Slashdot Mirror
Breakthrough in Biodiesel Production
MGR writes "National Geographic is reporting that Japanese scientists have discovered a way to convert vegetable oil into biodiesel with a much less expensive catalyst (between 10 and 50 times cheaper) than what is currently used. From the article: 'Any vegetable oil can become fuel, but not until its fatty acids are converted to chemical compounds known as esters. Currently the acids used to convert the fatty acids are prohibitively expensive. Michikazu Hara, of the Tokyo Institute of Technology in Yokohama, Japan, and his colleagues have used common, inexpensive sugars to form a recyclable solid acid that does the job on the cheap.'"
I hope we can finally dump our dependence on foreign oil. If this sort of thing really comes through, the Saudis are going to be PISSED.
with a much less expensive catalyst (between 10 and 50 times cheaper) than what is currently used.
Note: the catalyst is 10 - 50 times cheaper, not biodisel fuel itself, while the breakthrough is meaningful, the headline is misleading. I'd be curious to know what percentage of the total cost of producing biodisel is related to the cost of this catalyst.
No Sigs!
Even though it is a good idea to reduce costs whenever possible, but from what I have seen, even when using lye (which is basic, not acidic), it is about 70 cents cheaper than regular fuel. Biodiesel = Used vegtable oil + lye + methanol + mixture motor, containers and filters.
Err, this seems backwards to me. Everytime I've seen bio available, it's been below standard diesel prices. Perhaps it's just a regional thing where I'm at, but I've been under the impression that the real problem with biodiesel was A) older fuel lines may be degraded more quickly by biodiesel, and B) producing enough to fuel the world's fuel needs was a big issue.
Of course, I'm no biodiesel guru, but it is of some interest to me -- I drive an older diesel (which I plan on converting to run on SVO, as soon as I get the facilities to make this feasible.)
Fill in your four or five-letter word of wisdom here _ _ _ _ _.
I was unable to tell from TFA, though I did not read it closely, whether this will make soy biodiesel as cheap or cheaper than standard diesel is now.
Not that it matters, I just bought a nice, fuel efficient gasoline powered car... It should be wearing out about the time the patent expires on this new process.
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
This reminds me of an article I read a few months ago about using corn to produce ethanol on a large scale as a renewable resource. Follow-up articles pointed out that corn (maize, specifically) isn't a particularly efficient crop, which meant that the environmental impact of drilling for oil and depleting oil reserves was just being shifted to depleting topsoil. Very much a "no free lunch" reaction.
If this biodiesel process can be applied to enough different types of plants, then it should be possible to pick and choose crops based on what does well in a given area -- after all, we don't have to worry about market pressures and what people want to eat, it's just going to be converted into fuel -- which should minimize the effects of choosing hihg-impact crops.
catalysts? acids? expensive? the definition of a catalyst is that they do not get transformed in an reaction but simply speed it up. In this case it rather sounds as if the acids are a simple consumed reactant.
The next problem will be a shortage of arable land due to land used to produce the vegetables that are then going to become diesel. This could solve one problem and lead straight into another
~HTP~ Hug that tux
Green fuel plan 'will destroy rainforests'
Forests paying the price for biofuels
Careful what you wish for.
If I were from one of those square-type states with lots of farms, I would be on this in a second. It would be the holy grail for farmers: a way to link national security with farm supports.
If the government could help farmers grow soybeans and in return reduce dependence on foreign oil, both left and right wingers would be happy. Imagine that! Good for security, good for American jobs, good for the environment, and even good for business (cars would need some retooling).
Where do I sign up? Oh, it's one of those "This technology will be really cool when it becomes available in 10-15 years" stories, huh?
What are you eating? isItVeg?.
Don't mod me into oblivion for pointing out a negative to biodiesel. I know about the benefits: http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_News/Green_Ma chines/Diesels_Clean_Green_Illegal.S196.A3569.html
"Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Miyamoto Musashi
I think that goes for OS's too
I don't understand what the big fuss about biodiesel is... almost all diesel vehicles can be cheaply and quickly converted to use straight vegetable oil as fuel. Granted, you have to start and end on diesel/biodiesel to warm up the vegetable oil. Used vegetable oil can be found for free at most restaurants and the process of filtering it to be used as fuel is relatively painless. Instead of converting masses of perfectly useable vegetable oil to another form, why not just use it as is?
Oh... yeah, that's right... if people pushed the use of straight vegetable oil then they probably couldn't justify selling biodiesel for $4-$6 a gallon.
sig.
