2.2.

3 Biomass
Preface
This section has been reviewed by Dr. E. Larson from Princeton University, Dept. CEES, USA.
We fully agree with the reviewer that only a selection of potential biomass conversion options has
been included. For the sake of simplicity in this first version of DACES-2050 we however choose
to include a limited set of biomass conversion options that are likely to give high efficiencies and
low costs on the long term (which is the focus of the database). Therefore many options were
included. We agree however, that a larger set of biomass options would be desirable, which could
be done in an update of the database. This includes the indicated
multi-output systems. The remarks made regarding differences in biomass supply and related cost
levels is very right. This is however explicitly dealt with in the toolbox. Biomass prices can be
altered by the user, to make the impacts of biomass prices on total results visable. For the Dutch
situation biomass import is required in any case in order to allow for large contributions of bio-
energy to the total energy supply. Regarding the efficiency impacts of various fuel types on
different car categories, the most important categories are included in the database, but not all.
Mixes of gasoline and biofuel (alcohols) for example could be relevant, but are not considered a
key option for the long term.

2.2.3.1 Bio-electricity

Description
Electricity production from biomass can take place in many ways. It is expected that the most
efficient (and cost effective) way to produce electricity from biomass is by applying BIG/CC
technology (Biomass Integrated Gasification/Combined Cycle). Such technology is capable of
producing power with (very) low emission levels and suitable for a wide variety of feedstocks,
from waste to clean, specially cultivated, biomass.

Performance unit
Power is the main output. CHP is possible. Functional unit is 1 kWh.

Costs
Investement: 1000 EURO/kWe (on 200 MWe scale), 1800 EURO/kWe (on 50 MWe scale)
Operation & Maintenance: 4% of investment per year.
Generation costs: Depends strongly on the price of the fuel (biomass).
Biomass costs of about 2 EURO/GJ result in COE of about 3.5 - 4.5 EUROct/kWh

Economic lifetime: 25 years (15 years according to free market criteria)

Technical lifetime: 25 years

Efficiency
The electrical efficiency amounts 50-60% depending on the scale.
CHP operation is possible with about 30% heat delivery.

Availability factor
BIG/CCs are base load power plants; availability is about 85%

Uncertainties
The mentioned performance levels depend to a large extent on the development of improved gas
turbine technology (e.g. application of ceramic materials, intercooling on aeroderivative turbines
and application of high temperature heat exchangers for heat recovery). Those improved turbines
are however expected to be available within 20 years from now.

GHG emission consequences of the introduction of the technology

In principle, when sustainably cultivated biomass, or organic residues are used for fuel, bio-
electricity is carbon neutral.

Relation with other options in other sectors: N.A.

Demands on the energy infrastructure

Base load operation. Biomass needs to be produced, which requires land. Generally larger scale
systems are more economical. Only when the biomass density is very low, smaller scales should
be considered because of increasing average transportation distances to meet fuel requirements.

Conditions for introduction (other than those regarding the infrastructure)

No specific issues.

Barriers to development
BIG/CC technology needs to be commercially demonstrated and applied in somewhat larger
numbers to obtain the low cost levels mentioned here. No fundamental technological barriers.

Consequences for implementation

Other positive and negative aspects of the introduction of the technology

Land availability is a crucial issue for any bio-energy option.

Sources (bio-electricity):
1. A. Faaij, B. Meuleman, R. Van Ree, Long term perspectives of BIG/CC technology,
performance and costs, Department of Science, Technology and Society, Utrecht University
and the Netherlands Energy Research Foundation (ECN), report prepared for NOVEM
(EWAB 9840) December 1998.
2. US Department of Energy, Office of Utility Technologies, Renewable energy technology
characterizations, Washington DC, USA, January 1998
3. Williams, R.H., E.D. Larson, Biomass gasifier gas turbine power generating technology,
Biomass and Bioenergy, Vol. 10, pp. 149-166, 1996.

