Green gasoline: Coming soon to a pump near you?
It may sound a bit like something from a Dr. Seuss book, but it seems "green gasoline" is indeed on its way to a pump near you. Terrabon, a Texas-based company specializing in biofuels, reports its alternative fuel is completely compatible with gasoline and can be produced using nearly any kind of organic material, including sewer sludge.
Terrabon uses a fermentation process called MixAlco, which was developed by researchers at Texas A&M University, and it's thought that this type of second-gen biofuel could replace ethanol as the gasoline alternative of choice within the next decade or so since its use would require no special modifications to automobiles or the current energy infrastructure.
Last fall, Terrabon completed work on a $3.5 million facility that's capable of putting out 300 gallons per day of green gasoline from chopped sorghum. If all goes to plan, a much larger second plant will be built with backing from Valero, the nation's largest oil refiner.
[Source: Houston Chronicle via Green Car Advisor]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
shlompsen 8:31PM (7/13/2009)
That's an extremely small amount of fuel production.
Roughly speaking, it's about one tenth of a drop per day for every vehicle in the country.
Reply
Chris 3:46AM (7/14/2009)
I can tell you never majored in business. Would it make sense to build a refinery for a product that you were just testing? Hello, use some common sense.
It's good to see my home State of Texas working on a solution which is a change from being a problem, or a contributor to greenhouse gases from automobiles.
shlompsen 8:59AM (7/14/2009)
It just shows that they have quite a ways to go before they have a viable product that can make any difference.
Assuming that they can earn $1 for every gallon sold, they would be raking in $300 a day from their $3.5M plant.
I mean, I'm glad they're working on it, but they would need some kind of a breakthrough.
Joce03 8:58PM (7/13/2009)
Its a step in the right direction. A small step, but a step non the less!
Reply
Nick 10:51AM (7/14/2009)
Seems promising, but 300 gallons a day is minuscule.....30,000 gallons would make this a lot more credible!
Reply
xyz 3:08AM (7/14/2009)
I don't need that! Do I?
I will be happy cruising along with my EV and charge at home or have a little trailer attached if I go on holidays. But other than that I don't need any corporate morons sucking the living daylight out of me...
Reply
Chris 3:46AM (7/14/2009)
Most electric vehicles can barely move their own weight. Good luck attaching any sort of trailer to it.
xyz 3:52AM (7/14/2009)
sorry, I wasn't really precise. I should have said " my little generator on my little trailer" :o)
andrichrose 7:11AM (7/14/2009)
Chris ,
Maybe you should take a look at this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8sgvVdSCHU&feature=related
Geoff de Ruiter 4:15AM (7/14/2009)
I am going to make this simple and to the point, We simply must stop burning things. Pretty much anything we burn will produce CO2, CO, and carcinogens and it is not acceptable anymore, we have been getting ill from these chemicals for 30 years. All these super duper ways of making gas or diesel is not productive and there is a very limited future in it.
If we want to have cars research the crap out of them to make them 0.5 the weight and aerodynamic (Loremo and aptera), fast charging electric (EEstor/AltAirnano/nanowire), and linked with highly advanced solar panels (beyond solar racers). And then only if needed, back up Bio-diesel (or hydrogen if developed) generators, either traditional ICE or turbine.
Reply
3PeaceSweet 5:58AM (7/14/2009)
Photosynthesis ~2% conversion - biomass to liquid ~60% conversion - liquid fuel to motion ~20% efficient
Total efficiency ~less than 1%
Solar to electric ~15% efficient - electric to wheels ~75% efficient
Total efficiency ~more than 10%
Solar electric is 10 times more productive for the same area than biofuels.
CaramelZappa 11:08AM (7/14/2009)
That's what I was about to post. It may be good for us to be producing gas independantly instead of relying on other countries to supply it for it, but as far as greenhouse gasses are involved it's not much better than dug up oil because everything that burns creates co2.
DasBoese 4:37PM (7/14/2009)
It's not the burning things and producing CO2 that is the problem.
CO2 itself is inert, it's not directly harmful to humans and animals, and well, plants need it to survive. Other combustion pollutants are of course harmful, but we've become pretty good at dealing with them. The real problem is that, by burning fossil fuels, we're introducing additional CO2 into the atmosphere that has been safely locked away for millions of years, faster than it's being removed, changing our climate.
