JET BIOFUEL: Scientists in North Dakota have turned oil from plants like soybeans into jet fuel that is equivalent to kerosene derived from oil.
Image: ©George Clerk/istockphoto.com
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Chemical engineers in North Dakota have successfully turned oil from plants—canola (rapeseed), coconuts and soybeans—into jet fuel indistinguishable from the conventional kind, according to U.S. government tests. Working with the U.S. Department of Defense's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), scientists at the Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) at the University of North Dakota turned these plant oils into fuel that had a similar density, energy content and even freezing point.
"It's got a freeze point of –47 degrees Celsius (–52.6 degrees Fahrenheit). Anyone familiar with biodiesel can tell you that's no small feat," says chemical engineer Chad Wocken, EERC environmental technologies research manager. "It's processed so that it contains only the same hydrocarbon molecules present in petroleum fuel."
Although he declined to explain the exact details of the process, Wocken says it is thermocatalytic—in other words, the engineers heat the plant oils in the presence of an undisclosed catalyst to create a slew of petroleum products. In fact, the process is not unlike conventional oil refining in that it produces everything from the kerosene used as aviation fuel to regular gasoline.
"The processing costs would be similar and comparable to petroleum oil refining," and perhaps even less expensive, Wocken notes, "because you're not dealing with contaminants like sulfur."
Of course, the biofuel's ultimate price tag is yet to be determined as only "gallons" of it have been brewed compared with the more than 60 million gallons (225 million liters) of jet fuel consumed daily in the U.S. But it will in large part depend on the price to grow the crops themselves—all have been fluctuating in recent months due to newly volatile global commodity markets.
Virgin Atlantic has flown a jumbo jet on a combination of conventional jet fuel and biofuel made from palm oil, and a jet powered solely by biodiesel has stayed aloft for more than 30 minutes—albeit with a special device to keep its fuel from freezing at high altitude. And the EERC fuel is not the only bio-based jet fuel available: UOP, LLC, a division of Honeywell Specialty Materials, has a similar fuel made from vegetable and animal oils, whereas algae-grower Solazyme, Inc., has derived a jet fuel from pond scum that meets ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials International) standards.
"We did this outside the DARPA program," says Solazyme CEO Jonathan Wolfson. "As green as people want to be, they don't want to pay more for fuel."
The EERC is currently in the process of producing 25 gallons (95 liters) of the bio–jet fuel for ground testing in a jet engine as early as next month. "The thing that needs to happen is a purchase order to come through from the Air Force so we can get [the] investment to build that first plant," Wocken says. "We could get a plant operational in two to five years if there were a commitment to buy the fuel."
See what we're tweeting about
21 Comments
Add Commentdoes veggie jet fuel pollute lass or cost less? Is there some advantage over conventional jet fuel. Agriculture has environmental effects too so the benefits should outweigh those at least.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe advantage is being carbon neutral. When you burn normal petroleum, you are releasing carbon dioxide from plants that captured it millions of years ago. That means you are adding NEW carbon dioxide into the air. If you use fuel made from plants that are growing today, it means that you are releasing the carbon dioxide that they captured from today's air. So they take it out of the air and we put it back in, it's neutral, no new CO2. What I am curious about is crop yield. The last I heard biodiesel yields about 60 gallons per acre and ethanol like 300-400 gallons per acre. I also heard that if we converted all of our crops to ethanol we would only get about 12% of the nation's need for fuel. (National Geographic article I think) So what is the yield on this stuff, since the refining process is more detailed?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisZimmerman - I'm afraid that biodiesel is not carbon neutral. You can read just about any academic study on its production and see the facts. It takes natural resources (mostly petroleum) to operate the farming equipment, transport the raw biomass, provide heat to the conversion process (whether it's biological or thermochemical), and produce the fertilizers needed to grow the crop (the ammonia, NH3, predominately comes from natural gas). At most, biodiesel has a 50% reduction in CO2 emissions when compared to traditional commercial fuels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt should be noted that oil-rich crops, such as soy, are one of the worst crops in terms of their fertilizer requirements and soil erosion.
