Image: Getty Images
In Brief
- Second-generation biofuels made from the inedible parts of plants are the most environmentally friendly and technologically promising near-term alternatives to oil.
- Most of this “grassoline” will come from agricultural residues such as cornstalks, weedlike energy crops and wood waste.
- The U.S. can grow enough of these feedstocks to replace about half the country’s total consumption of oil without affecting food supplies.
By now it ought to be clear that the U.S. must get off oil. We can no longer afford the dangers that our dependence on petroleum poses for our national security, our economic security or our environmental security. Yet civilization is not about to stop moving, and so we must invent a new way to power the world’s transportation fleet. Cellulosic biofuels—liquid fuels made from inedible parts of plants—offer the most environmentally attractive and technologically feasible near-term alternative to oil.
Biofuels can be made from anything that is, or ever was, a plant. First-generation biofuels derive from edible biomass, primarily corn and soybeans (in the U.S.) and sugarcane (in Brazil). They are the low-hanging fruits in a forest of possible biofuels, given that the technology to convert these feedstocks into fuels already exists (180 refineries currently process corn into ethanol in the U.S.). Yet first-generation biofuels are not a long-term solution. There is simply not enough available farmland to provide more than about 10 percent of developed countries’ liquid-fuel needs with first-generation biofuels. The additional crop demand raises the price of animal feed and thus makes some food items more expensive—though not nearly as much as the media hysteria last year would indicate. And once the total emissions of growing, harvesting and processing corn are factored into the ledger, it becomes clear that first-generation biofuels are not as environmentally friendly as we would like them to be.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
54 Comments
Add CommentSci Am, you did a disservice to your readers by burying in the fine print at the end of the article the fact that both of the authors have a vested interest in the biofuels industry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGeorge Tesseris
www.stopethanol.blogspot.com
www.twitter.com/helpstopethanol
There is another small problem with this article. The authors assume that they will be able to use the residual corn stalks and corn cobs from the Midwest field corn harvest as the raw materials for biofuel. As a lifelong resident of Illinois and a casual observer of the field corn harvest, I have to ask 'which residual cornstalks and corncobs did the authors have in mind?'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter the corn kernels are fully mature, the plant is usually left standing in the field for several days to naturally dry out. Only when the plant is as dry as it can be will the farmer then harvest the field corn. The harvesting combine sucks the corn stalk into its innards, where the corn cob is removed from the corn stalk, the corn kernels are removed from the corn cob, the corn kernels are put into a storage bin and the desiccated cob and stalk are ground into dust and then spewed out the back of the combine.
The corn kernels will then be further dried in a special drying bin before being stored for shipment to the grain buyers.
Therefore, unless the authors of this article had in mind the residual stalks and cobs from the sweet corn harvest, I have to ask 'which residual stalks and cobs did the authors have in mind?'
You do not have to take my word for it; you can ask the folks at the Illinois Farm Bureau (www.ilfb.org) for more information.
As a home-gardener (with no experience in commercial agriculture), I have to wonder where the replenishment of soil nutrients will come from - the cycle of life - if our agricultural "residues" are converted to fuel instead of compost. Won't this increase our reliance on engineered fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides? Additionally, where will the organic materials, which are necessary for a well drained soil come from? Growing isn't just take-take-take, you have to give back to the soil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJeff,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe farmers use anhydrous ammonia to replenish the nitrogen in their fields; anhydrous ammonia is made from natural gas.
Is this really true? I keep hearing that even if we converted every arable acre in the country to fuel crops , that we would still only make a small dent in our need for fossil fuels. And wed starve to death. Maybe a good thing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere are all these weeds going to be grown? What is going to happen to the habitats that they are harvested from? Its ok saying we can make bio-fuels, but you have to grow then somewhere and we need all our arable land for food and the rest is becoming rare wild habitat that should not be damaged.
What we need to do is not invent new ways of making hydrocarbon fuels (that make people think the problem can be overcome), but invent ways to use less, learn to use less much less. Learn how to use our bodies again instead of an engine or electric cord.