2.2.3.2 Biofuels: Methanol, Hydrogen and Synthetic Hydrocarbons

Description
Biomass can be gasified followed by various syngas processing steps. Methanol, hydrogen and
synthetic hydrocarbons can be produced this way. Distinction can be made between systems that
make use of conventional processing technology and systems that make use of currently non-
commercial components such as high temperature gas separation, liquid phase single pass
reactors and high temperature gas cleaning. Factories producing methanol/hydrogen or synfuels
from biomass can also be optimised as a multi-output system, e.g. producing electricity as a
secondary output.
Such technology is capable of producing power with (very) low emission levels and suitable for a
wide variety of feedstocks, from waste to clean, specially cultivated, biomass.
Performance unit
Methanol/hydrogen/hydrocarbons are main outputs. Combination with electricity production is
possible. Functional unit is GJ of fuel (MeOH/H2/HC)

Costs
- Investment costs hydrogen facility 25 EURO/GJ MeOH output capacity (400 MWth input
facility; scaling factors applicable).
Operation and maintenance: 20% of investment costs.
- Investment costs methanol facility 35 EURO/GJ (400 MWth input facility; scaling factors
applicable); those figures roughly apply to Fischer-Tropsch based processes for production of
synthetic hydrocarbons as well.
Operation and maintenance: 15% of investment costs

Longer term: investment costs about 30% lower compared to shorter term estimates.

Production costs: Depends strongly on the price of the fuel (biomass).

- Biomass costs of about 2 EURO/GJ result in methanol/synthetic hydrocarbon costs of about
11-13 EURO/GJ (shorter term)
- Biomass costs of about 2 EURO/GJ result in hydrogen costs of about 8-11 EURO/GJ (shorter
term)
- Longer term methanol/Fischer Tropsch Hydrocarbons: 7-9 EURO/GJ
- Longer term hydrogen: 6-8 EURO/GJ

Economic lifetime: 25 years (15 years according to free market criteria)

Technical lifetime: 25-40 years

Efficiency
- Efficiency on shorter term for methanol production is 50-55% (400 MWth input), for Fischer-
Tropsch liquids somewhat lower.
- Efficiency on shorter term for hydrogen production is 50-55% (400 MWth input)
- Overall energetic efficiency on longer term for methanol (+ part electricity) production is 60-
65% (over 1000 MWth input), for Fischer-Tropsch liquids somewhat lower.
- Overall energetic efficiency on longer term for hydrogen (+part electricity) production is 60-
70% (over 1000 MWth input)

Availability factor
Baseload facilities with availabilities over 90%.

Uncertainties
Performance levels on short term relatively certain due to application of known technology.
Commercial, large scale demonstration is however never been realized.
The improved performance of advanced, longer term systems depends partly on development and
application of high performance high temperature gas cleaning, high temperature gas separation
and single pass syn gas processing. Fundamental technological barriers do not seem to be present.
Commercialization of advanced technology will probably take 10-20 years from now.

GHG emission consequences of the introduction of the technology

In principle, when sustainably cultivated biomass, or organic residues are used for fuel, bio-fuels
are carbon neutral.
Relation with other options in other sectors
Fischer-tropsch liquids (synthetic hydrocarbons) can be designed with desired characteristics (e.g.
comparable with gasoline or kerosine). Synthetich hydrocarbons are sulphur free and can be
distributed with the existing infrastructure. Energy density of those liquids is logically
comparable to gasoline/diesel/kerosene, which makes them well suited for use in aircraft.
Methanol can be applied in almost any vehicle type and can be mixed with hydrocarbons or used
as fuel as such.
Hydrogen requires specifically designed infrastructure; either pressurized, cooled are dedicated
storage systems such as hydrides or carbon matrixes.

Demands on the energy infrastructure

Base load operation. Biomass needs to be produced, which requires land. Generally larger scale
systems are more economical. Only when the biomass density is very low, smaller scales should
be considered because of increasing average transportation distances to meet fuel requirements.
For methanol minor modifications to existing fuel distribution systems are required.
Hydrogen requires specifically designed infrastructure; either pressurized, cooled are dedicated
storage systems such as hydrides or carbon matrixes.
Use of synthetic hydrocarbons requires no changes in infrastructure. Some modifications in
existing car engines would be required due to other ignition properties.

Conditions for introduction (other than those regarding the infrastructure)

No specific issues.

Barriers to development
Methanol and hydrogen production technology needs to be commercially demonstrated and
applied in somewhat larger numbers to obtain the low cost levels mentioned here. No
fundamental technological barriers.

Other positive and negative aspects of the introduction of the technology

Land availability is a crucial issue for any bio-energy option. Production of methanol and
hydrogen from biomass can relatively easily be combined with the use of natural gas and coal as
feedstock. A carbon neutral character can still be maintained when CO2 is removed during the
syngas processing. This can be done at relatively low cost levels since CO2 is produced in
relatively high concentration in the process. In principle, the use of biomass combined with CO2
removal and storage can even result in negative CO2 emissions.

