http://www.paper.edu.

cn

Net energy yield comparing study for Biomass to methane

and ethanol
Huang Weidong 1 Xia Weidong 2

Environmental Division, Department of earth and space science, University of Science and
Technology of China, Hefei (230026)
2
Department of energy science and engineering, University of Science and Technology of China,
Hefei (230026)
E-mailhuangwd@ustc.edu.cnxiawd@ustc.edu.cn

Abstract
A detailed comparative analysis of biomass conversion efficiency for ethanol and methane is provided
according to the conversion yield and energy consumption of the two conversion processes. The results
demonstrate that net energy yield for methane is 0.50-0.83MJ/MJ fuel more than ethanol during
biomass conversion, as all small biomolecule including hydrolysate from carbohydrate, protein and fat
can be digested to methane, and only carbohydrate hydrolysate can be fermented to ethanol; the energy
consumption for evaporation of less residue in digestion is less than in fermentation, and the energy
consumption in removing CO2 from biogas through freezing for methane purification is much less than
that in removing water from bioethanol through distillation for purification of ethanol. It was
demonstrated that the comparative analysis is more credible than Life Cycle Analysis in screening
conversion method for biomass.
Keywords: Digestion, Fermentation, Life Cycle Analysis, Comparative Analysis, Net Energy Yield,
Biomass

1. Introduction
As biomass is the only renewable material and energy source[1], it will become the main source
of fuel and chemicals [2] in the future to cope with global warming and depletion of fossil fuel
resources. One of the key problems is how to converse biomass to biofuel. Although it has been
thought that fermentation to ethanol can contribute to energy and environmental goals[3], the energy
return on investment of ethanol has been hotly debated for more than twenty years[4-7] through Life
Cycle Analysis (LCA). In LCA, all processes in the entire lifecycle of biofuel are evaluated including
the manufacture of inputs (such as fertilizer), biomass production, transportation from farm to
production facilities, and then biofuel production, distribution, and use. These processes are each
complex and may be expected to change in the future, some processes are lack of data, making any
evaluation challenging[3]. Here we show that a comparative method can demonstrate that bioconversing biomass to methane consumes less energy and provide fuel with more energy than to
ethanol.

2. Methods
We defined net energy value (NEV) of biofuel from biomass as fuel energy transformed from
biomass minus energy consumption during the biomass conversion process. It is written as:
NEV(MJ/L fuel)(Ef-Ec)

(1)

Where Ef is fuel energy (MJ/kg) conserved from biomass, Ec is the consumed energy during the
conversion process (MJ/kg).
The Net Energy Yield (NEY) E for biomass conversion process is defined as:
E=(Ef-Ec)/Ef
(2)
The energy of fuel or feedstock is not included in the energy consumption for only energy storage
form is changed during the conversion process. NEV and NEY only describe the energy variance of

-1-

http://www.paper.edu.cn

biomass conversion process, and are different from the ordinary net energy value which was used for
the analysis of whole life cycle of the biofuel.
We compared the net energy yield difference of the conversion processes to biomethane and bioethanol
through analyzing difference in the conversed and consumed energy of the each process during the
conversion.
A excel spreadsheet is used for calculation. Several comparative cases were estimated. For each
case, energy consumption and conversion yield of each process, including pretreatment, hydrolysis,
fermentation or digestion, purification of fuel, were analyzed and listed. For total yield Y, it is the
multiple of each process conversion yield, for total energy consumption, it is the adding of all processes.
At last, the net energy yield can be obtained according to equation (2).
Four ethanol cases and their simulated or experimental cases for methane were compared in
detail. They represent different technology status in the future and may have different NEY results.
Two worksheets list all conversion yield computation and energy consumption computation
respectively including additional cases. All NEY results were listed in a separate list (see support
material). Fermentation and digestion is operated at 30-60C, so HHV is used for energy analysis.

