Page 182 - Advances in bioenergy (2016)
P. 182

where different gasification technologies are used and also different products are produced. It
        looks like, that the United States focuses more on ethanol (as blending component for gasoline)
        and Europe more on diesel substitutes. This is logical, looking at the market shares of the
        gasoline and diesel in these countries. Europe has a high share of diesel and the United States a
        high share of gasoline in the transportation sector, so their focus of R&D is according to the
        fuels used in the countries. In general, the impression is that so-called drop-in fuels are the
        focus of demonstration in the near future.

        Some projects focus also on gaseous fuels like BioSNG or hydrogen. Here the main advantage
        is the high conversion efficiency of up to 70%. The main disadvantage in case of hydrogen is
        that the infrastructure still has to be developed.

        On the long term there is no alternative to advanced biofuels. Some sectors like heavy

        transport or aviation will depend also in future on hydrocarbons, as they need fuels with high
        energy density. In the private transport sector there is a trend to electric cars and hydrogen, but
        a change in this sector needs decades, so also here hydrocarbons will be the main fuel for the
        next decades. So it is necessary to develop this technology further, although there were some
        drawbacks and failures of companies in the past.


        NOTES



        *  Correspondence to: reinhard.rauch@tuwien.ac.at



        REFERENCES


         1.  Hiller H, Reimert R, Stönner H-M. Gas production. In: Ullmann's Encyclopedia of
             Industrial Chemistry; 2011. 9783527306732


         2.  Boerrigter H, Rauch R. Syngas production and utilisation. In: Handbook Biomass
             Gasification. BTG biomass technology group, Enschede, The Netherlands; 2005.

         3.  http://www.ieatask33.org (Accessed December 2012).

         4.  Pfeifer C, Puchner B, Hofbauer H. Comparison of dual fluidized bed steam gasification of
             biomass with and without selective transport of CO . Chem Eng Sci 2009, 64:5073–5083.
                                                                       2

         5.  Tijmensen MJA, Faaij APC, Hamelinck CN, van Hardeveld MRM. Exploration of the
             possibilities for production of Fischer Tropsch liquids and power via biomass
             gasification. Biomass Bioenergy 2002, 23:129–152.


         6.  Göransson K, Söderlind U, He J, Zhang W. Review of syngas production via biomass
             DFBGs. Ren and Sust En Rev 2011, 15:482–192.

         7.  Fischer F, Tropsch H. Über die Herstellung syn-thetischer Ölgemische (syn-thol) durch

             Aufbau aus Kohlenoxyd und Wasserstoff. Brennst. Chem 1923, 4:276–285.
   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187