There is no surprise that they can convert oil-rich crops to jet fuel. A process known as Fischer-Tropsch synthesis has been around since before WWII, and perfectly capable of converted any biomass to gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel, by first creating a syngas. Sasol in Africa, Shell in Malaysia, and RenTech in the USA all commercially produce synthetic fuels from either natural gas or coal. Their are no commercial biomass projects as of yet, however.
The question should not be can they convert crops to fuel, the question should be: should they? It is a very inefficient use of the land and uneconomical and border-line unethical to use potential food crop for fuel. In my opinion, only waste biomass and municipal solid waste should be converted to transportation fuels.
Also, I forgot to mention their dependence on Air Force contracts to make their process economical is a scary thing. The US military often does not purchase the most economical solution, and I would bet money that this project is more costly than traditional jet fuel. I certainly don't want my tax dollars wasted. If their process does in fact work (both thermochemically and economically), then they shouldn't be dependent on government contracts to commercialize. They should be able to raise private money through VCs or investment banks (which might be a little tough now that they don't have any money to lend).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis seems both a reasonable precaution and a worthy pursuit as having alternatives to Cartel controlled resources is essential, not just for the U.S.A. but for all countries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn excellent benefit of biofuels is their ability to be produced, controlled and used locally -- not necessarily exotic jet fuels but rather simple, low cost, plant based fuels. Processed sewage can serve as a valuable nitrogen source, in addition to longer range efforts of combining attributes of nitrogen fixation among plant types.
The overall movement to distributed energy alternatives is wise and should be encouraged -- as crude oil is aptly named.
None
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr. stanfordPhd is quite correct in his elucidation of the bio-fuel situation. These type of gee-golly articles do little to further the cause of sustainability.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen I hear of Army jets running of fuel made from sewage outflow, and being paid for with a bake sale like the schools, then I will pay attention.
Fischer-Tropsch synthesis is quite energy intensive in itself. Gasification via pyrolysis is also energy intensive, and results in an output which is hydrogen deficient as to fuel production. Perhaps we could use the "waste" heat from burning the carbon residues of pyrolysis to drive steam turbines to produce electricity. High-temperature electrolysis (also HTE or steam electrolysis) could also come into play to improve the efficiency of hydrogen production, and the resulting efficiency of fuel production, as the H2 would be added back to the synthgas stream to better balance the equation. My humble opinion... sorry to wax political, but humanity, or at least civilization, must get on this problem, or face extinction in the near future.
I must have read a different article than some. What I read was that efforts had been successful in creating usable bio-fuels that can be used in existing equipment. I don't know the specifics or projected applications, but I expect there would for example be a potential to set up small plants at remote locations that otherwise have no fuel, or where it is too expensive (CO2 wise or $$$) to source externally. Either way, the objective here should be to encourage those that are trying to develop the technology and processes rather than self promotion and ridicule.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisgood web site post your links on www.BIGdigg.net
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisand get traffic to your website
The jury is out on whether or not biofuels are really the miracle that we've hoped for. 1,000-4,000 liters of water is consumed by the biomass needed to produce one liter of biofuel. The amount of water required to produce a liter of petroleum fuel is negligible by comparison. In parts of the world where water is necessary to produce food, this becomes a crisis scenario; when land is used to produce crops (such as rapeseed and soy) intended to be turned into fuel and not food. In the end, this worsens the environment as desperation increases deforestation to produce more biofuel crops and civic unrest and poverty destroy efforts at sustainability.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know, lets use *FOOD* for fuel. It'll save a ton of oil, and reduce gasoline prices!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course, IT IS IMMORAL to use food for fuel in a hungry world.
I have an idea; what say we use *FOOD* for jet fuel? It would save a ton of oil, and gasoline might be cheaper.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course, in a hungry world, IT IS IMMORAL to use food for fuel.
Yes, once was enough. I know. I apologize.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut, still ...