3. Fermentation and digestion process

In the analysis, we compared the energy conversion yield and energy consumption of the two
processes for corn stover and other lignincellulose. The fermentation processes to produce ethanol
include feedstock clean; mechanic pre-treatment; pretreatment for lignin removal and hydrolysis of
hemicellulose; solid liquid separation; solid cellulose hydrolysis; fermentation of sugar in hydrolyte;
distillation for ethanol separation and purification; and waste treatment. Only monomer sugars from
hydrolysis of starch; cellulose and hemicellulose polymer in biomass can be fermented to ethanol[8]. A
promising technology in near future is dilute acid pretreatment, enzyme hydrolysis of cellulose and
fermentation. The typical experimental case for hydrolysis[9] and fermentation[10] is shown in table1,
the fermentation microbe and cellulase for hydrolysis should be produced in separate reactors[8].
Digestion is often used for reduction of organic waste to produce biogas[11]. Municipal solid
waste or crop residue is chopped and enter into the digester for hydrolysis, acidification and
mathanation at about 35 or 55C in a single or two phase reactors, although some waste need to be
heated at 70C for pasteurization, The hydrolysis enzyme and digestion microbe reproduce in the same
reactor. The typical experimental and full scale case for anaerobic digestion is shown in table 2. All
small biomolecules including monomers from hydrolysis of starch, cellulose, hemicelllulose, lignin,
protein and fat, and other small biomolecules such as acetate can be digested to methane[12, 13].
Purification for methane is to separate carbon dioxide from methane through adsorption or freezing[14].
For fermentation, part of feedstock is used for production enzyme and fermentation microbe and cannot
be converted to ethanol, but for digestion, microbe can be used as feedstock for digestion, such as
digestion of activated sludge[12], so the feedstock consumption for enzyme and microbe reproduction
in digestion can be ignored.
It can be seen from table 1 and 2 that digestion has better conversion efficiency including higher
yield and higher organic loading than fermentation in lab experiment. In addition, there are a lot of full
scale anaerobic digesters on operation, some more than 20 years[11]. The processes condition and
conversion yield of monomer sugar for corresponding digestion case is set to be the same as
fermentation case, the conversion yield for other biomolecule in digestion is assumed according to
similar experimental data, then the error for the difference of energy conversion yield between
digestion and fermentation should be positive.

-2-

http://www.paper.edu.cn

Table 1. Experimental hydrolysis and fermentation conditions and conversions

Hydrolysis[9]
fermentation[10]
total
Condition
32C, SSF
32C,SSCF
Loading g/l/d 8.6
18
<8.6
conversion
95% for glucan
95% for glucose
90.25% for glucan
90% for xylan
90% for xylose
81% for xylan
Table 2. lab and full scale conditions and conversions for anaerobic digestion
load gCOD/l/d
Total COD
Conversion
Lab scale for mathanation[15]
147
92.5%
Full scale potato wastewater[16]
48
85%
Full scale potato wastewater [16]
10
95
The main case we discussed, National Renewal Energy Lab (NREL) report[8], gives the
energy conversion is 48.6%, it represents that 48.6% energy in feedstock is converted. But they are not
converted to ethanol at all. Part of energy in feedstock dissipates or is transferred to ATP for cell
metabolism. For glucose fermentation to ethanol, 1mole glucose with energy 2803.029kj will form
2mole ethanol with energy 2*1366.829kj. So energy loss during fermentation is 2803.029
1366.829*269.37kjthe theoretical conversion yield for glucose fermentation is 169.37/2803.029
97.5%. Using this value for feedstock estimation, the energy from feedstock to ethanol should be
48.7%*97.5%=47.4%. The total energy conversion was estimated 47.3% from yield of each process
(see excel list in support data). It agrees rather well with the estimation. For digestion to methane, the
energy loss including dissipation and transfer to ATP for metabolism is about 4.7% of feedstock for
glucose. We use them for all molecules.
Energy consumption for two processes should include the direct energy consumption during the
operation, energy consumption for production of assistant materials and reactors. Our main aim is to
compare the difference of conversion efficiency for fermentation and digestion. We need not to decide
the actual value for each process, but the difference between the two processes. We assume the same
process loading, the energy for building reactor should be similar; because of the same fermentation
fundamental, the assistant material is also similar. We ignore the energy consumption difference for
production of assistant materials and reactors in the two processes.
The hydrolysis in the two processes are identical biochemically, and are often the slowest
conversion process [8, 12]. As anaerobic digester is an open community for microbe, more active
microbe will grow faster, and become the predominant community to lead a high conversion rate for
biomass; and pure cellulose can be quickly digested to methane without the protection of lignin[17, 18],
so a mild pretreatment of biomass for digestion are often used for pretreatment to accelerate hydrolysis
of biomass[19].The same operation energy consumption as ethanol is used for methanation with the
same process and process loading such as pretreatment, hydrolysis and digestion, although the energy
consumption for fermentation is bigger than digestion because anaerobic digestion has mild
pretreatment; and present main digestion reactor (Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Bed Reactor) does not
need mixer[20]. The energy consumption difference for wastewater treatment can be ignored because
of the same treatment process and loading.
The other operation energy consumption for ethanol comes from literature. For NREL case, No
data for evaporation of solid residue is given in NREL report[8], but about 13.9% energy of feedstock
during solid residue burning have not been assigned to any processes, and 11.8% energy loss come
from evaporation of solid residue. So we use 13.9% energy of feedstock as evaporation of solid
residue. It is the evaporation energy of evaporating solid residue to 40% moisture, we adjust the
-3-

