Name your favourite BioFuel Technology

Perhaps, but you don't just need cheaper enzymes, you also need genetically modified yeasts that can convert xylose to ethanol.

Special enzymes do the work of converting the xylan in straw, sawdust, grass clippings or leaves to xylose - a simple sugar. Ordinary brewers yeast doesn't work on xylose, so it has to be genetically modified. This has already been done by Purdue University and implemented by a company called Iogen in Canada.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

For more infro see:
http://fairway.ecn.purdue.edu/~lorre/16/research/

Be sure to visit the links of the 23 Feb 06 converence at bottom of this page.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Now if we can just scale up the tech for some of the new fuel cells coming out like the UltraCell http://www.gizmag.com/go/5325/

and start building cars with the same kind of super light weight body construction as the new German Loremo http://www.gizmag.com/go/5301/

...we'll have the perfect car.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I like the idea of using the dead bodies of our loved ones to supply us with fuel. What could be more economical then burning them to give us it.

 

Not sure that would work. The fuel required to ship them to desert for dehydration and back must be considered (or local fuel for oven doing the same). Burning valuable organic matter is never best use and fact that sun-dryed cow dung is main cooking-stove fuel in rural India, instead of used to fertalize the soil, is (in large measure) why there are 300,000,000 (= to US total population) very poor in India. Perhaps better is to grind them up wet and spread on farm land?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(Fuel crop could be larger, so this is still "on thread.")

My personnel plan is for my unembalmed body to be dumped at sea. - I have been eating fish all my life, so I think that it is only fair they get a feast. If you like shark, indirectly eat me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well its already possible to convert many forms of organic matter into light crude without dehydration - although I don't know if this could also apply to sewage water. http://www.changingworldtech.com/what/index.asp

See the article on this process also in the latest Discover magazine.

 

Yes it is, in fact adding water is often required. Unfortunately many of these processes require very high pressures and temperatures.

For example, many use "super critical water" - I.e. water at about approximately 100 atmospheres pressure and 375C. Thus the economic feasibility is highly questionable. The capital cost of large area heat exchangers that can take these pressures is very large, just to mention one economic problem. (One can avoid them, if willing to not try to recover the energy invested in compressing and /or heating to the "super critical" regime, but then the net energy is very likely to be negative. - that does not necessarily mean process is not viable economically. For example, if you have a cheap, but unusable for environment reasons, fuel such as trash, and must used two units of its energy to get one unit you can legally sell, it may be economical to do so. Main, problem is that one illegal environment damage is traded for a legal one. I.e. in this example there is a 300% increase in the CO2 released, but it is legal to release CO2 as you like.)

One application that may be economically feasible and environmentally sound is the processing of high sulfur fuels. Your reference appears to be concerned mainly with reducing the environment damage that some fuels would produce, if burned with out processing. For general discussion and a good starting point for information on many different biomass approaches to the energy problem, including production of hydrogen from biomass (about 100 links to other sites, articles) See:

http://www.2020institute.org/energysolutions/biomass.htm

 

BIO Hydrogen:

Crag Venter is back from his ocean cruse with the bugs he hopes will make all our fuel:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/26/AR2006022600932.html

And this company:

http://www.nanologix.net/index.php

"NanoLogix is a nanobiotechnology company that engages in the research, development, and commercialization of technologies for the production of bacteria, disease testing kits, alternative sources of fuel"

The NanoLogix breakthrough came about when the Company’s researchers were tinkering with its proprietary biological-based diagnostic and remediation technologies, noting that one of its patented bacterial culturing methods could produce byproduct gas surprisingly rich in hydrogen.


Welch's is buying the H2 Bug Farts:
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/060313/20060313005750.html?.v=1
SHARON, Pa., Mar 13, 2006 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- NanoLogix, Inc. (Pink Sheets:NNLX) announced today that the Company has completed the construction of its first commercial hydrogen bioreactor facility at a Welch's Food plant in North East, Pennsylvania. The company also announced that the facility will begin hydrogen generation from Welch's waste organic matter on or about the first of April 2006.