Sources (biofuels: methanol, hydrogen, hydrocarbons):

1. A. Faaij, C. Hamelinck, E. Larson, T. Kreutz, Production of methanol and hydrogen from
biomass via advanced conversion concepts, Dept. of Science, Technology and Society,
Utrecht University, Center for Energy and Environmental Studies, Princeton University,
Paper prepared for the 4th Biomass Conference of the America s, August 29 - 2 September
1999, Oakland (CA) US, February 1999. (forthcoming)
2. A. Faaij, A. Agterberg, Long term perspectives for production of fuels from biomass;
integrated assessment and RD&D priorities, Dept. of Science, Technology and Society,
Utrecht University, Paper prepared for the 4th Biomass Conference of the America s,
August 29 - 2 September 1999, Oakland (CA) US, February 1999. (forthcoming)
3. Oonk, H., J. Vis, E. Worrell, A. Faaij, J.W. Bode, The Methahydro-process - preliminary
design and cost evaluation, Report prepared for the Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning
and Environment, TNO Institute of Environmental Sciences, Energy Research and Process
Innovation, Department of Science, Technology and Society, Utrecht University, report no.
27769, Apeldoorn, 1997.
4. Williams, R.H., Larson, E.D., Katofsky, R.E, Chen, J., Methanol and hydrogen from biomass
for transportation, with comparisons to methanol and hydrogen from natural gas and coal,
Centre for Energy and Environmental Studies, Princeton University, reportno. 292, July
1995.
5. C.E. Wyman, R.L. Bain, N.D. Hinman, D.J. Stevens, Ethanol and methanol from cellulosic
biomass, In: Renewable energy, source for fuels and electricity, Island Press, Washington
DC, 1993.
6. D. De Jager, A. Faaij, W.P. Troelstra, Cost-effectiveness of transportation fuels from biomass,
ECOFYS, Dept. Of Science, Technology and Society, Utrecht University, Innas B.V., Report
prepared for NOVEM (EWAB rapport 9830), June 1998.
7. Larson, E.D. H. Jin, A preliminary assessment of biomass conversion to Fischer-Tropsch
coocking fuels for rural China (part I & II), Center for Energy and Environmental Studies
Paper prepared for the 4th Biomass Conference of the America s, August 29 - 2 September
1999, Oakland (CA) US.
8. Geerlinks, J.J.C., J.H. Wilson, et al. (1999). Fischer-Tropsch technology - from active site to
commercial process. Applied Catalysis A: General 186: 27-40.

2.2.3.3 Biofuels: ethanol from lignocellulosic biomass

Description
Ethanol can be produced from sugars by fermentation. Sugar and starch crops (such as sugar beet
and cereals) are generally (far) less suited as a biomass feedstock than perennial crops like wood
and grasses (= woody, or lignocellulosic biomass). This is due to the high inputs and more
intensive agricultural operations required for those annual crops when compared to perennials.
This is especially reflected in higher costs.
Lignocellulosic biomass needs to be broken down to sugars by hydrolysis techniques, which is
followed by fermentation. Unconverted fractions (such as lignin) can be converted on site for
electricity production.

Performance unit
Ethanol is the main output. Combination with electricity production is possible.. Functional unit
is GJ of fuel (ethanol)

Costs
Investment costs methanol facility 270 MEURO (1800 Mwth input facility; scaling factors
applicable)
Operation and maintenance: 30% of investment costs

Production costs: Depends strongly on the price of the fuel (biomass).

Biomass costs of about 2 EURO/GJ result in ethanol costs of about 8-10 EURO/GJ

Economic lifetime: 25 years (15 years according to free market criteria)

Technical lifetime: 25-40 years

Efficiency
Overall energetic efficiency on longer term (system of about 1000 - 2000MWth input): 55-60%
(of which about 10% points electricity)

Availability factor
Baseload facilities with availabilities over 90%.
Uncertainties Ethanol production from lignocellulosic biomass still needs to be commercially
demonstrated. The major technological bottleneck is the development of low cost and effective
hydrolysis techniques. This is a topic of fundamental research still. Without new hydrolysis
techniques, ethanol production from woody biomass becomes considerably more expensive.
Commercialization of advanced technology will probably take 10-20 years from now.