http://www.paper.edu.cn

evaporation energy to the treated residue with 15% moisture. The result is about 2.9MJ/kg feedstock
which is similar to the Hamelincks estimation which is 2.8MJ/kg feedstock[21]. The energy
consumption for residue evaporation in Hamelincks case is estimated according to the steam
provided[21] and the adjustment of the same moisture. Sheehan [22] adopted the same data as NREL
but give three prediction for near future, middle future and far future. As the solid waste is assumed to
be evaporated to 15% moisture which is the same as the biomass feedstock, at the state, the solid
residue has the similar value with the biomass feedstock for they are burned for heat and electricity
presently. It can be seen that no additional value is produced for solid residue from the conversion
process, so none co-product credit is set for energy consumption.
The anaerobic digestion is often used to treat wastewater with little solid, the energy consumption
often come from the heating of wastewater which will not exist in digestion of biomass[20]. The main
energy consumption difference for two processes comes from purification of fuel and evaporation of
solid residue in difference amount. The same energy consumption for evaporation is used for the same
amount of solid residue in the digestion as fermentation.

4. Net energy yield difference

Table 3 net energy for bioethanol and biomathane (detailed computation can be seen from an excel list
of support material)
Reference

case

conversion yield

energy
consumption

net energy
yield

unit

kg
fuel/kg
feedstock

MJ
fuel/kg
feedstock

MJ/kg
feedstock

MJ/MJ fuel

[23]

Wang

0.30140

8.94188

10.31400

-0.15345

[3]

EBAMM

0.29982

8.89506

10.65520

-0.19788

[6]

Pimmental

0.31560

9.36322

11.32000

-0.20899

[21]

Hamelinck
future

0.23481

6.96639

7.93629

-0.13923

[21]

Hamelinck
middle future

0.23275

6.90517

5.23111

0.24243

[21]

hamelinck
future

0.29720

8.81737

7.31055

0.17089

[8]

NREL

0.28615

8.48945

7.05473

0.16900

[22]

Shenhan benchscale

0.18257

5.41652

7.05473

-0.30245

[22]

Shenhan future

0.27364

8.11839

7.05473

0.13102

[24]

Rice straw

0.16407

4.86748

7.34824

-0.50966

Simulate NREL

0.19740

10.95697

3.26441

0.70207

Hamelinck
long
future simulated

0.26618

14.77460

4.88460

0.66939

[25]

Bohn farm AD

0.19457

10.80000

1.50000

0.86111

[25]

Bohn
farm
adjusted*

0.19457

10.80000

5.36036

0.50367

[26]

Rice straw

0.14059

7.80347

5.29942

0.32089

ethanol

short

long

methane

AD

*The temperature of digester is controlled in adjusted case.