Erich J. Knight

 

Well I'm hoping this notion of a 'hydrogen economy' will go the way of the dodo sooner rather than later. Gaseous fuels don't make any sense for vehicles and biodiesel is a lot more polluting than ethanol, which has no toxic byproducts at all.

In fact, ethanol can even be used in a modified diesel engine, as demonstrated by the Scania buses in Sweden. http://www.responseonline.com/archi/etha.htm

 

Dear Folks:

Ethanol will only be successful if They find, or make, better bugs so the macro energy equation, the well to wheel efficiency, is vastly improved.

H2 will work for vehicles as the many nano based storage strategies bring the energy densities up equal to liquid fuel levels:

http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/7/10

Erich J. Knight

 

What "well"?

Alcohol is already a great success in Brazil and it comes from sugar cane fields, not a well. Because most cars in Brazil drive around on 100% alcohol, Brazil is now "energy independent" and a net exporter of oil!

Hydrogen is NOT a source of energy, so US switching to H2 will increase the energy requirements of the US, as it always takes more energy to make hydrogen than can be released by any form of converting it back to water (combustion, fuel cells, etc and they are not 100% efficient.)

Your reference states:

"According to their calculations, thin layers of graphite or graphene -- two-dimensional sheets of carbon atoms -- spaced between 6 and 7 Angstroms apart can store hydrogen at room temperature and moderate pressures of just 10 MPa. Moreover, the amount of hydrogen stored comes close to a practical goal of 62 kilograms per cubic meter set by the US Department of Energy."

First thing is I doubt very much anyone can accurately apply quantum mechanic (as they say they did) to such a complex problem. (If you are trying to get people to invest money in your "calculations" a few good assumptions, here and there, no doubt help.)

I suspect the cost per pound for carbon sheets fabricated with "6 or 7 Angstroms apart" spacing is much higher per pound than the cost of carbon with the natural carbon-to-carbon spacing found in graphite or diamonds. The reference even admits that others have tried graphite for H2 storage and found it is not very good. Perhaps no one has tried diamonds?

Probably not, because a car with a tank full of diamonds for storing H2 does not seem very economically attractive to me, unless the only "alternative choice" is a tank full of "6 or 7 Angstroms apart" carbon sheets (made with the "spacers" your reference speaks of and illustrates in the photograph). I would bet the "full of diamonds" tank is much less expensive than a tank full of this "calculated" "6 or 7 Angstroms apart" structure of carbon is, so if Ionly have those two alternatives, the diamond filled tank looks like the cheaper choice.

Fortunately, there is an alternative, not a "calculated one" of course but one with 30 years of actual use. It is normally even cheaper than Gasoline, but just now with sugar at all time high in price, more than doubled in less than two years, it is only slightly cheaper than gasoline. Like H2, if you ignore the CO2 produced by current means of generating the H2, this fuel is non-polluting. (In fact using it produced by growing cane is the only way I know of, that is economically feasible, to remove CO2 from the air, except for planting trees etc. Unfortunately, “planting trees” is not nearly as economically attractive as cutting trees down, so of course trees are being cut down with the result that the net "tree effect" is to also add CO2 to the air as old newspapers etc are burned.)

I bet you have guessed the name of this miracle fuel already, but in case you have not here is a hint:

It is a liquid and the only "tank requirement" is that there should be no holes in the bottom.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well, or Field, You know what I meant. Still need to account for soil depletion, fertilizer, Alcohol to run the tractors, Ag-chemicals, irrigation, etc., etc............most arguments I've seen talk about the total inputs Vs output as 1:1 or less. We still need new super we beasties.

The rising curve of increasing efficiency for PV, direct solar to hydrogen, wind and thermal conversion to electricity is most exciting.

The point is right now I could pay $20 K for a 12% efficient PV array to end my electric bill, in effect prepaying my electric bill for twenty years. If the nano developments in PV's, or direct thermal/electric or photoelectrochemical direct conversion to H2, can double the current efficiency while cutting the price in half, then we are talking $5,000 to be bill free.
Hydrogen Solar sent me their current Tandum Cell numbers @ 10.2% efficiency: $1.50/LB for H2
And they say that a theoretical efficiency of 35% is possible, and a 22% efficiency is realistically achievable, i.e.,... $0.75/LB of H2 which equals $0.049/KWhr equivalent. From what I understand of the direct solar to hydrogen fabrication technology, it is a much greener process, and cheaper that silicon based PVs.

