Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Attempt to Replace Crude Oil With Sugars
amigoro writes with a link to the Press Esc blog, discussing a possible replacement for crude oil in plastics, fuels, and other industrial uses. The post outlines findings to be published in an upcoming issue of the journal Science. Essentially, researchers at the Institute for Interfacial Catalysis are attempting to process the sugars in plant matter into an oil-like compound, a daunting challenge. "Glucose, in plant starch and cellulose, is nature's most abundant sugar. 'But getting a commercially viable yield of HMF from glucose has been very challenging,' Zhang said. 'In addition to low yield until now, we always generate many different byproducts,' including levulinic acid, making product purification expensive and uncompetitive with petroleum-based chemicals. Zhang, lead author and former post doc Haibo Zhao, and colleagues John Holladay and Heather Brown, all from PNNL, were able to coax HMF yields upward of 70 percent from glucose and nearly 90 percent from fructose while leaving only traces of acid impurities."
Does that much crude go into plastics? I figured that the majority of oil was going to fuels. Would it be better for these guys to work with the current projects that are turning sugars into fuel rather than plastics?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
...as inputs for ALL our industries!
If we could wrap our heads around the idea of conservation, I think we'd be a lot better off.
Unfortunately, since we've defined consumption as economic success, preaching conservation ends up sounding like austerity.
If we could wrap our heads around the idea of conservation, I think we'd be a lot better off.
Conservation is good, but doesn't solve the problem. If 4/5th of the world weren't needing to be brought up to our standards, and the population was static or decreasing, and oil wasn't going to run out, and our oil purchases weren't funding the guys who kill our troops, and we didn't have greenhouse effects to worry about, conservation would be all we need.
Conservation makes all those problems a little bit better. But we need to solve them completely. And until we can get them solved we should absolutely conserve as much as we can to decrease the time until implementation of a real solution.
Actually, I think the best plan is to save oil for very remote vehicle operation and plastics, such that we can cut our production down to the point where domestic sources are more than enough, so using sugar for plastics is probably the last thing that needs addressing.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Obviously we should be conserving energy.
Obviously we should be creating less CO2.
And obviously there isn't going to be one single solution to this mess.
It seems to me it's a lot better to be using and burning something renewable and localizable that actual absorbs CO2 before harvesting rather than something nonrenewable and poisonous that has to be shipped halfway around the world. This research could very well help. Just like conservation helps. Just like solar and wind and wave and other power sources will help.
Personally I'm sick of people ranting that some alternative source of energy (or plastic) or conservation or whatever isn't worthwhile because it's not going to solve every problem all by itself. Be serious! It's going to take work on a lot of different fronts to fix this mess. There will not be one magic solution.
Burning something that was grown to be burned is the very essence of "carbon-neutral", not the credit-buying al gore approach.
The plant takes in CO2 when it grows and gives it out when it's burned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioplastic
First sentence makes mention of using hemp plastics derived from the oil within the seeds. Hemp seems like a heartier plant than corn...it is a weed. If I recall correctly Henry Fords model T had a dashboard constructed using hemp plastics, but the Model T wikipedia entry makes no mention of it. Also hemp would reduce the demand on lumber for paper and can even be pressed into beams that do not rot as easily as traditional lumber.
But I think we all know this will not happen...as hemp is too easily produced and would therefore destroy the industrial community.
Hey smart boy, what do you think people's metabolisms do with the fuel? I'll tell you, they burn it (in a controlled fashion) and release (gasp) CO2!
The advantage of biofuel techniques is we are releasing CO2 that has been recently removed from the atmosphere versus large sums of it that has been stored away for millions of years (oil). That is a profound difference because its sustainable, rather than using up limited resources at an unsustainable rate and changing our environment.
Other than that, I agree with your general statement that biofuel is overrated and alternative fuels are underutilized and that we can do better.
Using dead people for oil production would just drive up the price of Soylent Green.