-4-

http://www.paper.edu.cn

As the identical conversion yield of cellulose and hemicellulose for NREL fermentation case and
simulated digestion case, the additional 13% conversion yield of biomass comes from the mathanation
of non-carbohydrate molecules, such as amino acids and acetate, and the monomer sugar consumed by
seed organism. The main energy consumption difference comes from the fuel purification and
treatment of solid residue. The distillation energy consumption for purifying ethanol is about 7MJ/l[8],
which is about 30% fuel energy; but for purifying methane through freezing is estimated to be about
0.4MJ/m3 [27] which is about 1% fuel energy. Higher conversion yield for digestion lead to less
residue and less residue evaporation energy. The lignin can also be degraded through thermal or
chemical processes[28, 29], and phenol derivatives from lignin degradation can be digested to
methane[30]. In comparison with Hamelinck far future case, the conversion yield for methane is about
68% more than that for ethanol conversion because the energy conversion contribution from lignin was
added in far future, and the energy consumption for methane conversion is 50% less than for ethanol
conversion because much less solid waste is need to be evaporated for anaerobic digestion process.
Other four fermentation cases including an experimental case [31] and three cases in Energy and
Resources Group Biofuel Analysis Meta-Model (EBAMM) [3] were also evaluated. They give rather
similar results that the net energy yield (NEY) for ethanol bioconversion of corn stover is negative (0.15 to -0.30 MJ/MJ, table 3) even energy consumption in construction of main reactors was ignored.
For methane conversion, the farm scale case [32] gives positive net energy yield as well as two
simulated case(0.32-0.86 MJ/MJ, table 3). The net energy yield difference between the lab scale case
for bioethanol [24] and biomethane [26] from rice straw is 0.83 MJ/MJ; between farm scale methane
case[25] and the benchscale ethanol case[22] reaches about 0.81MJ/MJ; for two simulated near and
long future methane cases described above, is 0.53 and 0.50MJ/MJ respectively (figure 1).
Comparative NEY results for all cases demonstrated that biomethane conversion of corn stover
has much better net energy yield than bioethanol conversion. So, conversing biomass to methane will
bring more fuel energy than to ethanol[33]. Because the two conversion processes are similar in
principle and processes, indefinite factors such as the energy consumption in production of assisted
materials and construction of main reactors have been eliminated, and only different processes were
needed for evaluation, the result from comparative analysis is more credible than that from LCA. The
best conversion process and the correspondence biofuel from biomass can be more credibly found
through comparative analysis than through LCA.

Figure 1. Net energy yield difference between methane and ethanol form biomass
Ethanol is now an additive of gasoline for replacement of methyl tertiary butyl ether[34], however,
in the far future, as biomass is the only renewable material and fuel source, main fuel and chemical will
come from it when the fossil fuel is used up. As methane has been used as fuel for more than a century,
-5-

http://www.paper.edu.cn

and still be one of the three main fuels over the world at present, it is also a good automobile fuel, up to
140,000 automobiles use methane as fuel which is more than use E85 ethanol gasoline mixed fuel in
USA in 2004 [35]. In addition, methane is also a good chemical feedstock [36]. The result from present
comparative analysis indicates that biomass can provide more biofuel than we predicted before if we
converse biomass to methane other than to ethanol, so biomass will contribute more to the energy
security and green house gas control than we expected before. It is better to choose a high efficiency
conversion processes such as biomethanation of biomass for fuel conversion.

Acknowledgements
The financial support from Foundation of University of Science and Technology of China and
department of science and technology of Anhui are greatly appreciated.

