The cost of producing advanced biofuels is equivalent to ethanol extracted from grain.

Danh Phuong

' 2nd generation ' bio-extracting plants - These plants make biofuels from ligno cellulose materials such as straw, grass and wood - which have been explored for a long time to succeed. Cereal crops contain ethanol, but it is not until now that it is too costly to compete with this technology.

According to an article published in the first publication about Biofuels, Biological Products & Biological Extracts: The current increase in grain prices means current production costs are equivalent to costs. production of ethanol of 2nd generation cereals and biofuels.

The abrupt transition to second-generation biofuels will reduce competition between cereals with food and animal feed, helping to make use of materials such as straw instead of throwing them away. Biological extracting plants will also use lignocellulosa-bearing crops such as poplars and shrub grasses, which are less suitable for growing than those grown in beds. Traditional way.

Two researchers working at the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Iowa State University have begun to compare the capital and production costs of fuels produced with materials that contain starch and cellulose.

They demonstrate that the cost of 150 million gallons (1gallon = 4.54 liters in the UK, 3.78 liters in the US) of gasoline is equivalent to about $ 111 million to build an ethanol-producing plant. from cereals to $ 854 million for an advanced factory like Fischer Tropsch. However, the difference in the final cost of fuel is less severe, for $ 1.74 per bushel of ethanol extracted from grain while grain price is $ 3 per bushel (1 bushel = 36 liters). , and 1 ton of cellulosa biofuel is 1.80 USD while ' biomass ' is priced at 50 USD / ton.

The authors compared the methods of production with chemical heat and biochemical methods with biofuels , which they both proved to have much higher cost prices than factories that produce ethanol extracted from regular cereals.

Comparing the costs of biofuels is complicated by the fact that most studies rarely take advantage of the same foundations for economic valuation. Differences in accepted plant sizes, biomass energy costs, financial planning methods, and even analyzes outlined in the year can also offset comparisons.

Mark Wright, an ISU graduate student, one of the authors of the article said: ' Although the production cost is comparable between corn-derived ethanol and biofuel made from cellulosa, But the much higher capital costs of factories producing cellulosa would be an obstacle to their commercialization. '