Actually, some of the urban planners are proposing having an urban farm. Instead of having a 10 story building that simply occupies a city block, instead these planners are proposing that alternate floors of the building be devoted to raising vegetables like romaine lettuce, radishes, bell peppers and the like to be sold at a grocery on the ground floor of the building. In this way, urban sprawl is contained while increasing the amount of 'arable land' and decreasing the effort to transport fresh produce from farm to grocery.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, some urban planners are proposing having an urban farm. Construct a 10 to 15 story urban building on a city block with a grocery store on the ground floor and crop production areas on the upper floors (romaine lettuce and iceberg lettuce on floor three, tomatoes on floor four, bell peppers on floor five, and so on). Thus, you can better manage urban sprawl, while increasing 'arable land' while decreasing the effort to transport fresh produce from 'farm' to grocery.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA much more efficient way to use biomass is to burn it or gasify it to generate electrical power. In a cogeneration plant waste heat is put to use heating water, etc. These plants can be 85% efficient. Combine that with a 90% efficient electric motor and you have an overall efficiency of .85X.9 = 76%.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn acre of corn can produce 10 dry tons of biomass/yr. At 7000 Btu/lb that comes to 140 million Btu. With 76% efficiency we get a total of 106 MMBtu of useful work.
An ethanol powered engine is only 25% efficient so 424 MMBtu would be needed to do the same work. Ethanol is 84,000 Btu/gallon so it would take 5047 gallons to do the same work. At 330 gallon/acre yield it would take 15.3 acres to go the same distance with fermented corn ethanol. The electric gets 15 times as many miles per acre!
We can grow enough biomass to replace fossil fuels but only if we do it with efficiency.
A much more efficient way to use biomass is to burn it or gasify it to generate electrical power. In a cogeneration plant waste heat is put to use heating water, etc. These plants can be 85% efficient. Combine that with a 90% efficient electric motor and you have an overall efficiency of .85X.9 = 76%.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn acre of corn can produce 10 dry tons of biomass/yr. At 7000 Btu/lb that comes to 140 million Btu. With 76% efficiency we get a total of 106 MMBtu of useful work.
An ethanol powered engine is only 25% efficient so 424 MMBtu would be needed to do the same work. Ethanol is 84,000 Btu/gallon so it would take 5047 gallons to do the same work. At 330 gallon/acre yield it would take 15.3 acres to go the same distance with fermented corn ethanol. That's 15X as far per acre with an electric car!
We can grow enough biomass to replace fossil fuels but only if we do it with efficiency.
A more efficient biofuel process exists now. Cello Energy. California based Khosta Ventures put $25 mil. for three plants and approx. $5 mil. a year each for opperrations. Vinod's partner Samir Kaul calls it "game changing technologies" and their chief scientist says "Boykin is the real deal and he'll get funding one way or another". The process converts anything that is or was biomatter into diesel, regular gasoline or jet fuel. According to EPA has very little pollution and is 80% efficient. Estimate is fuel for $16 a barrel from renewable sourses. A federal grant ($154 k) was isued and applied by David Bransby, Auburn U. agronomy professor, resulting in a plan for sorting and delivering applicable city waste in Bay Minette Al. site of the first plant. Ther are 10 plant sites being processed. The estimate of 5 to 15 years is inaccurate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBoo, SA. Many groups that work full time on assessing the nature of emerging technologies and their impact on human systems and natural environment give the expansion of biofuels a dubious rating. Were every arable acre of land put to the usage of biofuels, it would scarcely impact the terrawatt consumption of humanity. And to think of the wake of such a conversion... Please check out THIS *very* detailed open letter and petition against Biofuel expansion by Global Justice Ecology and others:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=714
This article was nearly a waste of my time because two words were never mentioned: switchgrass and hemp.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBoth of those extremely valuable plants are weeds, need little water and pesticides, grow just about everywhere and can easily remedy this problem.
But because Big Ag isn't involved, Monsanto won't get a kickback, and industrial farming conglomerates wouldn't be able to grow any of it, no one is willing to tackle it.
Why begin an otherwise fact-based article with the statement "By now it ought to be clear that the U.S. must get off oil". Why must we get off oil? And what does "get off oil" mean. My bet is that we will still be "on oil" hundreds of years from now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe authors contend that we need to get off oil as a national security issue. If so, why not get on coal instead? Coal can be converted to liquid fuels and is abundant.
They also contend that the U.S. needs to get off oil as an "environmental security issue". That's not really true. If CO2 really does affect climate significantly, it has an equal impact worldwide. So, how can it be a U.S environmental security issue?