As to your "I doubt very much anyone can accurately apply quantum mechanic (as they say they did)", ye has little faith in the miracles of nano self assembly.


I also found some tech-specs for the suncone, They claim a 50 MW array will produce at $. 046/KWhr !! This is the lowest costs I've seen for solar concentrator technology near commercial release.
Sustainable Resources, Inc. - The Suncone Solar Power Generator
http://www.sriglobal.org/suncone_intro.html
And the nano-dot approach to PVs also promises full spectrum conversion efficiencies along with clean production processes. ( UB News Services-solar nano-dots http://www.buffalo.edu/news/fast-ex...rticle=75000009

If Bio or Solar, etc., can deliver at these prices, my roof will become my energy factory., and my septic tank will become a bioreactor and I'll actually start using my garbage disposal to help fuel my car

Another big plus is decentralization. Distributed power networks are inherently more stable than MW based systems. The flywheel technology that Beacon Power has installed for New York and California http://yahoo.reuters.com/news/NewsA...3-01_20-54-57_N01399291&type=comktNews&rpc=44 Also contributes to the advantages of both distributed and centralized power sources. All the while adjusting to near perfectly conditioned power, and protecting from threats like this:

According to NASA and the National Science Foundation, the next 11-year sunspot cycle could be up to 50 percent stronger than the present one. That cycle will begin in late-2007/early-2008 and peak around 2012. The phenomenon is a big deal because it can disrupt satellites and knock out power grids. The details are in a story by the Los Angeles Times.

Erich J. Knight

 

Ethanol has already shown itself to be economically competative with gasoline in many parts of the world, and no matter how sophisticated hydrogen storage becomes, these storage techs are far more expensive than a simple fuel tank...and the vast fuel station infrastructure is already set up for liquid fuels.

How long is it going to take to refuel one of these graphite systems - people don't want to wait for an hour at the pump.

How will stations get the hydrogen - by tanker truck?

 

Eric: You are presenting dreams. I am telling 30 years of history. Alcohol is old hat in Brazil, very high yield of energy compared to all non solar input energy (perhaps a 100 times greater) where as hydrogen is currently less energy out than put in.

Also you need to recognize that more than half the cost of current solar power via PV cells has to with things like repair, cleaning, instalation, land cost (or extra distribution if far from the load centers etc) copper wiring to collect the very low density energy flux (more than 1000 times less than heat applied to a boiler etc.) DC to AC conversion, etc. - things called "BOS" cost or Balace of System Cost" that are more than half the total.

Solar cell produced H2 must be so expensive that I bet less than a pound of it, total, has ever been produced in history of man! Alcohol is so cheap when produced by cane absorbing sun's energy, that tons of it are produced every day.

As is usually the case, calculations, projections of the suporters trying to attract investors etc, can not be compared to the years of actual cost experience that alcohol has. The fuel for tractors etc is at most a few percent of the alcohol energy. Simple burning of the after crushed cane produces more energy, even as electric power, than than the tractors consume.

If you have invested in this, as I fear you have, I am sorry for you. Much of the world is starting to realize alcohol is the mobile fuel of the future, not H2.

In my view, the oil companies are talking up, even giving small economic support to H2 becuase they know it is not a threat to their control of mobile fuel. They never want you to know than alcohol has 30 years of growing use in Brazil, basically killed their sales of gas except to the rich driving imported cars that still use gasoline engines. Given Brazil independance from them, energy self suficiency, etc.

They fear alcohol, as it can replace oil. H2 never will and thus as a diversion from alcohol, the talk up H2, which is not any danger to them. You seem to have fallen into their trap.Too bad if your money has too.

 

Are you trying to be funny?
Reason I ask is, like it or not, oil production, even at current level, is definitely not sustainable.

