|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
Prepublication Copy—Subject to Further Editorial Correction
America’s Energy Future Panel on Alternative Liquid Transportation Fuels
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, DC
www.nap.edu
OCR for page R2
Prepublication Copy—Subject to Further Editorial Correction
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of
the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National
Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The
members of the panel responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and
with regard for appropriate balance.
Support for this project was provided by the Department of Energy under Grant Number DE-
FG02-07-ER-15923 and by BP America, Dow Chemical Company Foundation, Fred Kavli and
the Kavli Foundation, GE Energy, General Motors Corporation, Intel Corporation, and the W.M.
Keck Foundation. Support was also provided by the Presidents’ Circle Communications
Initiative of the National Academies and by the National Academy of Sciences through the
following endowed funds created to perpetually support the work of the National Research
Council: Thomas Lincoln Casey Fund, Arthur L. Day Fund, W.K. Kellogg Foundation Fund,
George and Cynthia Mitchell Endowment for Sustainability Science, and Frank Press Fund for
Dissemination and Outreach. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations
expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of
the organizations that provided support for the project.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
or
International Standard Book Number 0-309-0XXXX-X
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 97-XXXXX
Limited copies of this report are available from:
Board on Energy and Environmental Systems
National Research Council
500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 934
Washington, DC 20001
(202)334-3344
Additional copies of this report are available from:
The National Academies Press
500 Fifth Street, NW, Lockbox 285
Washington, DC 20055
(800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area)
Internet: http://www.nap.edu
Copyright 2009 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
Prepublication Copy—Subject to Further Editorial Correction
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished
scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and
technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the
Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on
scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its
administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the
responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors
engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes
the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of
Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the
services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to
the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of
Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own
initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of
the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate
the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and
advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the
Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of
Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public,
and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies
and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair,
respectively, of the National Research Council.
www.national-academies.org
OCR for page R4
Prepublication Copy—Subject to Further Editorial Correction
PANEL ON ALTERNATIVE LIQUID TRANSPORTATION FUELS
MICHAEL P. RAMAGE, ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company (retired),
Chair
G. DAVID TILMAN, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Vice Chair
DAVID GRAY, Nobilis, Inc.
ROBERT D. HALL, Amoco Corporation (retired)
EDWARD A. HILER, Texas A&M University (retired)
W.S. WINSTON HO, Ohio State University
DOUGLAS L. KARLEN, U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service
and Iowa State University
JAMES R. KATZER, ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company (retired)
MICHAEL R. LADISCH, Purdue University and Mascoma Corporation
JOHN A. MIRANOWSKI, Iowa State University
MICHAEL OPPENHEIMER, Princeton University
RONALD F. PROBSTEIN, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
HAROLD H. SCHOBERT, Pennsylvania State University
CHRISTOPHER R. SOMERVILLE, Energy BioSciences Institute
GREGORY STEPHANOPOULOS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
JAMES L. SWEENEY, Stanford University
Liaisons from the Committee on America’s Energy Future
CHRISTINE A. EHLIG-ECONOMIDES, Texas A&M University
JOHN B. HEYWOOD, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
ARISTIDES A.N. PATRINOS, Synthetic Genomics, Inc.
Consultants
ADRIAN A. FAY, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
SAMUEL FLEMING, Claremont Canyon Consultants
JASON HILL, University of Minnesota, St. Paul
SHELDON KRAMER, Independent Consultant, Grayslake, Illinois
THOMAS KREUTZ, Princeton University
ERIC LARSON, Princeton University
ROBERT WILLIAMS, Princeton University
America’s Energy Future Project Managers
PETER D. BLAIR, Executive Director, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
JAMES ZUCCHETTO, Director, Board on Energy and Environmental Systems
Staff
EVONNE P. Y. TANG, Study Director
KATHERINE BITTNER, Senior Program Assistant (until June 2008)
ROBERT COLBURN, Senior Program Assistant (until November 2008)
NORMAN GROSSBLATT, Senior Editor
LANITA JONES, Program Associate
DOROTHY MILLER, Christine Mirzayan Fellow (until August 2008)
JONATHAN YANGER, Senior Program Assistant
iv
OCR for page R5
Prepublication Copy—Subject to Further Editorial Correction
Foreword
Energy, which has always played a critical role in our country’s national security,
economic prosperity, and environmental quality, has over the last two years been pushed
to the forefront of national attention as a result of several factors:
• World demand for energy has increased steadily, especially in developing nations.
