There's more than algae for non-food biofuels
As our readers know, the biofuels field of investigation is huge and there are quite a number of upcoming technologies that can make the renewable fuel without competing with feedstocks. The most notable of these technologies use waste streams and often also require less water to make biofuel. Popular Mechanics lists seven of these new biofuel technologies and provides some numbers about how and when they will be available: cellulosic ethanol (both biological and gasified), algal biodiesel, "green gasoline" (obtained from extracting oxygen from sugars to form hydrocarbons), biobutanol, designer hydrocarbons and so-called 4th generation biofuels, the latter two produced directly from genetically modified organisms. As one reader suggests, there's no mention in the piece of alternative feedstocks for biofuels, such as jathropa curcas, which can grow in unused land. Still, regardless of technology, the question is impact: will any of these become the silver biofuel bullet? Thanks to Carl for the tip.
[Source: Popular Mechanics]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
stevefazek 9:08PM (8/12/2008)
ALgae is the best way to go still. After all oil is from OLD dead Algae.
Doesn't need fresh water hell it grows in untreated wastewater.
50% oil by weight is pretty damn good as well.
Reply
Brent 11:16PM (8/12/2008)
I agree that algae is the way to go. I have been following for a while and I am excited to see a few plants being built. The most exciting company I have come across is http://www.sapphireenergy.com/.... they make ASTM certified gasoline from algae. So if we can make diesel and gasoline from algae, our problems are solved. Forget toxic batteries and fuel cells!
meme 2:59PM (8/13/2008)
Algae's capital costs are way too high. They need to significantly lower them before it'll be at all reasonable.
ziv 12:28AM (8/13/2008)
The US should push to increase funding for cellulosic ethanol from miscanthus, hemp, garbage, waste and wood chips. Not corn. Continue to fund research into algal fuel production even though it may be slightly further down the road. More importantly, we have to encourage the growth of an electric car industry. Growing crops for fuel will never be as efficient as putting a wind generator on the roof of your home and feeding the electricity into the grid and using some of it for your car. Soon, inexpensive solar will be a complementary source of electricity, again frequently mounted on the roofs of homes and businesses to feed into the grid.
Probably the most important step, though, will be when the US adopts one or two new nuclear power plant designs and builds dozens of plants to a single/double plan/s. Economies of scale, better safety, cheaper energy, friendlier nations to supply our energy, all point to how nuclear power supplying BEV's will be able to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
When the two biggest supporters of the Kyoto Protocol, Japan and France, both get 70-80% of their electricity from nuclear power, you have to wonder how the world has failed to grasp the obvious. The risks are manageable, the upside is tremendous. $700,000,000,000 a year is spent by the US every year on foreign oil, usually to governments that hate us. Nuclear power and BEV's will be a golden bullet to kill that vampire.
Reply
Peekoyle 1:26AM (8/13/2008)
An EV battery powered car is still more green than a Algal bio-diesel car.
Reply
GenWaylaid 3:26AM (8/13/2008)
So when can I replace my septic tank with a fuel pump? That's the "waste stream" I'd most like to see put to good use. Also, it neatly reverses priorities so I get to eat first, then my car does.
Reply
EV-1 4:21PM (8/13/2008)
Fuel, you say.
And the whole purpose of this intricate, protraced infrastructural chain of production is that we'd get SOMETHING TO BURN ??
So we can cling to these ancient combustion engines that were thought up in the 1800's ??
So that the auto industry ( who's already made trillions of trillion $$$ profits - and polluted countless trees, plants, people, waters in the process ), so BigAuto can keep on making gross gains and won't have to invest in sustainable clean modern technology !?
The age-old technique to heat a gas to get it to expand -
- consequently losing 2/3 rds of the energy in heat losses (!) -
is primitive beyond comprehension.
When you think of all the artifacts, and all the workarounds that's had to develop over all the years, it's just mind-boggling !
[ EXAMPLE : Let me just dig into ONE - singeled out - DETAIL of hundreds of complicated support systems that are indispensible for that crap to "work".
We'll skip the fact that the ICE just cannot start (!) ... it has to have ANOTHER motor pull it to start (it almost defies belief).
Rather, I wanted to point to the need for a separate electric source of power, typically a lead acid battery, to power a system with a thermostatically controlled electric cooling fan.
The electric cooling fan is necessary because the radiator - that is necessary to keep the cooling fluid from boiling - at certain situations isn't capable enough. So great is the excessive heat, that the air speed through the cooling radiator has to be substantial for the radiator to be efffective, and at low vehicle speed the assistant electrical fan has to be employed. Logically, you'd assume that a light load at low speed would reduce need for cooling, but the temperature dynamics of most ICEs forces such assistant cooling system. Horrendous.
So these multiple support systems all aim to care for the WASTE (!) heat - i.e. because that ICE work off such a losy principle, it needs all that junk along, just to try and keep the temp issue at check.
Now, not only does it have to have another motor to help it start, it's got such a lousy powerband it has to have several different gearings to cover a decent speed range, and even that isn't enough (!) - that crap has to have some sort of slipping engagement of the drivetrain if not to simply stall... ]
If such an "invention" as the ICE was introduced today... well, it's beyond comprehension.