Plant waste materials may be a fine source of energy. But, as others have pointed out, why go through all the gyrations and waste of converting it to liquid fuels? Oil is a relatively cheap and abundant liquid fuel. Why not just burn it directly and use it to generate electricity.
Termites eat wood at room temperature. Maybe they have an enzyme we can use to assist in the breakdown of cellulose at low(er) temperatures. Seems to me we always build something then 50 years later look to mother nature for a better solution. Let's save ourselves the 50 year wait...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTermites eat wood at room temperature. Maybe they have an enzyme we can use to assist in the breakdown of cellulose at low(er) temperatures. Seems to me we always build something then 50 years later look to mother nature for a better solution. Let's save ourselves the 50 year wait...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that sprawl and over population are right up there with the other economic and fiscal dangers our nation faces. Therefore I do not want to see massive grasslands mowed over for their grasses and feedstock. Infact, I would hope ever state in the union devotes a percentage of their lands to reverting to natural habitats.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat being said, there are two forms. The first covered in many articles is a bacteria with a low voltage current can convert gaseous carbon waste to methane at roughly 80% efficiency making existing coal, natural gas, oil plants carbon neutral ...and methane with another step can be converted to butane or other energy feedstock.
The second alternative is algae and we are getting better and better at organisms that convert alage to ethanol or biodiesel. This has the potential not just to recycle waste from power plants but waste from industry, commercial, residential, sewage, garbage, landfills, etc.
Infact there are prototype companies right now that are converting garbage and sewage and industrial/commercial waste to bio-fuels.
The key for the US is closing the borders to immigration, control our population, upgrading our schools so we dont need immigration, expand the US into Central America, expand estuaries and wetlands, remove more land to revert back to natural environment, re-introduce more endangered species. Who wouldnt love a US based natural habitat for Zebras, Elephants and Giraffes in the US...or a resurrected Mammoth.....control sprawl AND BASICALLY BRING OUR NATION BACK TO SELF SUFFICIENCY AT THE LOCAL, REGIONAL AND NATIONAL LEVELS.
The Concept is good but it would be better to discuss about the financial layout and the resources in terms of Plant and Machinery, the Energy source for the Process Plants required to produce the Bio Fuels on a commercially viable basis with a competitive pricing vis a vis fossil fuels. If we look at it this way , fossil fuels are nothing but already processed bio mass which have petrified deep down under the surface of the earth due to the tremendous pressures and temperatures they were subjected to over a long period of time and extracted to the earth's surface as ready made Crude Oil. The refining of Crude Oil is a well established procedure over the past 70 years with State of Art Process Designs and Special Metallurgies for the Process Equipment already in place. For the Bio Fuels, these are still under developmental Stage and there are several unknown factors and grey areas yet to be resolved. Unless these issues are sorted out in the Pilot Plant stage and the Process & Mechanical Designs are tested for sustained quality of perfomance and yield, the Bio Fuels will have a tough period ahead
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe most advanced projects are using pretreatment called SEA. SEA is also known as Steam Explosion Autohydrolysis. Essentially, it's a continuous version of AFEX but without the ammonia. Advanced microbial applications such as SSF and SSFF are moving towards this type of pretreatment and with naturally occurring feedstocks such as prairie grass, aspen, sugar maple and birch being the best options, SEA pretreatment is the way to go for many reasons; the most obvious one being economic. A good example of this is the DOE-funded pilot plant in York, Nebraska that was designed by SunOpta Bioprocess and the CMECP cellulosic ethanol project in Little Falls, Minnesota. The most advanced cellulosic ethanol projects all use some form of steam explosion with *continuous*, non chemical pretreatment leading the way due to ROI (return on investment)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-William Dittl (GATO group founder and BOD member)
"Grassoline" is suggested as a second-generation biofuel. The first-generation biofuel, ethanol from corn, was also quite good according to the authors, its only drawback being the fact that all available farmland on Earth would cover only 10% fuel needs. Grassoline would be made of inedible residues and debris of plants such as stalks, grass, and sawdust. Unfortunately, despite its charm, the second generation has its drawbacks too; firstly, the existing trash could provide only about half current annual consumption of gasoline, and secondly, the scientists are still not able to extract gasoline from said trash, even though employing powerful tools such as quantum-chemical computation. However, the Editors are optimistic and add to said litter to be proceesed into fuel also kitchen leftovers, particularly pork fat. President Obama will bring the garbage dream nearer to its realization by generously providing $800 million (more than 0.1% of the sum he granted to bankrupt bankers). I only wonder why SciAm does not consider cleaner energies sources than than garbage, for example, thermonuclear fusion which will soon provide an unlimited amount of energy. The present article will be funny in the SciAm section "50 years ago", and is already funny today.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBio-fuels
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust because an energy technology doesn't solve all of our needs is not a show stopper. We will need to have a multiple technology approach to produce our energy. Some of you mentioned producing electricity was more efficient. True, but it loses its ability to be used to power a car.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat comment by Mark B (invent ways to use less, learn to use less, much less. Learn how to use our bodies again instead of an engine or electric cord)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnless we learn to live a simple life, without the luxuries of multiple cars, cars that need 200 horses to move them, long commutes, unnecessary air conditioning, huge houses etc. the dependence on energy will lead to end of lifestyle within a few decades.