China, for example, saw an extended period (prior to the current worldwide
economic recession) of double-digit annual increases in economic growth and
energy consumption.
• Nearly 60 percent of the U.S. demand for oil is now met by depending on imports
supplied by foreign sources, up from 40 percent in 1990.
• The long-term reliability of traditional sources of energy, especially oil, remains
uncertain in the face of political instability and limitations on resources.
• Concerns are mounting about global climate change—a result, in large measure,
of the fossil-fuel combustion that currently provides most of the world’s energy.
• The volatility of energy prices has been unprecedented, climbing in 2008 to
record levels and then dropping precipitously—in only a matter of months in early
2009.
• Today, investments in the energy infrastructure and its needed technologies are
modest, many alternative energy sources are receiving insufficient attention, and
the nation’s energy supply and distribution systems are increasingly vulnerable to
natural disasters and acts of terrorism.
All of these factors are affected to a great degree by the policies of government,
both here and abroad, but even with the most enlightened policies the overall energy
enterprise, like a massive ship, will be slow to change course. Its complex mix of
scientific, technical, economic, social, and political elements means that the necessary
transformational change in how we generate, supply, distribute, and use energy will be an
immense undertaking, requiring decades to complete.
To stimulate and inform a constructive national dialogue about our energy future,
the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering initiated in
2007 a major study, “America’s Energy Future: Technology Opportunities, Risks, and
Tradeoffs.” The America’s Energy Future (AEF) project was initiated in anticipation of
v
OCR for page R6
Prepublication Copy—Subject to Further Editorial Correction
major legislative interest in energy policy in the U.S. Congress and, as the effort
proceeded, it was endorsed by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chair
Jeff Bingaman and former Ranking Member Pete Domenici.
The AEF project evaluates current contributions and the likely future impacts,
including estimated costs, of existing and new energy technologies. It was planned to
serve as a foundation for subsequent policy studies, at the academies and elsewhere, that
will focus on energy research and development priorities, strategic energy technology
development, and policy analysis.
The AEF project has produced a series of five reports, including this report on
alternative liquid fuels for transportation, designed to inform key decisions as the nation
begins this year a comprehensive examination of energy policy issues. Numerous studies
conducted by diverse organizations have benefited the project, but many of those studies
disagree about the potential of specific technologies, particularly those involving
alternative sources of energy such as biomass, renewable resources for generation of
electric power, advanced processes for generation from coal, and nuclear power. A key
objective of the AEF series of reports is thus to help resolve conflicting analyses and to
facilitate the charting of a new direction in the nation’s energy enterprise.
The AEF project, outlined in Appendix A, included a study committee and three
panels that together have produced an extensive analysis of energy technology options for
consideration in an ongoing national dialogue. A milestone in the project was the March
2008 “National Academies Summit on America’s Energy Future” at which principals of
related recent studies provided input to the AEF study committee and helped to inform
the panels’ deliberations. A report chronicling the event, The National Academies
Summit on America’s Energy Future: Summary of a Meeting, was published in October
2008.
The AEF project was generously supported by the W.M. Keck Foundation, Fred
Kavli and the Kavli Foundation, Intel Corporation, Dow Chemical Company Foundation,
General Motors Corporation, GE Energy, BP America, U.S. Department of Energy, and
our own academies.