I have an SVO Blazer. It's a real pain in the ass getting that grease out of dumpsters. I worry about the health factor. It seemed like I was getting sick more often when I was doing it. My wife made fun of me for a year. I fought a defective system and had lots of problems. Yeah I don't listen to naysayers and neither should you. I got 15k mi. doing it, then I ran out of time for that project. If I did it again I'd start a co-op. Biodiesel looks real nice now. Diesel engines are more efficient than gas and longer lasting. Given the amount of agriculture America is capable of, I find it hard to believe we can't supplement our diesel diet with veggies.
Autonomous Retard -- Is your camp safe? UnsafeCamp.com
This isnt about ethanol. This is about biodiesel.
Minimally modified vegetable oil.
PLEASE STICK your old propaganda shit (which you already had prepared, because it would have taken you longer to write that article than the story is online) and shove it up your ass.
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
Making soybean biodiesel cheaper won't solve the problem because the limited supply will only meet so much of the required energy needs. It might even cause more problems by creating economic pressure to convert food oils into fuels.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
Since this is an accomplishment not by American Industry and is contrary to the current powerbrokers of Dino-fuels it won't mean shit in America.
2005: law is passed giving a tax credit for bio-diesel mixes. But this eliminates all B-100 biodesiel because it's not a mix. Tax rebates are not made available to the consumer.
2006: law goes into effect which raises the bar on small diesel engine emissions (commercial vehicles excluded) making it impossible to sell a new diesel car in the United States because the fuel used in the Unites States is too dirty to pass the emissions test. It is not the engine, it is the fuel that fails the test. There are no American automotive manufacturers selling a diesel engine in the United States.
2007: law is supposed to go into effect to introduce low sulphur dino-diesel which should permit diesel sales to go into effect. I'm a little suspicious that this law isn't currently under assault. But we won't know for another year.
Go search the internet. The technology for production of bio-diesel and the studies identifying the environmental benefits have been in publication, on the internet of all places, since 1998. And what has been done about it?
How does this process, and biodesiel, compare to E85 in terms of production costs, energy density, and impact on food supply?
Given that the H2O powered fuel cell is the holygrail of power systems, wasn't there a push awhile back to use Ethanol and its easy to break hydrogen bonds as the "fuel" for the fuel cell?
It is better to be the hammer than the anvil.
In many places biodiesel has been more expensive than regular deisel, until the recent jump in oil prices. In addition, there have been a couple of recent subsidies that have brought the price of biodiesel down at the pump. It wasn't too long ago when biodiesel was 2x the price per gallon, and not everyone has caught up to the fact that this has changed. Regardless any decrease in cost is still a great thing.
For biodiesel created with conventional crops the bottleneck is like you said, that there isn't enough enough aritable land on the planet to create as much biodiesel as we currently use in gasoline and diesel. Algae based biodiesel solves this problem but is significantly more expensive to produce than convientional biodiesel last time I checked. Honestly though, I haven't heard about any new research in that field since the DOE Algae program was put to an end back on Clinton's watch.
In reality there is no one solution to the problem. The solution will be a combination of an increase in biofuels, more efficient cars, more public transportation that runs off the grid, and even then transportation will likely be more expensive than we have become occustomed to transportation.
I've heard that assuming you can get your hands on waste oils (such as used vegetable oils) then biodiesel is pretty cheap to manufacture. The problem is, we just don't have enough waste oil to make a dent in our reliance on foreign oil.
Well, I've singlehandedly come up with a solution to this problem. Legislation must be put in place that requires all foodstuffs consumed in the United States to be fried. Meats, breads, veggies - it all needs to be fried. Once all food is fried, there will be plenty of waste oil to go around.
Are you doing your part? Step away from the grill - it's the law.
Evidently you skipped class when they covered photosynthesis.
All that reduced carbon in the plant-oils COMES FROM CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE ATMOSPHERE.
Thus, biodiesel is sustainable.
The *real question* is, how much energy from fertilizer does it take to make this biodiesel? I'd understood that to be the big expense (along with the water,) and not the processing, but I could be mistaken.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
The acid catalyst they are talking about replacing is liquid Sulphuric Acid. Most homebrewers of biodiesel, like those using an "open source" Appleseed type reactor, are not using both an acid and base catalyst, only the base being Potassium Hydroxide or Sodium Hydroxide (along with Methanol or Ethanol).v e_eff.html= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1628102 6&query_hl=34 0/cid/2/research/green_chemistry__efficient_cataly st_for_making__biodiesel_.html>
With higher Free Fatty Acid feedstock, such as really used grease, the acid cataylst helps convert those FFAs. You can read a little more on the chemistry of
the news item here:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/11/inexpensi
Nature abstract:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd
Another abstract:
http://www.researchsea.com/html/article.php/aid/3
Seems this process is five times more reactive than other solid catalysts, but still 50% that of the liquid acid - however sepearation afterward would be much
easier.