Jonah, Am I incorrect in my understanding that water is not consumed in biomass production. Is it not part of the normal respiration of plants and other living things?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJonah, Am I incorrect in my understanding that water is not consumed in biomass production. Is it not part of the normal respiration of plants and other living things?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, of course you are not incorrect. The problem is if you are using massive amounts of water to produce small amounts of fuel... See what I'm getting at? It has also been all over the news lately that food prices being driven up, in part by increased meat consumption in new Asian economies and higher fuel costs but mostly by a massive increase in biofuel consumption, will have an adverse effect on poor populations where we dearly need to create sustainable agriculture and where rising security risks are a constant worry. Fresh water is a rapidly dwindling resource, and has already been the reason for conflicts across the globe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI envision in our green plan to create millions of American jobs the production of desalinization facilities along the gulf and in Southern California, similar in magnitude to Saudi Arabia's (all their agricultural water is obtained this way from the sea), which can remove the burden of water consumption form our water tables and create a domino effect, where watersheds are protected in the northwest and the nation's mountain ranges and many dams are no longer needed. But I'm probably just dreaming here... again...
There is another way to look at it. Biomass, wood and veg oils were the initial heating and lighting fuels. Now the fossil fuels are so costly that the plant based fuels are at par or cheaper. However it is best not to use land or crops used for food. We must use the biomass that is waste for other uses or is burnt away for disposal. converting agricultural wastes to fuel shall be real value addition.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlant based wood and oils were the initial heating and lighting fuels. then the cheaper fossil fuels replaced them now the cycle is complete and fossil fuels are so costly that time for plant fuels is back.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thislet us not divert food crops or growing land to fuel and try to convert agricultural wastes to useful fuels. that would be value addition.
In the situation we are currently in (with OPEC). I think it's important to explore all the alternatives. If we want to be free of reliance on foreign oil we must continue this kind of research. It may be less efficient in the beginning, but if the powers that be decide to cut us off we'd better have an alternative even if there are problems with it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne matter rarely mentioned concerning these positive technological steps is whether or not there is a finality of purpose to them. Searching for alternatives as palliatives will get us nowhere unless we continuously actualize the question : how did we get into these troubled times? Are we struggling to maintain a lifestyle or are we capable of grounding ourselves into something else? From my perspective, wheels are spinning faster not better.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUltimately, and probably fortunately, the issue of biofuels will be significantly explored by the worlds farmers who are literally growing their own fuels. As the price of crude petrochemicals becomes more expensive, and economic difficulties mount, the choice of using a local homegrown product will be more attractive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe likely usage pattern; powering the farmer's machinery, use by the farmer's family, and then their local surrounding communities which will by necessity buy local products.
This may or may not involve "food" plants. If the climate allows; sugar cane is and will be used. This is a great choice for Hawaii as an example, and similar hot, wet and somewhat isolated areas of the planet. Cooler climates may use corn, sorghum or a variety of other plants that can be converted to liquid sunshine (ethanol).
The rise in food prices is directly and almost entirely tied to the cost of crude oil, not the creation of biofuels -- the price of oil goes up and the price of almost everything increases as well. It's worth noting that the vast majority of corn is simply used to fatten cattle. Even after the corn is fermented to ethanol -- what remains is still rich in fat and protein and fed to cattle as it's rich in food value. Honestly, I can cut back on the Mcburgers and really not miss them all that much.
Yes. Biofuel creation often involves using crude oil but despite what the petrol lackeys will tell you, there is a significant increase in net energy benefit in biofuels in many parts of the world. Rather than being enslaved via crude oil, increasing numbers of people will choose a locally controlled and created product. A product that will realize greater gains in efficiency over time versus what crude oil will offer.
Conversion of existing vehicles to ethanol is very cheap when compared with other solutions. This is another benefit for many people throughout the world; it doesn't involve a total replacement of what exists. It's easy, and inexpensive to ferment ethanol, etc, versus the huge overhead of crude oil refineries. Its a cheap, accessible technology.
Farmers and local small business's can literally create their own fuels. This will also allow money to remain local, rather than being exported -- empowering and freeing the local economies. Again, this will be decided by local folks in various parts of the world who actually have dirt on their hands versus those of us whose hands primarily touch keyboards.