Ralph J. Cicerone, President Charles M. Vest, President
National Academy of Sciences National Academy of Engineering
Chair, National Research Council Vice Chair, National Research Council
vi
OCR for page R7
Prepublication Copy—Subject to Further Editorial Correction
Preface
Transportation plays a key role in the economies of industrialized societies,
especially in light of increasing globalization. As in most countries, transportation in the
United States has relied heavily on petroleum-based fuels. The influence of volatile oil
prices on the U.S. economy, the increasing U.S. dependence on imported oil and its effect
on U.S. energy security, and recognition of the large contribution of transportation to
greenhouse gases call for development of alternative transportation fuels from domestic
sources that have lower greenhouse emissions than petroleum-based fuels. Biofuels and
coal-to-liquid fuels are options that can improve the nation’s energy security inasmuch as
biomass is a renewable resource and the United States has the world’s largest known coal
reserves. However, those options raise important questions about economic viability,
carbon impact, and technology status. To assess the technological status, costs, and
environmental effects of alternative liquid transportation fuels produced from coal and
biomass, the National Research Council convened the Panel on Alternative Liquid
Transportation Fuels. The panel’s work was part of a larger study initiated by the
National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering—the
America’s Energy Future project (Appendix A).
In approaching its task (Appendix B), the 16-member panel of experts (Appendix
C) began by reviewing the literature and also gathered input from invited speakers
(Appendix D) on the production of biofuels and coal-to-liquid fuels. Because of the
uncertainties and widely different opinions expressed in the literature, the panel decided
to conduct its own analyses of the costs, potential supply, and life-cycle greenhouse-gas
emissions of alternative fuels produced from biomass, coal, or both. An advantage of
conducting its own analyses was that the panel could use a consistent basis and
assumptions to compare the costs and environmental effects of different alternative fuel
options. As the panel was writing its report (from November 2007 to November 2008),
the commodity prices and capital costs of building energy plants fluctuated widely. The
panel therefore included sensitivity analyses of feedstock costs, capital costs, and oil
prices to see how they might affect choices of fuels.
The panel concluded that alternative liquid fuel technology can be deployable and
supply a substantial volume of clean fuels for U.S. transportation at a reasonable cost.
Transforming the U.S. transportation fuel system from domination by petroleum-based
fuels to supply by various domestic sources will take several decades. Sustained and
vii
OCR for page R8
Prepublication Copy—Subject to Further Editorial Correction
aggressive efforts are needed to accelerate the further development and penetration of
alternative liquid fuel technologies.
I thank the panel members and the liaisons from the Committee on America’s
Energy Future for dedicating much time to the study. We were on a tight schedule to
complete a complex task. Each member devoted time and effort to the study because we
recognized not only the importance of achieving energy security for the nation but also,
and more importantly, the immediate need for demonstration of the technical feasibility
and economic viability of alternative liquid transportation fuels from domestic sources.
Michael P. Ramage, Chair
Panel on Alternative Liquid
Transportation Fuels
viii
OCR for page R9
Prepublication Copy—Subject to Further Editorial Correction
Acknowledgments
This report is a product of the cooperation and contributions of many people. The
members of the panel thank the consultants and the following persons who provided
input to the panel:
John Baker, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service
Gary M. Banowetz, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research
Service
Curt R. Fischer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Jane M-F. Johnson, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research
Service
Youngmi Kim, Purdue University
Daniel Klein-Marcuschamer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Alicia Rosburg, Iowa State University
Wallace W. Wilhelm (deceased), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural
Research Service
The members of the panel also thank all the speakers who briefed them. (Appendix D
contains a list of presentations to the panel.)
This report has been reviewed in draft form by persons chosen for their diverse
perspectives and technical expertise in accordance with procedures approved by the
National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent
review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making
its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional
standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review
comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the
deliberative process. We thank the following individuals for their review of this report:
Noubar Afeyan, Flagship Ventures
Douglas Chapin, MPR Associates, Inc.
Joel Darmstadter, Resources for the Future, Inc.
Christopher B. Field, Carnegie Institution of Washington
Richard Flavell, Ceres, Inc.
ix
OCR for page R10
Prepublication Copy—Subject to Further Editorial Correction
Kevin B. Fogash, Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
Bruce C. Gates, University of California, Davis
Lester Lave, Carnegie Mellon University
Bruce A. McCarl, Texas A&M University
Jeffrey Peterson, Energy Resources Group
Timothy Searchinger, Princeton University
Richard Sheppard, Independent Consultant
Jeff Siirola, Eastman Chemical Company
Kenneth Vogel, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service
Charles E. Wyman, University of California, Riverside
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments
and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor
did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of the report was
overseen by Elisabeth M. Drake, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Robert A.