Should we really be trusting the research of someone from a place called TIT?
read the bunni comic
We are, generally speaking, horribly bad at that sort of thing. Building up any sort of relatively big molecule is a matter of trial and error and error. And even when we do figure it out, it's usually less efficient than letting some plants or bacteria do it for us.
Sorry, don't see this as a solution for anything. Right now we have the tree huggers complaining about us using fossil fuels in our evil SUVs. At the same time other leftist groups complaining that farmers are growing grain to feed to cows so we can eat meat. If that food was used for direct human consumption it could help end world hunger, or something like that. With biodiesel the argument would be we are growing food to power our evil SUVs instead of feeding people. Some people would not like it.
Try creating crude oil from scratch and see how much energy it requires. Hint: renewable does not mean digging stuff out of the ground and burning it. The nice thing about these types of fuels isn't that it's not energy intensive to create, it's portability.
And that's why he said "on a $/watt basis."
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Speaking of "pharmacuticals"... I'll have what you're having.
Not sure about rapeseed, but soybeans require fairly heavy herbicide treatments to get good crops. And with Asian rust coming to the states, fungicide as well!
I think that corn is a less energy intensive crop to produce per bushel than soybeans. 1 acre on a good year (like this year!) will yield about 55 bushels of beans. That same acre on a good year (like this year!) will yield about 250 bushels of corn.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
Lye (sodium hydroxide) is made commercially through the electrolysis of brine, as a byproduct of chlorine production (the "chloralkali process"). The process consumes massive amounts of electricity (primarily produced by burning coal), and the chlorine compounds themselves include many nasty environmental pollutants.
Methanol is produced from methane, AKA natural gas.
So the 2 chemicals needed to produce biodiesel (and reduce fossil fuel use) both depend on fossil fuels for their production.
The biodiesel production process generates as a byproduct a substantial amount of glycerin contaminated with lye and unreacted sodium methoxide. What is to be done with this stuff, and how much energy is needed to dispose of it or purify it for commercial use?
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
The development of other fuels will not negate the usefullness or use of traditional petroleum. Nations that are oil rich will continue to use the fuel,especially if it is their primary natural resource, even if their export market diminishes. And especially then, with no imported cash from exported oil, they would be literally forced to directly use the oil themselves to the best of their ability. And it is quite possible that as the islamic world (if we want to limit the discussion to there) matures (most are under the age of 30 right now), they will want their own manufacturing and other islamo-centrist based business, rather than purchasing products from other areas. Necessity *and* desire at that point. You have to remember, petroleum is not only a transporation medium, it is also critical -today at least- for manufacturing.
With that said, I heartily welcome more R and D and deployment of biofuels. But older fuels are still used, I am using "stored solar"-wood-as my primary residential heating source, same as humans have been doing for millenia. We have a "domestic supply" and it is quite significant enough for our needs, hence no need to "export cash" to purchase someone elses developed energy product, nor do we need to "export the raw materials" for anyone else to use. That's a micro scale, macro between nations is just "larger".
Humans will use up the available petroleum, biofuels becoming massively more available or not. The use will only drop when it gets closer to a stasis point, when it takes one "barrel of energy" to produce an identical barrel of energy. Then it will stop.
Oil!
Hydrogen is a *vehicle* for energy. The energy has to come from *somewhere*...
Linux IT Consulting and Domino Development in Michigan
Where do I sign up? Oh, it's one of those "This technology will be really cool when it becomes available in 10-15 years" stories, huh?
Biodiesel is already a good business and has seen exponential growth in the US for the past 5 years (nearly doubling in output each year).
Why aren't you growing it? I don't know. But I'm fueling up with it.
In absolute terms, the volume is still but a dent in our energy supply. But then there is also that "square state" interest resulting in Minnesota mandating a 2% minimum blend of biodiesel in all diesel sold. In Germany, nearly 5% of all diesel-type fuel sold is biodiesel. As alternative energy goes, that's one heck of a gain especially when you consider the very favorable energy balance associated w/the bioidiesel lifecycle.
What does your link have to do with biodiesel? That whole article concerns running a different fuel, petroleum diesel.
OTOH if you had even Googled "biodiesel carcinogens" you would know that one of the benefits of BD is exhaust that is 90% less carcinogenic than exhaust from petro-diesel. One of the reasons its less toxic is because BD reduces particulates and unburned hydrocarbons.