And now we want to find alternative stuff
- to burn
- to generate heat
- to get gas to expand ?
God Help us...
Reply
Jimmy 8:23AM (8/13/2008)
You do realize that almost all of the electric power on the grid comes from a hot gas pushing on a turbine. The majority of that hot gas is steam from a coal fire and requires not a fan for cooling but a *lake*.
Diesel engines were invented to be more efficient than steam engines, and they still are:)
meme 2:59PM (8/13/2008)
Jimmy: A gas turbine, which is what many power plants use, is more efficient than a diesel engine (after all losses are taken into account). In its raw form, the best high-temperature gas turbines are over *60* percent efficient at turning heat into kinetic. Steam turbines get up to 50%. Now, these too have parasitic losses, of course, but not as much as an ICE or diesel engine.
Overall, you want to look at "Well to Wheels". Here's one study for you:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2S-4M04DW9-1&_user=440026&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020939&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=440026&md5=e7b3b8bfb288aaed28ee38d247e49a24
The key numbers (there are a few more in there):
Gasoline: 14%
Gasoline hybrid: 27%
Diesel: 17%
CNG ICE: 16%
Fuel cell, H2 from reformation: 25%
H2 ICE, H2 from reformation: 13%
Fuel cell, H2 from NG power plant: 13%
H2 ICE, H2 from NG power plant: 6%
EV, power from NG power plant: 35%
Fuel cell, H2 from hydropower: 26%
H2 ICE, H2 from hydropower: 13%
EV, power from hydropower: 74%
All of the centralized systems are assumed to involve CO2 capture, while the gas, gas hybrid, diesel, and CNG engines are not.
DasBoese 6:42PM (8/13/2008)
Wow, that's surely a lot of hate there for the little old internal combustion engine.
For all that hate, you show an alarming lack of knowledge about engineering, thermodynamics and economics.
Want to know why the hydrocarbon-fueled ICE has -despite its shortcomings, that I in no way want to play down- has persisted for so long?
Because we haven't found anything better to replace it with! And I mean "better" in both the performance and economic sense! There are lots of power sources that are one or the other, but none that even come close to ICEs in both. Either you sacrifice performance, or you sacrifice money.
Also, a fun fact:
A diesel engine is an ICE too, just like a turboshaft engine. If you want people to take you seriously, you should at least try to look like you know what you're talking about.
BlackbirdHighway 7:09AM (8/13/2008)
I thought someone already figured out that the oil we burn each year took thousands of years to plant material, cooked in the ground for millions of years, to produce. The biosphere just can't produce enough fuel in real time to match the pace that we're burning it up. That's independent of whether we
use food on non-food plant material.
So I say no way. I'm not letting anyone put any of that stuff in my electric car!
Now on the other hand, batteries might forever be too heavy for practical aircraft, so maybe this stuff is good if we want to keep having air travel. But I don't see it as the ultimate answer to ground transportation.
Reply
Nils 7:22AM (8/13/2008)
And Big Auto is still pouring money into ICE-research so they can achieve even higher efficiencies... like 22%... when the load is steady and environmental conditions too, and measured on the crankshaft, and... basically all those conditions that are never met in real-life.
I wonder what motivates engineers to invest so much time in this tech when the achievable theoretical efficiency has almost been reached and the gains are so small.
It's a dead-end.
What a waste.
Reply
Jimmy 8:36AM (8/13/2008)
Modern diesel engines are in the 40-50% efficiency range. Combining renewable fuels with efficient engines offers the best path to reduced petroleum usage.
meme 2:59PM (8/13/2008)
Jimmy: That's before losses. Gasoline ICEs are generally ~35% efficient before losses. The losses bring them down to ~20% efficient at turning gasoline to wheel torque. Parasitic losses include friction in the pistons, losses in the transmission, friction on the driveshaft, fans, running the alternator, running the radiator. Other losses involve not running the engine at its optimal efficiency at all times due to driving needs (an extreme example being idling).
Nils 8:46AM (8/13/2008)
No Jimmy, they're not. Best diesel efficiency in laboratory conditions is around 30% for car ICE, you know HDi and the likes. A super-large 2-stroke diesel built in ships can get around 40%.
Reply
Jimmy 9:36AM (8/13/2008)
Well, VW claims a peak of 43% for the PD TDI engine (2004), Volvo claims 45%. An old (2001) LLNL paper shows an older 1.9 TDI (non PD) yielding 38% or greater efficiency from about 1500 to 2500 rpm (which is the normal driving range for these engines), with a sweet spot of 40%.
jpm100 6:35AM (8/14/2008)
There are only two main things people are ultimately interested in concerning these fuels.
1) Net C02 per mile, and/or
2) Cost per mile. (fuel & vehicle combined)
Things like energy per gallon and system efficiency are academic stopping points in determining the above.
Otherwise, the only other thing affected is the size of the fuel tank which is trivial when comparing things like diesel to gas engines to hybrids.
Reply