Biogenic & Renewable Fuels: Case Studies & Testimonials
Three separate biomass conversion projects focused on materials that were the “waste” of a different process, such as
1) Palm Oil Biomass to Biochar + Coproducts: Turning the empty “baskets” from sustainable palm oil processing, where these materials had no apparent value, so they were stockpiled adjacent to the processing facilities, gradually getting moldy and waterlogged, generating methane … a nasty mess that needed to be cleaned up anyway. By first pelletizing this material, squeezing out excess moisture, they were then fed into a carbonizer (a type of slow pyrolysis, technically, pyrolytic gasification) to produce energy, high-quality biochar and residual heat (thermal energy) that served to improve the project’s operating efficiency.
2) Unhealthy Crops to Biochar while clearing fields for more sustainable crops: Certain agricultural crops, some at considerable scale, can be afflicted with a disease that ruins the crop for that growing region, such as the case with citrus trees in many locations. This biomass, with grinding into particle sizes suitable for conversion, also produces excellent biochar. The supply of these trees is probably limited to 8-10 years, but the equipment is semi-mobile, so the project owners intend to eventually repurpose it to the next feedstock such as forests afflicted by climate change.
3) Animal bedding contains valuable nutrients: Horses and certain livestock use bedding that soaks up biogenic materials that become high-value compost plus fertilizer as well as residual energy used to power the conversion systems.
Why we prefer feedstocks from waste rather than purpose-grown resources
Although feasible technically, various feedstocks can be converted into a variety of usable fuels, solvents, lubricants, viscosity modifiers, nano- silica and silicone, graphene, and other “green” chemicals. We don’t usually support purpose-grown crops used for biofuels because there are sufficient volumes of waste materials available at sites that are, in some case, swimming in wastes. In some cases, it is possible to separate and recapture resources that are mixed, fossil and biorenewable, converting both streams into products with strong demand.
Waste-based materials, whether biogenic (like biomass) or fossil (such as the calories embodied in plastics) or a mix (such as in rubber tires that contain substantial amounts of natural rubber), better to rely on recovering resources than using land for generating crops for industrial purposes.
Notable exceptions:
- Timber bamboo as a way to preserve slow-growing wood trees
- Hybridized (high oleic) sunflower seed oil for machinery lubricants and greases
- Rapeseed/canola for diesel in certain markets; perhaps miscanthus, giant reeds, sugarcane, or jatropha, but probably not algae oil, and certainly not GMO corn.
Such use, when operating at appropriate scale, often compete with land use decisions for arable cropland as food production. Until the planet is food secure, this practice is not recommended.
Most physical waste is so bulky (taking up considerable space where it lands), processing must be proximal to it, or to end users, to be cost-effective. But more importantly, the production of such waste in the first place reflects some sort of design failure. That’s not how nature does it. Most “waste” is simply displaced resources that would once again have value (as opposed to the liability and disposal costs of improper design) when it can be collected, aggregated, secured, and processed. Processing technologies are no long the issue; rights to process wastes and the business skills to do that sustainably, when provided the necessary capital, are now key factors.