The main downfall of BD at the tailpipe is NOX, and even then only a slight increase. It can be argued that reducing unbuned hydrocarbons, even with a 5% bump in NOX output, has a net positive effect as far as ozone and smog are concerned.
Problem is, even if we could produce all the BioD we wanted to for nothing, we will STILL rely on foreign oil. Here's why:
Perochemical products like plastics and lubricants still have not been figured out with alternative sources. Things like plastics (the keyboard you are typing on) can not be made without dino oil.
Where do the lube oil basestocks come from that we use in cars and trucks? Natural gas and dino oil. Even synthetic oils start out as some form of foriegn energy source.
What about the chemicals required to make the tires that all these diesels will drive on? Petro based.
High dino diesel prices are not due to foreign oil, its due to limited production due to modernazation (0 ppm sulfer mandated for 2006) and due to hurricanes. It used to cost 1/2 of unleaded. NOw it's street price rivals premium.
The sick sad truth is that the highest yield oil source for BioD is not cash crops like soy and canola, but ALGAE, read = POND SCUM! 98% water, almost 1% extractable oil, 1% other stuff. Easy to produce and extract. Thing is you need 100,000 acre ponds to make the stuff to make it economically viable.
The advances announced will make it safer and cheaper to produce BioD. I have seen picures of BioD processor accidents with methanol and it looks worse than a crystal meth lab gone kerblewy due to poor methanol handling.
This is not the holy grail, but one small step towards a better environment and easier production.
As far as benefits towards the US farmer: its meaningless. Do you know an individual farmer can not sell to anyone other than the domestic grain elevators? Not even to cross the border to Mexico or Canada. He has a product that he can only sell to a limited number of buyers. As a producer, he CAN NOT sell to foreign countries. Think about what each one of you 'makes,' codes, products and think about the export controls you face. They are insignificant compared to you can ONLY sell to ADM/Cargill/Mosanto/Frito Lay!
On th otherhand, cohnsider that Venezuala, or maybe Columbia just shipped over the first tanker full of BioD derived from Palm oil to Miami. That tanker got bought and the BioD went into the pipeline. No import controls whatsoever. BioD is a product like any other comodoty. The national Soy council was PI$$ED because the Bush administration did not listen to its recomendations to protect BioD years ago. Now we are cought with our pants around our ankles.
So, yeay, it sounds like it's a great advance, but we are not totally there yet.
To the most of you who are shaking fists or pom-poms, what do you drive?
Would YOU drive a diesel? How about a diesel-electric hybrid?
Of course a lot of older diesel engines can run perfectly well on straight veg oil - I've had best results from PSA engines (found in Peugeot, Renault, Volvo and Citroën, among others) that use Bosch fuel pumps - with drastically reduced emissions, quieter running and smoother performance. And no, it doesn't smell like fried food when it's running, unless the oil is incredibly dirty.
I'm already aware of the benefits of bio-fuels over petroleum diesel. I'm even aware of the CO2 benefits of bio-fueled diesel engines over gasoline engines. It would be difficult to read slashdot without being aware of the benefits, but that's not what I was commenting on. I was pointing out a negative that is seldom mentioned on slashdot; diesel engines, even when they run on biofuels, have more soot particles in their exhaust than gasoline engines. If you google "biodiesel particulate emissions" you will see that even biodiesel advocates admit this.
Those soot particles are the main reason why the EPA gives the 2006 Jetta diesel a horrible air pollution score even though it gets over 40 mpg. The difference in particulate (soot) emissions for diesel and gasoline engines is so great that it is very difficult - perhaps impossible - to get light duty diesel vehicles (i.e. cars) Tier II certified in California.
Right now, every gasoline burning car that is replaced by a biodiesel or SVO burning car causes us to have higher levels of soot in the air. From my original link:
That was the problem I was commenting on, and you responded with something totally off topic (a comparison of biodiesel and petroleum diesel.) Now, it is actually possible to clean up the exhaust on diesels quite a bit. That same article goes on to mention a way to solve the sooty particulate emmissions:
Unfortunately, the article does NOT explain the drawbacks of this process; the extra emmissions control equipment costs a LOT, and it reduces the power and fuel efficiency of the diesel engine. That's a problem, since fuel efficiency is one of the main reasons we are considering diesels in the first place, which is probably why most of these methods are still not used on new diesel vehicles. Besides using oxidizing-type particulate filters to get rid of soot can even increase the levels of carbon monoxide:
http://www.fleetguard.com/fl
"Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Miyamoto Musashi
I think that goes for OS's too