GHG emission consequences of the introduction of the technology

In principle, when sustainably cultivated biomass, or organic residues are used for fuel, bio-fuels
are carbon neutral.

Demands on the energy infrastructure

Base load operation. Biomass needs to be produced, which requires land. Generally larger scale
systems are more economical.
Ethanol is a very easy fuel to apply in the existing fuel distribution infrastructure. Non-toxic fuel
which can both be applied as neat ethanol as well as in mixtrures with hydrocarbons..

Conditions for introduction (other than those regarding the infrastructure)

No specific issues.

Barriers to development
Ethanol production from lignocellulosic biomass still needs to be commercially demonstrated.
The major technological bottleneck is the development of low cost and effective hydrolysis
techniques. This is a topic of fundamental research still. Without new hydrolysis techniques,
ethanol production from woody biomass becomes considerably more expensive.

Consequences for implementation

Large scale application of biofuels considerable alters the refining capacity needed.

Other positive and negative aspects of the introduction of the technology

Land availability is a crucial issue for any bio-energy option.
Ethanol is a clean fuel when used in internal combustion engines with reduced NOx, CO, and
sulphur emissions, combined with about 10% improved engine performance, provided slight
modifications are made.

Sources (biofuels: ethanol):

1. A. Faaij, A. Agterberg, Long term perspectives for production of fuels from biomass;
integrated assessment and RD&D priorities, Dept. of Science, Technology and Society,
Utrecht University, Paper prepared for the 4th Biomass Conference of the Americas, August
29 - 2 September 1999, Oakland (CA) US, February 1999.
2. Lynd, L.R., Overview and evaluation of fuel ethanol from lignocellulosic biomass:
technology, economics, teh environment and policy; Annual review Energy Environment, 21:
403-65, 1996.
3. C.E. Wyman, R.L. Bain, N.D. Hinman, D.J. Stevens, Ethanol and methanol from cellulosic
biomass, In: Renewable energy, source for fuels and electricity, Island Press, Washington
DC, 1993.
4. D. De Jager, A. Faaij, W.P. Troelstra, Cost-effectiveness of transportation fuels from
biomass, ECOFYS, Dept. Of Science, Technology and Society, Utrecht University, Innas
B.V., Report prepared for NOVEM (EWAB rapport 9830), June 1998.
2.2.3.4 Feedstocks production petrochemical industry: bio-oil and bio-crude

Description
Two basic conversion routes can be applied to convert biomass feedstocks into (partly oxidized)
hydrocarbons which could be utilised as carbon neutral feedstock for the petrochemical industry:
1. Pyrolysis of biomass which results in complex mixtures of oxygenated hydrocarbons, also
called raw bio-oil. Pyrolysis is a thermochemical conversion process. The raw product can be
upgraded to better quality hydrocarbons using various techniques such as hydrogenation,
catalytic upgrading and perhaps plasma upgrading.
2. HydroThermal Upgrading (HTU) which produces hydrocarbons with a lower oxygen content.
The product is called bio-crude. Bio-crude can be upgraded to hydrocarbons (even diesel
quality) using hydrogenation techniques.

Performance unit
The main output is bio-oil or bio-crude. Co-generation of heat and perhaps some power is
possible.

Costs
Highly uncertain at present. Both technologies are at pilot/lab phase. Some technological
problems (such as removal of contaminants from the produced products) need to be resolved.
Production costs: Depends strongly on the price of the fuel (biomass).

Economic lifetime: 25 years (15 years according to free market criteria)

Technical lifetime: Not fully known; when fully developed: 25-40 years

Efficiency
Pyrolysis: the energetic efficiency of biomass to raw bio-oil is about 70%. Upgrading using
hydrogen results in significant efficiency penalties. (Partially) upgraded bio-oil may be produced
on longer term with an overall efficiency of about 50%.
HTU: the energetic efficiency of biomass to raw biocrude is about 80%. Upgrading using
hydrogen results in significant efficiency penalties. (Partially) upgraded biocrude may be
produced on longer term with an overall efficiency of about 60%.

Availability factor
Baseload facilities with availabilities over 90% are expected to be possible.

Uncertainties
Pyrolysis is a proven technology as such, but meeting desired product quality is still a challenge.
Fundamental technical questions remain on product cleaning, product modification and (cheap
and efficient) upgrading techniques.
HTU is demonstrated on lab-scale, but not for all feedstocks yet.