THINK about what horsepower signifies. It is the work one horse could do before machines took over transportation! Let us THINK of reversing the industrial revolution in a way that we can live with comfortably without destroying the world.
Using SEA pretreatment to garner value streams (molecule skimming) is also more efficient than just burning biomass in its raw form.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhatever the first- or second-generation biofuel are, the only are another pocess to generate pollutants, and the result is to destory the enviroment deeply.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is a vicious recycle.
"Why begin an otherwise fact-based article with the statement "By now it ought to be clear that the U.S. must get off oil". Why must we get off oil? And what does "get off oil" mean. My bet is that we will still be "on oil" hundreds of years from now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe authors contend that we need to get off oil as a national security issue. If so, why not get on coal instead? Coal can be converted to liquid fuels and is abundant. " - Soccerdad
I agree. The argument has never been successfully made. If it is for national security why not drill our own? Clinton said it would take ten years to get it to market and would not do any good right then. Too bad, it would be doing a lot of good now.
We have more coal than any other nation in the world. Clinton locked up vast reserves in Utah calling the barren wasteland it is under a "National Treasure." We could be free of foreign dependence for our energy if we wanted to be. It would appear our government does not want to be. This Cap and Trade bill will increase our dependence even for our gasoline because it will be cheaper to import the gasoline than to produce it here with all the new taxes the bill will impose on domestic production. Good Grief.
This quote from the article says it all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Because significant logistic and economic challenges exist with getting this amount of biomass to a single location, research in syngas technology focuses on ways to reduce the capital costs." a minimum of 5,000 tons per day of biomass is needed to supply a minor plant that might be cost effective.
As an old hay farmer and trucker I know a little about the logistics of gathering and transport of biomass.
For instance 5,000 tons, requires at least 250 truck and trailer loads to transport, every day, rain or shine. To field gather the biomass would require an army of 5500 men and over 1,000 machines working day and night for the 80 day harvest season.I can see why the promoters would want to ignore the "significant logistic and economic challenges" involved.
Every wonderful ECO solution that I have studied has one or more of these "minor" problems that the promoter has decided to gloss over in the presentation.
Oh yes, by the way, for every ton of biomass removed about 280 lbs of soil constituents are removed and must be replaced.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is of course technically doable along with many other technologies that are more or less efficient depending on how integrated, closed loop they are and how long term your view is on your ROI. It's the raw logistics that will beat you because you will need a series of crops/residues within the catchment area to keep the plant supplied with biomass and looking at any of the likely crops the trick of harvesting, storing in good condition for the whole season and transporting the mega tonnes involved is challenging to say the least. This is not like sawmills where the crop looks after itself when you don't need it or where the land can be used for a variety of other higher value crops.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSadly few here including the authors are that knowledgeable.
On biomass one must be within 10 miles of your feedstock so you really want a bunch of small 5-50ton/day units. The Shell/Syntroleum/FT process NG to fuel plants now used for stranded NG into diesel is what you need. biomass like forest, yard, crop waste could easily fuel these. They probably should be mounted on a semi trailer so it can go to the biomass.