References
[1] Lynd, L.R., C.E. Wyman, and T.U. Gerngross, Biocommodity engineering, Biotechnology
Progress, 15(5): 777-793 (1999).
[2] Ragauskas, A.J., et al., The path forward for biofuels and biomaterials, Science, 311(5760): 484489 (2006).
[3] Farrell, A.E., Ethanol can contribute to energy and environmental goals (vol 311, pg 506, 2006),
Science, 312(5781): 1748-1748 (2006).
[4] Patzek, T.W.a.P., D., Thermodynamics of Energy Production from Biomass, Critical Reviews in
Plant Sciences, 24(5-6): 327-364 (2005).
[5] Hammerschlag, R., Ethanol's energy return on investment: A survey of the literature 1990 Present, Environmental Science & Technology, 40(6): 1744-1750 (2006).
[6] Pimentel, D., T.Patzek, Ethanol Production Using Corn, Switchgrass, and Wood; Biodiesel
Production Using Soybean and Sunflower, Nat. Resear. Res. , 14,: 65 (2005).
[7] Patzek, T.W., Thermodynamics of the corn-ethanol biofuel cycle, Critical Reviews in Plant
Sciences, 23(6): 519-567 (2004).
[8] Aden, A., M. Ruth, K. Ibsen, J. Jechura, K. Neeves, J. Sheehan, and B. Wallace,L. Montague, A.
Slayton, and J. Lukas, Lignocellulosic Biomass to Ethanol Process Design and Economics
Utilizing Co-Current Dilute Acid Prehydrolysis and Enzymatic Hydrolysis for Corn Stover. 2002,
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
[9] Combs, N., McMillan, J. "LAP Procedures #8 - SSF Experimental Protocols: Lignocellulosic
Biomass Hydrolysis and Fermentation", Published Procedure, 30 October 2001.
http://www.afdc.doe.gov/pdfs/4691.pdf. The LAP analysis resulted in 87.2% measured conversion
of insoluble glucan to ethanol. Assuming 3% loss of converted sugars to nonethanol pathway
products (e.g., cell mass and glycerol), the insoluble glucan to glucose conversion is 90%. The
other yields were measured in a full mass-balanced experiment on yellow poplar that is listed in
the reference., (2001).
[10] Dowe, N., EPD0005: A Material Balance of the SSCF Using Whole In-house Cellulase Broth
and Partially Washed Pretreated Yellow Poplar, in Internal Report, National Renewable Energy
Laboratory Experimental Report. 2002.
[11] Beck, R.W.I., Anaerobic Digestion Feasibility Study. 2004, Bluestem Solid Waste Agency and
Iowa Department of Natural Resources.
[12] IWA, Anaerobic Digestion Model No. 1 (ADM1), in International Water Association Scientific and
Technical Report No. 13. 2002, IWA Publishing: London, UK.
[13] Gerardi, M.H., The Microbiology of Anaerobic Digesters, Wastewater Microbiology Series John
Wiley & Sons, Inc. (US), Hoboken, N.J. .(2003).
[14] Krich K. et al, biomethane from Dairy Waste, A sourcebook for the production and use of
renewable natural gas in california, . 2005.
[15] Wiegant, W.M., A. W. A. de Man Granulation of biomass in thermophilic upflow anaerobic
sludge blanket reactors treating acidified wastewaters Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 28(5 ):
718 - 727 (1986).
[16] Pereboom, J.H.F. and T. Vereijken, Methanogenic Granule Development in Full-Scale Internal
Circulation Reactors, Water Science and Technology, 30(8): 9-21 (1994).
[17] Hulshoff, P.L.W. fundamentals of anaerobic digestion 5. in 1st int. course on anaerbic and low
cost treatment of wastes and wastewaters. 1994. the netherlands: IAC and WAU.
-6-