GHG emission consequences of the introduction of the technology

In principle, when sustainably cultivated biomass, or organic residues are used for fuel, bio-
feedstocks are carbon neutral. The routes described are therefore one of the few ways to maintain
current production technologies for production of carbon neutral (petro)chemicals which are not
based on fossil fuels.

Relation with other options in other sectors

It should be noted that the overall energy consumption of the production of petrochemicals may
be altered to some extent by using feedstocks with different properties than mineral oil.
Demands on the energy infrastructure
Base load operation. Biomass needs to be produced, which requires land. Generally larger scale
systems are more economical.
In particular raw bio-oil is a toxic material which requires specific storage equipment. Longer
term storage may result in polymerization of the material.

Conditions for introduction (other than those regarding the infrastructure)

No specific issues.

Barriers to development
Technological issues as described. Considerable efficiency penalties when relatively conventional
upgrading techniques (hydrogenation) are to be applied. When this is the case, the economics of
those conversion routes are expectedly less favourable than applying C1 chemistry (via
gasification) for production of chemicals and fuels.

Other positive and negative aspects of the introduction of the technology

Land availability is a crucial issue for any bio-energy option.

Sources bio-oil and biocrude:

1. A. Faaij, A. Agterberg, Long term perspectives for production of fuels from biomass;
integrated assessment and RD&D priorities, Dept. of Science, Technology and Society,
Utrecht University.
2. Bridgewater, A.V. (1998) The status of fast pyrolysis of biomass in Europe. Proceedings of
the 10th European Biomass Conference and Technology Exhibition, Wurzburg, Germany,
268-271.
3. Arthur D. Little, Analysis and integral evaluation of potential CO2-neutral fuel chains, report
prepared for NOVEM, November 1999.

Review of section 2.2.3 Biomass

by Eric D. Larson, Center for Energy and Environmental Studies
(CEES), Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA
General Comments
This is an ambitious project that could be quite useful for helping to define strategic
approaches for long term energy-system development in the Netherlands. The input
DACES databank and toolbox are important contributions, but equally important is the
standardization of data and analysis afforded by the DACES framework. This will enable
ongoing expansion, updating, and refinement of the input databases as new
technologies are identified and better information becomes available for technologies
already in the database.

One addition to the report that might be interesting and informative would be a
comparison of the DACES methodology with other methodologies that have been
developed elsewhere. For example, the MARKAL energy system model is a tool that is
typically used to assess the impact of future technological choices. The DACES toolbox
design appears to have some similarities to the MARKAL approach. What are some of
the key differences between the DACES toolbox approach and other modeling
approaches?
One feature of DACES which was not clear from the report is what (if any) feedback
mechanisms there are between technology mixes and economic inputs to insure that the
overall set of inputs are self-consistent. For example, one mix of electricity supply
technologies will result in a certain calculated price of electricity from the DACES
toolbox. Is this calculated price consistent with the electricity demand levels assumed in
the economic inputs? It appears to me that there will need to be some considerable
care taken by users of the toolbox to insure that scenarios they develop are internally
self-consistent.

The report uses a variety of different units for the same parameters. For example, I saw
Guilders, Deutsche Marks, and Dollars all used in reporting costs. It would be helpful to
standardize units in the report (to correspond to the standard set of units used in the
toolbox?).

Comments on Section 2.2.3 (Biomass)

Are the section sub-headings (Description, Performance unit, Costs, etc.) standard ones
for all technologies in the report? If so, it might be helpful to have a short section at the
start of the report that describes generically the content that one can expect to see under
each sub-heading.

In general, I found the information reported in this section accurate, but not as
comprehensive as I would have liked. For example, the only bio-electricity option is
BIG/CC. There are no numbers given for other potentially important technologies,
especially more modest-scale systems (IC engines, Stirling engines, microturbines, fuel
cells, hybrid systems, etc.). Also, conversion systems that maximize output value by
making multiple products are likely to be the most competitive over the long term. It
would be desirable if the report could better characterize such systems. CHP is
mentioned as one such system, but one can also envision co-production of electricity
with liquid fuels and or co-production of food products, e.g., animal feed, with energy
products. (One concrete example in today’s world is corn-ethanol, which is [nearly]
competitive without subsidy, but only because of several by-product credits.) Such
multi-product systems are inherently complicated to include in a modeling database like
DACE, but an initial effort could be made.

