Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scientists Attempt to Replace Crude Oil With Sugars

Posted by Zonk on from the just-don't-do-that-in-a-recipe dept.

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."

8 of 179 comments (clear)

  1. A better idea by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What about the guys who wanted to convert dead people to fuel?

    --
    This guy's the limit!
  2. Comparison to existing products by grahamsz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    NatureWorks have been producing plastics from corn for quite a few years now.

    Their food containers look just like traditional ones and i've got a few pairs of Teko Ingeo socks that are really comfortable.

    It's certainly an interesting field

  3. suger based polymers... by sjs132 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Umm... Correct me please...

    Suger based polymers... This is a statement that I've been told is in the screws and plates used to hold my son's head together. (He had a major surgery and my daughter just had the same this past wednesday.) Anyways, when I hear "Suger based polymers", I assumed pastic from sugar. Isn't "polymer" a fancy way of saying plastic? The side benifit for my children are that the screws/plates are then reabsorbed by the skull as it grows/heals.

    So this Sugar/Plastic would A) reserve fuels and B) biodegrade better?

    Dibs on a name, I call it Slastar or Slastic... (c) 2007, me. :)

    --
    --- Relax, that mass muderer is just trying to reduce our carbon footprint, one fetus at a time...
    1. Re:suger based polymers... by sjs132 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Rude? Yes and no...

      Asking is not rude... I think the method to the question was. PC is not the answer (and I hate it.) but a little TACT goes a long way. But I'll answere anyway.

      Yes, My wife is the carrier of some type of defect. We've had some genetic tests done, and although the physical anomalies match a few syndromes, none match 100% and there has been NO genetic match that the've found. The closet thing is Saethre-Chotzen Syndrome, but again... No genetic match found yet, just physical characteristics.

      Some Links:

      http://www.faces-cranio.org/Disord/Saethre.htm
      or
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saethre-Chotzen_syndr ome

      My wife had it first, no other members of her family... and she has such minor characteristics, that it was never caught until after after our first child was born and we realized something was slightly different about our wonderful little boy. Being that there was a 50/50 our other children would be normal, we had one more. This time a girl. (Serenity, and named after the ship on firefly, look at previous slashdot post somewhere in the ethernet...) She also has the same S-C Syndrome, so at this point we've made a contious decisioun not to have any more children because of the emotional and physical stress on the children, ourselves, family, and the cruility of others, such as by uninformed pigs that ask questions so rudely and point, stare, and whisper.

      (Maybe some parents should make the same decisions instead of blindly procreating because of the 10 second act that may produce offspring of limited tact such as those of the original questioneer.)

      I'm open to people that ask, because EDUCATION is the key to fear. You cannot fear somthing you know and understand.

      Anyways, S-C characteritics include Craniosynostosis where the sutures of the skull grow closed too soon. Because the brain's first 3 years of growth is made to push the plates of the skull apart during growth, closed sutures = no growth = preasure on the still growing brain = damage to brain or death. So the operation opens the sutures up, move the plates forward to provide growth.

      And before you ask... My wife is an M.E , and both children are above their peers in development tracts. (early speaking, walking, intuitive, memory, etc..etc.. ) So I'll take my wife and children with their higher inteligence over any "normal" kids that spend most of their time plugged into TV.

      With that being said, feel free to visit the family site:

      www.shimatzki.com

      --
      --- Relax, that mass muderer is just trying to reduce our carbon footprint, one fetus at a time...
  4. Competitive with Petroleum by Mockylock · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Competitive or not, when fossil fuels are diminished, there will be no competition. So, any extra option would be helpful.

    --
    "Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
  5. Plastic ok... but fuel? by narced · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I can understand making plastic from sugar based polymers, because it may yield some new and interesting properties, as well as be able to break down over time. Imagine if all the plastic in landfills was able to breakdown in 20 years. That seems like a good thing.

    Using sugars to make fuel, however, just seems like perpetuating an already out of control problem. Internal combustion is a very inefficient way to convert matter into energy. And like previous posters stated, it still creates CO2. I am pretty sure sugar based fuel will never be a big thing, as corn oil based biodiesel is already here. As far as alternative fuels go, this is not exactly what I'm hoping to see the future bring.

  6. glycerine by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 2, Interesting

    the energy involved in converting dead people into fossil fuel likely outweighs the energy you'd get out of it.

    Maybe the energy wouldn't be worth it, but there is lots of glycerol in people which is an expensive ingredient because products containing real glycerol are hard to find. There is considerable market demand for it, and its shoddy alternatives have developed a very bad reputation. Stuff usually has propylene glycol instead which is cheaper but doesn't taste as good, or ethylene glycol which is cheaper still but causes kidney failure so they might as well put "glycerine" on the label and take your money while you're still alive. If you have a large supply of human beings dying with statistical regularity, you can saponify their bodies in sodium hydroxide over heat and become a major producer of cheap glycerol which can be used for stuff like glue, shampoo, lotions, shaving cream, soap, mouthwashes, toothpaste, cough syrups, and food products. Alternatively you can make it from biodiesel.

  7. This will dissappear.. by SilverBlade2k · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We all know that any and all technologies that can be used to reduce our consumption of oil eventually vanishes, or the people sell out to big oil. This will be no different.