The old there isn't enough cropland to replace oil is a canard as one doesn't have to replace all oil with any one fuel. And yes we could use the crop waste, at least 75% with the 25%, the ash put back on the land for fertilizer. In fact we'll need much less oil or whatever fuel in the future as vehicles get much more eff.
Next is why don't we drill more oil in the US? Because we don't have it!! If we want any left for later we can't use it all up in the next 10 yrs.
Now burning the biomass especially in cogen plants that are 60% eff and using that for EV's is a very good solution as EV's also go 3x's father on the same fuel. Or burn it at home as wood pellets in a small steam engine for electricity and heat making it 80% eff. The same engine could be run by solar power when the sun shone.
Biomass pyrolysis offers a way for third world countries to obtain oil, by dispersing small units far and wide, that will create work and also sequestrate atmospheric CO2.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee www.eprida.com for more details.
The three graphs have units of 1) billions of gallons, 2)billion of barrels and 3) millions of tons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA standard unit of BTu's should be used.
Have a company Viaspace eneregy that will unveil their new cellulistic Giant Grass with a second harvest in China. Any other known companies?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA very little known company Viaspace Energy is already harvesting a cellulistic biomass product Giant Grass. Ahead of most it still requires refining facilities. China is ahead of the US as usual as they intend to replace coal with biomass profducts. VSPC
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're right about Viaspace, Rod. They're ahead of the game with Grassoline. They'll be growing the Giant Grass in Africa as well as China.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur research indicated that, gathering and transport of ag biomass was limited to 50 miles radius of plant to justify economic use and cost of men and machines.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisViaspace has great potential to solve this issue with their Giant King Grass. The company is just about to plant a second round of seedlings, which can be used as animal feed, ethanol, methanol, grassoline, as well as a burning product for power plants. This will not disrupt our food chain either. It's a fast growing grass which grows 12ft in a few months and can be harvested 4 times a year. Check out Viaspace.com for further information. Would love to hear feedback. This company is rock solid with a class "A" management team driving it. Vuk
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFantastic article! About time ACTUAL renewable NON-FOOD crops started getting some press. There is a whole new world out there that doesn't rely on a "One Shot Wonder" food crop like corn.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGiant King Grass (GKG) from ViaSpace (VSPC) and ViaSpace Green Energy (VGE) have already got crops growing in China, parts of Asia, Micronesia & Africa. It can be harvested 4x a year and produce a vast amount of energy compared to a single crop like corn - or corn stalks.
Check them out at www.viaspace.com - and then buy some shares! Its only a matter of time until this energy source becomes mainstream and the share price goes to where BP, Shell & Mobil is right now.
Bring on the KING GRASS!
Kiwi
could one use nuclear power to process the grassoline-biofuel ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI checked out www.viaspace.com site and read all the information given. King grass grows in tropical and sub tropical areas.( sugarcane land) a year round growing season crop. Of no use in North America outside of the gulf coast.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisViaspace appears to be a promo operation to raise money.
I don't think PB and Shell will have any thing to worry about from them for at least 50 years after they actually get into real production.
About a month ago, I was driving the freeways of Washington State and noticed the annual mowing of the freeway grasses, blackberry briars and scotchbroom, which is left where it is cut. I sent an e-mail to the Governor and County of residence that if this could be harvested to use for energy creation or bio-fuel instead of left to rot, this would be a wonderful thing. In addition, if the government would pay XX cents per pound for grass clippings (cash), then the poorest of the poor would have a method to earn tax free income, helping them and the economy. Combine these efforts with private enterprise and we may have something here. No need to use arable land or fertilizers, just reap what is on the side of State and County roads to the tune of millions of acres. Cello Energy may be on to something. The great nation of the USA will find a way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWheat farmers get government money (your taxes) to support the price of wheat or to pay them not to grow it. The fair price is the price a centruy ago, adjusted for inflation. We grass farmers, suburbanites doomed ot mow our lawns by local laws, should demand the same. The government should buy our surplus grass at the price of horse fodder, a century ago, adjusted for inflation. Then the grass can be used for biofuels at no additional cost in land or fetilizer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarbon neutral synthetic fuels wouldn't have to compete with oil if governments mandated that a specific percentage of all gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel were composed of carbon neutral gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel. Governments already mandate that cleaner additives have to be added to gasoline. So why not mandate a gradually growing percentage of cleaner fuels be added to gasoline and other transportation fuels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSuch a Federal mandate would help to create a clean synfuel industry from a variety of sources, even gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel manufactured from nuclear power plants via the Green Freedom process. Of course, by the time these synfuel factories are built and added to our fuel mix, many people will be driving plug-in-hybrids that should dramatically increase gasoline fuel efficiency. And by the time synfuels completely replace petroleum fuels (20 or 30 years from now) practically all light vehicles in the US could be plug-in-hybrids or electric vehicles. So in the future, highly efficient plug-in-hybrids vehicles could easily deal with the higher price of carbon neutral synfuels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCello was just convicted for fraud today for their cellulosic ethanol scam.
