Shell and Virent will develop "biogasoline"
There's ethanol, a gasoline substitute/blending fuel, and then there's biogasoline. This relatively unknown plant-based fuel is the subject of research at a few different labs, including one at North Carolina State University that uses the Cetina process. Another group working on something more like traditional gasoline from biosources is made up of Shell and Wisconsin's Virent Energy Systems. The partnership announced last week that they will form "a joint research and development effort to convert plant sugars directly into gasoline and gasoline blend components, rather than ethanol." Should something like this work, and be made sustainably, then one of ethanol's major drawbacks when viewed from a standpoint of a culture used to gasoline - the reduced energy content - would be eliminated. Virent head Dr. Randy Cortright said in a statement that the biogasoline matches "petroleum gasoline in functionality and performance," so there's that. Even though Shell and Virent have been researching biogasoline for a year, there is no word on when this fuel might be available for sale. It's a safe bet that it'll take a while.
[Source: Shell]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
TX CHL Instructor 9:10AM (3/31/2008)
Butanol, anyone?
Reply
jpm100 9:45AM (3/31/2008)
I wouldn't be surprised if this has the same negatives as sugar based ethanol.
So can we officially declare gas refiners and distributers as being afraid of competition in the liquid fuel's market likely being cellulosic ethanol if proven practical?
Reply
MikeW 10:40AM (3/31/2008)
Just play with the percentages:
Gasoline 50%
methanol, ethanol, propanol, Butanol.
Since the biggest issue with Butanol is the viscosity [and subsequent compatibility with fuel injectors], lets start with 50% gas, 25% butanol, 25% ethanol.
Reply
josh 10:59AM (3/31/2008)
Sure this could help reduce US dependency on oil from volatile regions of the world, but it would do nothing to help combat global climate change. If we had the right economic incentives set up to push energy companies to invest in sources of energy that both meet our energy needs and avoid aggravating global climate change, then we'd get companies like Shell to invest more in solar, geothermal, battery, ultracapacitor, flywheel, wind and tidal technologies and less in "stuff to burn".
Reply
rgseidl 11:31AM (3/31/2008)
@ Josh -
if and when plug-in hybrids become a significant factor that the oil industry cannot kill, it will invest in utilities to ensure it keeps generating revenue from the transportation sector. However, batteries and hydrogen tanks are extremely expensive energy storage solutions for cars. Ultracaps, hydraulic accumulators and flywheels are all high-power, low-capacity technologies that make sense for large vehicles that spend most of their lives in stop-and-go traffic (i.e. city buses, delivery trucks, garbage trucks etc.)
For passenger cars, there's nothing wrong with "stuff to burn" as long as it's produced in a sustainable fashion - which is definitely not yet the case. Feeding sugar to algae is a stopgap technology because it still relies on higher plants to capture the sunlight - which means low yields per acre, especially if only the sweet fruit and not the whole plant is used.
Btw, Shell is collaborating with a National Lab in Hawaii to identify oil algae species that can tolerate salt or brackish water and are hardy enough for large-scale direct algaculture. It will still take some time before anyone has figured out how to reliably deliver very high quantities of product from this entirely new branch of agriculture. Early demonstration systems can achieve 30,000 gallons per acre per year, but the process management required to replicate those yields across literally millions of acres does not exist yet.
Reply
KarenRei 12:12PM (3/31/2008)
"if and when plug-in hybrids become a significant factor that the oil industry cannot kill, it will invest in utilities to ensure it keeps generating revenue from the transportation sector"
In summary, the oil industry isn't run by idiots. They have a huge engineering base and don't plan on simply giving up just because times change. A large portion of the world renewables market (solar, wind, geothermal, etc) is funded by the oil industry -- both R&D and production. If times change, they want to be giants in that new world as well instead of being left in the dust.
And kudos to them for funding this research. I'm personally more of a fan of EVs than biofuels, but if done properly, biofuels can indeed be a stopgap.
Reply
Kevin 6:31PM (4/01/2008)
It seems man companies are pushing towards lets get our oil prices down rather than lets get our oil dependency down and reduce our co2 emissions . Essentially only developinb this just to ease gas prices wont really work .If the united states had all its gas made from this engineering technique then we woudl still be emitting those co2 gases. So we need something that in the longer term will solve both issues. Unless they come up with a catalyst converter that eliminates 98 percent of toxic and smog emitting gas then stop burning shit and lets push more towards plug ins and renewable energy
Reply
Chris M 3:59AM (4/01/2008)
"Biogasoline" is a rather clumsy sounding word.
May I suggest "Biolene"?
Reply
Johnstone 2:03PM (4/01/2008)
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/03/31/bmw-builds-a-hydrogen-only-version-of-the-hydrogen-7/
if the oil companies want to stay giants verses dust in the wind (and infact do fund a large portion of the alternative energy sources such as solar and wind), then they should support the cause of Internal Combustion Engine enthusiasts and get on board. there is NOTHING stopping big oil from being the first to gear up for the production of H2 and hold a complete monopoly as H2 producer in this country.
Reply