If we were to burn only biomatter, that wouldn't be a problem at all because it's inherently CO2 neutral.
@3Peace:
Your calculation is flawed. You can't directly compare biofuels and solar energy, in specific scenarios perhaps, but not generally.
Plants grow in areas where solar power is ineffective, solar power can be harnessed in places where nothing grows. Plants have byproducts that are usable for other purposes. Electricity and liquid fuels have different benefits, disadvantages and requirements regarding distribution and storage. See where I'm going?
Neither one is the magic bullet, nor are they mutually exclusive. Both have a place in the future of personal transportation, accept it.
Geoff de Ruiter 5:41PM (7/14/2009)
@DasBoese
My statement I made incorporates the knowledge of CO2 being "inert", even though I did not say it explicitly (I am a biologist). CO2 is of course a problem when it is introduced from the fossil stores, it disrupts the equilibrium just prior to human influence, we both know that. (I do say you sounded a bit like the "we call it life" campaign http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_VmMIbWKoo but I'm sure that is not what you were trying to say) However I disagree with the burning issue. Along with this disruption of just CO2 (and disregarding carcinogens or harmful molecules), our health is compromised because the ecosystems are strained and do not have time to biologically adapt. This is then a run away effect where change begets change and systems are and beginning to breaking down at an ever faster and accelerating rate. One question if you were to breath straight CO2 would you be able to continue to live? No, it would displace all O2 and you would asphyxiate. Second question, if you were to breath straight O2 would you be able to continue to live? No, O2 in high quantities is toxic to animals. We need to allow our ecosystems to reach the pre-industrial revolution equilibrium again, where gaseous concentrations were optimally suited for our planets recent evolutionary adaptations (the point of my questions). And burning of anything will not help that goal. My message above entirely disregards the ill effects of carcinogens, hormone like endocrine disrupting molecules, and any other harmful molecule produced through burning, and in them selves is a completely other topic of concern.
Thank you for your response and this discussion, it helps to clear up misconceptions people may have. Take care.
Ben Blankenship 12:58PM (7/15/2009)
If we stop "burning things" as you advocate, untold millions of Africans and Asians will die either of hunger or disease without their campfires they must cook with. But if it would help fight global warming, what the hey! Get real.
Geoff de Ruiter 1:54PM (7/15/2009)
@ Ben B
Please Sir, they are not the problem on this planet and their per capita carbon impact is infinitesimal compared to any developed nations. It's kind of insulting and sad you would think I would say to take their only means of cooking away, shesh. But it does still point to the fact that electrification should also occur in Africa and Asia because it is a cleaner and healthier means especially if the power generation is renewable. Also it would lead to less deforestation. Take care.
Rahul 4:55AM (7/14/2009)
This is a big step towards gasoline conversation. Bio-fuel is the fuel of the future.
Bio-fuel
Reply
BlackbirdHighway 5:47AM (7/14/2009)
I think biofuels have their place, but IMHO there is no way we can produce enough to power all of our vehicles. The land, nutrients and water required are not abundant enough. It took nature millions of years to create the oil we are using up in a couple hundred. Even if we are 1000 times more efficient than nature, we still can't produce the stuff in real time, especially while our top priority is food production.
There will certainly be applications where batteries won't do the job; airliners, long haul trucking, etc. and biofuels will be a nice replacement for fossil fuels in those cases.
Reply
jpm100 7:03AM (7/14/2009)
Our top priority is not food production this year.
Last year, we were in the grip of a crop shortfall in the rest of the world which increased our exports to record levels.
This year, with even more ethanol production than last year, food prices are down (at the wholesaler anyway).
Since farmers can't produce a crop on a week's notice, transient events like crop shortfalls shock the marketplace. Consistent and predictable demands like ethanol programs for vehicles have minimal impact.
Now this doesn't change the cost effectiveness (or lack there of for corn) but OTOH we're no where near full food production in this country at all.
floorman56 9:54AM (7/15/2009)
I think biofuels have their place, but IMHO there is no way we can produce enough to power all of our vehicles. The land, nutrients and water required are not abundant enough
Didn't you see where we can use ...Sewage? we sure have enough of that. We have to process sewage any way. Sounds a little like Changing World Technologies process. the only thing they have left with there process is clean water, oil, and some left over junk, no where near as much as the tons of junk they started with