The best and only proven biomass to gasoline is the F-T process now being used by Shell, others to convert NG to diesel.
EV's don't get 76% eff but between 21and 60% depending on the electric source. If from a fossil fuel stead generator only 21% eff, cogen 31% eff or hydro, wind, solar 60% eff.
An ICE car though is only 7% eff moving the car.
A regular car at idle uses more power than my EV uses to go 60 mph.
It is mentioned that scientists are turning agriculture left over to biofuel.At least in my country there is no left over.Animals consume the cellulosic stock,and in turn we get meat and milk.Or natural fertilizer can be prepared from this so called left over.Consequently when this sort of fuel is ready for use ,this will create food shortage in the world.And we are standing on the door of phosphate famine and China with its increasing standard of living is all set to become another food importer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr Sultan Ahmad ,Pakistan
In my country there is no agricultural left over .Cellulose biomass is eaten by animals and we get meat and milk.Prduction of aniaml food requires more land as compared with crops.So if this sort fuel is marketed it will produce food shortage in the world and food shortage is already a looming danger,with imminent phosphate famine ,water shortage and declining standard of soil.Moreover China with its increasind standard of living is all set to become another major food importer.So right now it will be bad planning to opt for such fuel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr.Sultan Ahmad Pakistan
IN REGARD TO YOUR ARTICLE ON GRASSOLINE IN THE JULY 2009 ISSUE, PLEASE ASK THE TWO CHEMICAL ENGINEERING PROFESSORS TO CHECK OUT THE PROCESS THAT GEVO, INC., PASADENA, CALIFORNIA, IS USING IN A JOINT VENTURE WITH CARGILL TO PRODUCE ISOBUTANOL FROM CELLULOSIC PLANT FIBERS USING GENETICALLY MODIFIED E COLI BACTERIA. THEY ARE WORKING TO PRODUCE COMMERCIAL QUANTITIES FROM BIOMASS FEEDSTOCKS. THIS CAN BE BLENDED WITH METHANOL, ETHANOL AND UNLEADED GASOLINE THAT IS AT AN OCTANE LEVEL EQUIVALENT WITH 93 OCTANE PREMIUM GASOLINE. THERE IS AN TECHNICAL ARTICLE ON THE INTERNET OF A STUDY DONE BACK IN 1993 AT UNIV. WEST VIRGINIA. TRY SAE.ORG/TECHNICAL/PAPERS/ISOBUTANOL. OR SEE ISOBUTANOL.COM ON GOOGLE TO SEE THE TECHNICAL PAPER LISTED AND THE PAPER NUMBER OF THE EXACT WEBSITE. WE CAN MAKE AN ALTERNATIVE MOTOR FUEL BY TAKING ONE PART METHANOL AND FIVE PARTS OF USED VEGETABLE COOKING OIL (FILTERED AT LEAST TWICE) AND THEN CATALYZE WITH A SMALL AMOUNT OF POTASSIUM CHLORIDE. WE CAN MAKE METHANOL DIRECTLY BY COMBINING CARBON MONOXIDE WITH HYDROGEN OR BY THE OLD METHOD OF DISTILLING WOOD. WE CAN DO THIS WITHOUT HAVING TO USE VERY HIGH TEMPERATURES TO CONVERT THE NON-GLUCOSE CELLULOSIC FIBERS. IF YOU WANT TO STUDY THE HIGH TEMPERATURE CELLULOSE CONVERSTION THOUGH, PLEASE USE YOUR CHROMATIC SPECTROGRAPH AND DISPLAY THE INCANDESCENT GASES THRU THE PRISM ONTO AN OSCILLISCOPE OR AN HD MONITOR. I AM WORKING ON A WAY TO CONVERT EXCESS CARBON DIOXIDE TO CARBON MONOXIDE AND COMBINE USING A HYDROGEN GENERATOR TO PRODUCE LARGE QUANTITIES OF METHANOL AT TEMPERATURES BELOW 110 DEGREES FARENHEIT. WE WON'T NEED TO USE 125 OCTANE TRIPTANE TO DO THIS.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPLEASE CHECK OUT THE RENTECH.COM WEBSITE TO SEE DETAILS OF THEIR EXISTING FULL SYNTHETIC BIOMASS FUELS. THEY ARE ALREADY OPERATING THEIR PRODUCT DEMONSTRATION UNIT IN COMMERCE CITY, COLORADO. THEY ARE WORKING TO GO TO COMMERCIAL SCALE PRODUCTION AT RIALTO, CALIFORNIA, AND NATCHEZ, MISSISSIPPI. THEY ANNOUNCE THEIR CERTIFICATION FOR SYNTHETIC JET FUEL ON JUNE 25, 2009. ARE WE READY FOR FULL SYNTHETIC GREEN FUELS FOR OUR BYDRID VEHICLES?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnce again, this was a total waste of Internet space. The word 'hemp' wasn't mentioned once.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUntil the word 'hemp' is used when talking about cellulosic energy products, I will not pass articles along like this. Until the US gets off its fear of hemp, we will never even come close to solving this issue.