In contrast alcohol production is rapidly increasing to meet rapidly growing demand for liquid fuels but can not give the entire world the per capita energy consumption of US - only nuclear power could do that.
None the less, if only smaller efficient cars and good public transport were universal, alcohol could supply ALL the liquid fuel required. (Nuclear power supplying city metros and flywheel buses, and / or electric trollies, in cities help make this possible. Hydrogen has no role to play.)

 

I doubt that solar arrays on the roof on your local gas station would produce enough hydrogen by eletrolysis to fuel even ONE car, nevermind hundreds in a 24 hour period.

About that Suncone thing...is there a working prototype to go with the artisit's drawing?

 

So if all thats true then how come no ones shouting ?

And why will Poor countries not follow them ?

 

A few of us are.

Here your facts are wrong also. Brazil has risen to the 14th largest economy in world, from a much lower place a few years ago. Many of the "poor countries" are following Brazil's lead as it seems to be working. (One of the main brokerage firms, I forget which, projects Brazil will be Number 4 by 2050.) I.e.:

Brazil is the generally recognized leader of the G20 (set of relatively undeveloped countries) in many areas, for example, in trade talks with the US and Europe, the “G7.“ These, "first world" areas want the G20 to open more their borders to G7 manufactured goods and yet want to both (1) continue to give subsidies to their farmers who can not compete on "a level playing field" with countries like Brazil where both land and labor are much cheaper and the ground is never frozen, etc. and (2) to keep their agricultural tariff walls intact.

Another example, is the decision on which of three mutually incompatible digital TV systems will be used in the G20. All of the G20 in South America, and many others also, I think, have basically agreed to let Brazil decide.

Brazil has been studying he question for at least 2 years. Brazil has very probably decided on the Japanese system over the European one. (All agree the US one is technically inferior and given that most foreigners now hate the US government and that this is an election year in Brazil, it would be politically impossible to chose the US system, even if it were technically the best.)

There is a thread about the "Trillion dollar cost" of the Iraq war. Actually the cost is easily above 1 trillion dollars already, if you count the cost of injured soldiers who will spend the rest of their days in VA hospitals etc. Few include in the calculated cost the 50 to 100 billion dollars of "lost market" for digital TVs, that is about to be decided by Brazil. - This mountain of money / profits is why both Europe and Japan are making quasi firm offers to build a "silicon foundry" in Brazil as part of their deals, if their system is chosen. Also why the three main Brazilian governmental departments concerned with the decision are in Japan, as I type, trying to make the Japanese offer more firm, before officially announcing the decision in favor of Japan's system.*
------------------------------------
In case you do not know: A "silicon foundry" is a factory that can make the ICs that go into cell phones, TVs, microwaves, digital cameras etc. Some are more general than others. It seems that Japan is offering only a highly specialized one that can make only ICs for their TV system, but factory Europeans offered is more general. The delegation did not leave for Japan until the day after the European offer was in print (signed by Nokia, Siemans and one other big IC company of Europe, which I forget) Obviously Brazil's delegation now in Japan is saying "Can you match this?"

*Japanese system will permit good TV on your mobile phones etc as is now in wide use in Japan. European system will not do this, but will permit each high definition channel to be divided into four lesser resolution broadcasts, which none-the-less are higher resolution than current analogue TV. (Europe went this way so the many languages and national programs can be distributed in the available band width.) Europeans like to point out that the Japanese system is only used in Japan, whereas 74 countries already use the European system, so the market for ICs produced in any new "silicon foundry" in Brazil would be greater.

 

One thing nobodys mentioned yet are 'plug-in hybrids'. These are hybrid cars that come with larger batteries (that can be plugged-in), larger electric engines and smaller fuel engines, which are designed to run on electricity for about 25 miles before the fuel engine kicks in.

Considering that most cars are driven less than 25 miles a day, this would mean the cost of driving would be drastically reduced - 12 cents per mile in fuel costs vs. 3 cents per mile in electricity costs.

Of course, if everyone bought one, it would mean that the energy for most driving would be supplied by the grid, instead of liquid fuels - a grid which is already maxed out!

Theres a big article on the subject in the latest issue of Scientific American.
http://www.evworld.com/electrichybrid.cfm