pollutants, this is a field where the R&D work should be intensified. This is becoming even more critical as waste recovered fuels and contaminated biomass such as demolition wood are becoming an important cheap resource in countries where there is scarcity of other biomass feedstocks. ETHANOL FUEL PROGRAM EVOLUTION The fuel ethanol program in Brazil was formally established in 1975, aiming at reducing oil imports. Other important considerations were: the existing know-how in fuel ethanol production/utilization; land and labor availability; and low sugar prices in the world market. After 1980, with the ethanol-dedicate engines, local environmental benefits became evident (elimination of Pb in gasoline blends; lower CO emissions; less aggressive HC and NOx). The global environmental benefits, with a substantial reduction in CO2 net emissions, was well quantified in 1990. [1] The program was established within the context of a strong government intervention in the sugar cane sector; before 1975 sugar was produced and commercialized within "production quotas", and all exports were made by the government. In the 90's all the production/commercialization of sugar and ethanol were totally de-regulated as follows: From 1975 - 80's Ethanol: - Level of guaranteed purchase, at controlled prices - "Fixed" ratio of ethanol/gasoline selling prices: 0.59 (1975)  0.75 (1989) - Low interest rate in loans for investment (1980-1985) Sugar: Government issued "production quotas" Exports: by the Government * 1990 Sugar Exports Privatized * 1994 Ethanol: 22% ethanol in gasoline blends * 1995 Sugar: de-regulation (end of quotas) * 1997 Anhydrous ethanol (blends) de-regulation (end of quotas and controlled prices) * Ethanol: 24% ethanol in gasoline blends * Hydrated ethanol (E 1 00): de-regulation Those policies and the world market positions for sugar and oil resulted in productions as are summarized in Figure 1. It is important to see the sugar cane availability, its causes and consequences, to understand the possibilities today. Figure 1: Production - Brazil [2] Internal sugar consumption in Brazil grew in the expected way, somewhat above population growth in some periods. Sugar cane growth from 120 M ton to 240 Mt (from 1979 to 85) was almost entirely driven by the E-l00 (dedicated ethanol car) in the period. In the following years production stabilized; the government policy of paying the producer according to officially audited production costs was gradually abandoned (if not officially), and the "fixed" ratio of pump price ethanol/gasoline increased from 0.59 to 0.75. Sugar exports were privatized in 1990, and a shortage of ethanol (1989-90) led to consumer mistrust and very rapid decline in sales of ethanol dedicated vehicles. In the 90's, the export privatization and the very competitive production costs led to an extraordinary increase in sugar exports (from 1.5 to 11 M ton sugar) pushing sugar cane production to the 300 MT level; this was stabilized again by the drop in sugar prices and the over supply of ethanol in the 97-2000 period. In the same period, the relative utilization of sugar cane for ethanol or sugar is show in Figure 2, as well as the ethanol penetration in the Otto-cycle engine cars, in Brazil.