HEMP NOW OR RUN OUT FOR GOOD.
Why do people in the US continue to focus on the potential pitfalls of alternative energy sources instead of realizing that change is a process and it takes time? Second generation bio-fuels won't be available unless there is public demand for it. We can not wait until the perfect solution comes along because there is no perfect solution. However bio-fuels are a better solution than to sit idly by and continue to rely on fossil fuel sources that are limited to a finite amount.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf someone wants to reject bio-fuels then fine all that is required is to propose a viable alternative that does not involve maintaining and or increasing our country's dependence on fossil fuels. So many on this site and elsewhere are quick to discredit bio-fuel but no where in their attacks do they offer a solutition aside from those who preach EV's or similar. EV's and plug-in hybrids are great but they still need electricity supplied from an outside source. Fuel cell power is another alternative that would appear to be viable in the future as well but the infrastructure is limited at this time and prevents a widespread conversion from being viable. The appeal of bio-fuels is that they would be easy to implement in this country as the vast majority of existing private and commercial vehicles can easily operate on them with little to no modification needed, plus the infrastructure of distribution points is in place. What this enables is the rapid and simple transition for the public to an "alternative" to the status quo. A much needed step in the right direction. Once we begin to shed the mindset that every new "alternative" has to be an all or nothing proposal but rather they are simply an interconnected path towards responsible energy production.
I know that for my part and that of my family we have already begun to embrace new and responsible habits in aspects of life including our fuel sources for our vehicles. I have converted all of our vehicles to be bio-fuel compatible and we use bio-fuels at all available oppurtunities even to the extent of adjusting our routes when driving on extended trips. No we aren't going to change the world ourselves but perhaps we can change someone else's outlook on the world and they too will pass along the message.
Wow, lots of good comments. Better than the original article. The internet may save us. According to this post by Robert Rapier, cellulosic technology isn't around the corner:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2009/07/cello-lesson-in-due-diligence.html
"...The story notes that the reason for the EPA's 100 million gallon estimate was that they were counting on 70 million gallons from Cello [just convicted of fraud] ! I have said it before, and I will say it again loudly: CELLULOSIC ETHANOL IS NEVER GOING TO MEET THE PROPOSED RAMPED UP PRODUCTION LEVELS...."
www.biodiversivist.com
It would be a grave error to suppose that 2nd generation biofuels will replace fossil fuels. But they will be valuable within the economic framework of energy efficiency. Remember the Copenhagen meetings will probably recommend 75% cuts in energy consumption by 2050. And local small-scale biomass pyrolysis also sequesters CO2, reducing climate change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee www.eprida.com for full details of how to invest.
Why not plant coppice woodlands this could provide heat and power, we could then use our Gas resources for powering vehicles. This must be greener than current status Quo.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIsn't ammonia a weak base? Why is it mentioned as a strong base on page 3? Thanks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this