The analysis of those technologies that are currently included in the report is not as
detailed as for technologies in some of the other sections of the report. I believe it is
important that there be more-detailed discussion/analysis of key numbers that are given
(such as capital costs, efficiencies, etc.) so that the toolbox users can be better-informed
about the numbers they use in their scenarios.

The section does not include any discussion of biomass supply options (energy crops,
agricultural by-products, municipal solid waste, industrial processing by-products, etc.)
Discussion of biomass resources (and their limitations) is important if realistic amounts
of biomass energy are to be considered in toolbox scenarios.

Some specific comments

Section 2.2.3.1.
- Under “Description”: what scale of electricity production is being considered.
- Under “Performance unit”: I do not understand the meaning of “Function unit is 1
kWh”.
- Under “Costs”: Are the numbers given there estimates for costs in 2050? The 1800
EURO/kW for a 50 MW unit is believable (even a little high). The 1000 EURO/kW for
a 200 MW unit seems optimistic. Also, the cost scaling factor implied by the two
numbers is 0.58, seems a bit too low (0.65 or 0.7 is probably more realistic).
- Under “Efficiency”: are the numbers given on a higher or lower heating value basis?
Because of the high moisture content of biomass, the difference between LHV and
HHV is significant. If these are HHV efficiencies, I believe they may be on the
optimistic side. For example, based on detailed calculations, Consonni and Larson1
show an efficiency of 40% (HHV with 50% moisture biomass) for an advanced (75
MW) BIG/CC (including a gas turbine with compressor intercooling to enable high
turbine inlet temperature to be achieved).
- High efficiencies imply high turbine inlet temperatures. What are NOx emissions
likely to be at the turbine inlet temperatures that yield the high efficiencies?
- Under “GHG emission consequences…”: strictly-speaking, biomass systems may
not be carbon neutral, e.g. if fossil fuels are used in producing the biomass (e.g.
tractor fuel, fertilizers, etc.). Or does the model account for such GHG emissions
elsewhere, e.g. in the Agriculture sector?
- I am not sure what “Relation with other options in other sectors” means. Is this
where it would be appropriate to discuss multi-product systems, e.g., lignin use for
CHP at a pulp mill (black liquor) or at a cellulosic-ethanol plant, agricultural residue
utilization for energy, etc.?
- I do not understand the meaning of the section title, “Conditions for introduction
(other than those regarding the infrastructure).”

Section 2.2.3.2.
- The term “synthetic hydrocarbons” appears to be used synonymously in this section
with Fischer-Tropsch liquids. However, there is at least one other potential synthetic
hydrocarbon that should also be considered – dimethyl ether (a sulfur-free, high-
cetane number fuel that could be used as diesel substitute).
- Under “Description”: it is important to note that either indirectly-heated or oxygen-
blown gasification is required for cost-effective synfuels production (to avoid the
dilution effect of nitrogen).
- Also, the concept of multi-output systems is mentioned, but given their likely
importance for economics (see above comments), these systems are not discussed
adequately in the rest of this section.
- Under “Costs”: what is the meaning of “scaling factors applicable”? Are the given
cost estimates for year 2050 systems?
- Under “uncertainties”: commercialization of indirectly-heated gasification is also a
requirement.
- Under “Demands on the energy infrastructure”: smaller scales are recommended for
low biomass densities. How small?
- Also, if DME were to be included in this section, there would need to be mention of
the special infrastructure requirements for transporting and storing DME (a gas at
normal conditions, but liquid under modest pressure – like LPG).

1
S. Consonni and E.D. Larson, “Biomass-Gasifier/Aeroderivative Gas Turbine Combined Cycles: Part B –
Performance Calculations and Economic Assessment,” Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power,
118: 516-525, July 1996.
Section 2.2.3.3.
- Under “Costs”: methanol
- Under “Other positive and negative aspects of …”: in 1999 the National Research
Council of the USA published a comprehensive review of emissions impact of
ethanol as a gasoline blend-stock. The report concluded that ethanol has little
impact on CO emissions compared to reformulated gasoline, because modern lean-
burn engine technology has inherently low CO emissions. The report also says that
NOx emissions might be higher with ethanol-gasoline blends due to higher average
oxygen content.

Section 2.2.3.4.
- Under “Efficiency”: the efficiencies of 70-80% for bio-oil and bio-crude (HHV? LHV?)
seem rather high to me, though I am not familiar with the details of the processes.

Eric D. Larson
Princeton University (CEES), Princeton, NJ, USA