http://www.paper.edu.cn

[18] Young, I.Y.a.M.P.L., Heat treatment of organic materials for increasing anaerobic
biodegradability. fuel gas production from biomass, ed. L.W. Wise, CRCpress, Boca Raton,
Florida. 134-176(1981).
[19] Yadvika, S., T.R. Sreekrishnan, Sangeeta Kohli, Vineet Rana, Enhancement of biogas production
from solid substrates using different techniques--a review, Bioresource Technology (95): 1-10
(2004).
[20] Lettinga, G., Hulshoff Pol, L.W. , UASB-process design for various types of wastewaters, Water
Science and Technology, Anaerobic Treatment Technology for Municipal and Industrial
Wastewaters, 24(8): 87-107 (1991).
[21] Hamelinck, C.N., G. van Hooijdonk, and A.P.C. Faaij, Ethanol from lignocellulosic biomass:
techno-economic performance in short-, middle- and long-term, Biomass & Bioenergy, 28(4):
384-410 (2005).
[22] Sheehan, J., Andy Aden, Keith Paustian, Kendrick Killian, John Brenner, Marie Walsh, and
Richard Nelson, Energy and Environmental Aspects of Using Corn Stover for Fuel Ethanol,
Journal of Industrial Ecology, Volume 7, Number 34: 117-147 (2004).
[23] Shapouri, H., J.A. Duffield, and M. Wang, The energy balance of corn ethanol revisited,
Transactions of the Asae, 46(4): 959-968 (2003).
[24] Karimi, K., G. Emtiazi, and M.J. Taherzadeh, Ethanol production from dilute-acid pretreated rice
straw by simultaneous saccharification and fermentation with Mucor indicus, Rhizopus oryzae,
and Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Enzyme and Microbial Technology, 40(1): 138-144 (2006).
[25] Bohn, I., Bjornsson, L., Bo Mattiasson, The energy balance in farm scale anaerobic digestionof
crop residues at 1137 C, Process Biochemistry 42: 57-64 (2007).
[26] Zhang, R.H. and Z.Q. Zhang, Biogasification of rice straw with an anaerobic-phased solids
digester system, Bioresource Technology, 68(3): 235-245 (1999).
[27] Braunbeck, O., et al., Prospects for green cane harvesting and cane residue use in Brazil, Biomass
& Bioenergy, 17(6): 495-506 (1999).
[28] Chakar, F.S. and A.J. Ragauskas, Review of current and future softwood kraft lignin process
chemistry, Industrial Crops and Products, 20(2): 131-141 (2004).
[29] Britt, P.F., et al., Flash vacuum pyrolysis of methoxy-substituted lignin model compounds, Journal
of Organic Chemistry, 65(5): 1376-1389 (2000).
[30] Healy, J.B., Jr., L. Y. Young, and M. Reinhard Methanogenic Decomposition of Ferulic Acid, a
Model Lignin Derivative Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 39: . 436-444 (1980).
[31] John Sheehan, A.A., Keith Paustian, Kendrick Killian, John Brenner, Marie Walsh, and Richard
Nelson, Energy and Environmental
Aspects of Using Corn Stover
for Fuel Ethanol, Journal of Industrial Ecology, Volume 7, Number 34: 117-147 (2004).
[32] Irene Bohn , L.B., Bo Mattiasson, The energy balance in farm scale anaerobic digestionof crop
residues at 1137 C
Process Biochemistry 42: 57-64 (2007).
[33] Chynoweth, D.P., Owens, J.M., and Legrand, R.L., Renewable methane from anaerobic digestion
of biomass, Renewable Energy, 22: 1-8 ( 2001).
[34] Williams, P.R.D., C.A. Cushing, and P.J. Sheehan, Data available for evaluating the risks and
benefits of MTBE and ethanol as alternative fuel oxygenates, Risk Analysis, 23(5): 1085-1115
(2003).
[35] Davis, S.C.a.D.S.W., transportation energy data book, edition 25,. 2006, oak ridge national
laboratory.
[36] Lee, S., methane and its derivatives,. chemical industrial series,Volume 70, Marcel Dekker, Inc.,
New York.CRC.(1997).

-7-