Frosch, Harvard University. Appointed by the National Research Council, they were
responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried
out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were
carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of the report rests entirely with
the authoring panel and the institution.
x
OCR for page R11
Prepublication Copy—Subject to Further Editorial Correction
Contents
SYNOPSIS 1
SUMMARY 7
LIQUID FUELS FOR TRANSPORTATION
1 38
Demand for Liquid Transportation Fuels, 38
Alternative Transportation Fuels, 40
Purpose of This Study, 41
Context of Report, 42
Structure of Report, 44
References, 46
BIOMASS RESOURCES FOR LIQUID TRANSPORTATION FUELS
2 48
Introduction, 48
Current Biomass Production for Biofuels, 49
Biomass Resources, 54
Research and Development, 67
Costs of Supplying Biomass Feedstocks, 70
Environmental Effects,76
Findings and Recommendations, 78
References, 81
BIOCHEMICAL CONVERSION OF BIOMASS
3 90
Introduction, 90
Technology Alternatives, 90
Biochemical Conversion of Cellulosic Biomass, 92
Cost and Performance, 98
Technology Forecast, 109
Conclusions and Recommendations, 116
References, 120
xi
OCR for page R12
Prepublication Copy—Subject to Further Editorial Correction
THERMOCHEMICAL CONVERSION OF COAL AND BIOMASS
4 125
Introduction, 125
Status and Challenges of Technology Alternatives, 125
Indirect-Liquefaction Technologies, 128
Direct Liquefaction Technologies, 159
Findings and Recommendations, 163
References, 169
DISTRIBUTION
5 171
Ethanol Transportation, 172
The Market for Biofuels, 178
Conclusions and Recommendations, 180
References, 182
COMPARISON OF OPTIONS AND MARKET PENETRATION
6 184
Comparison of Costs, Greenhouse-Gas Emissions, and Potential Fuel
supply, 185
Market Penetration, 192
Findings and Recommendations, 195
References, 197
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7 198
KEY CHALLENGES TO COMMERCIAL DEPLOYMENT
8 205
OTHER ALTERNATIVE FUEL OPTIONS
9 208
Compressed Natural Gas, 208
Alternative Diesel, 210
Methanol, 211
Dimethyl Ether, 211
Hydrogen, 212
References, 215
APPENDIXES
AMERICA’S ENERGY FUTURE PROJECT
A 219
STATEMENT OF TASK
B 223
PANEL ON ALTERNATIVE LIQUID TRANSPORTATION FUELS
C 225
MEMBERS’ BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES
PRESENTATIONS TO THE PANEL ON ALTERNATIVE LIQUID
D 231
TRANSPORTATION FUELS
EXAMPLES OF WATERSHED-SCALE OR LANDSCAPE-SCALE
E 233
RESEARCH THAT PROVIDE THE FOUNDATION FOR A
LANDSCAPE VISION OF PRODUCTION OF BIOFUEL
FEEDSTOCK
ESTIMATING THE AMOUNT OF CORN STOVER THAT CAN BE
F 236
HARVESTED IN A SUSTAINABLE MANNER
xii
OCR for page R13
Prepublication Copy—Subject to Further Editorial Correction
LIFE-CYCLE INPUTS FOR PRODUCTION OF BIOMASS
G 239
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE ECONOMIC AND
H 242
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF BIOMASS SUPPLY
MODELING OF CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS AND
I 257
CARBON EMISSIONS OF ETHANOL PLANTS WITH
SUPERPRO DESIGNER®
RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
J 265
MICROBIAL BIOMASS
NON-QUANTIFIED UNCERTAINTIES THAT COULD
K 272
INFLUENCE THE COSTS OF CARBON STORAGE
FIGURES 277
xiii
OCR for page R14
