Slashdot Mirror


Doubled Yield For Bio-Fuel From Waste

hankwang writes "Dutch chemical company DSM announced a new process for production of ethanol from agricultural waste. Most bio-fuel ethanol now is produced from food crops such as corn and sugar cane. Ethanol produced from cellulose would use waste products such as wood chips, citrus peel, and straw. The new process is claimed to increase the yield by a factor of two compared to existing processes, thanks to new enzymes and special yeast strains."

25 of 97 comments (clear)

  1. With that little side benifit... by richardkelleher · · Score: 2, Insightful

    of not actually decreasing the food supply and driving up the cost of staples such as grain and sugar.

    Nothing like solving the energy issues for the wealthy while letting the poor starve just a little faster.

    1. Re:With that little side benifit... by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Indeed, how can they morally justify taking away the wood chips, citrus peel, and straw puree from the poor?

      Oh wait.

    2. Re:With that little side benifit... by MBGMorden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      From GP:

      With the added benefit of not actually decreasing the food supply and driving up the cost of staples such as grain and sugar.

      Funny how a single word can completely change the meaning of a phrase huh?

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    3. Re:With that little side benifit... by AioKits · · Score: 3, Funny

      Indeed, how can they morally justify taking away the wood chips, citrus peel, and straw puree from the poor?

      Quite, it sounds like my exact diet in college after buying text books.

      --
      "Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted." -Groucho Marx
    4. Re:With that little side benifit... by richardkelleher · · Score: 2, Insightful

      From the list of things they were using to produce the fuel, I'm guessing the compost pile.

  2. Re:I for one by Yvan256 · · Score: 2, Funny

    You're also too late. They have been overthrown by the Monsanto corn-based overlords.

  3. Duke Nukem Forever by bzzfzz · · Score: 2, Interesting
    There have been research and "breakthroughs" in cellulosic ethanol production reported with stunning regularity since 1898. Yet, a commercially viable process remains elusive. The combination of enzymatic hydrolysis and fermentation described as a breakthrough in TFPR is prior art and covered in the Wikipedia article (see link in summary).

    Until the process becomes cost competitive with corn, this is just a story about some enzymes and yeast that only a zymurgy nerd could love.

    We'll see whether they commercialize this before cold fusion becomes a practical source of commercial electrical power.

    1. Re:Duke Nukem Forever by bzzfzz · · Score: 4, Informative

      Cellulosic isn't remotely cost effective even when the source materials are free or nearly so, as when wood chips or other waste products from other industries are used.

      I used to grow corn. The subsidies vary from year to year. For the last several years, they have amounted to around 5-10% of the price of corn. There are also subsidies for ethanol production itself.

      One fact to consider is that pulpwood has subsidies, as well.

    2. Re:Duke Nukem Forever by Americano · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yep, it's a press release, and we have to wait until we see some hard numbers to see whether or not this single development would make it "commercially viable".

      But you can't disregard the fact that - if the claim is true - doubling the output of the fermentation process makes it one step closer to "commercially viable" than it was before.

      They're not claiming that "fermentation & enzymatic hydrolysis are the breakthrough," what they're claiming is that a new combination of enzymes and refinement of the process have increased the yield significantly.

    3. Re:Duke Nukem Forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Cellulosic isn't remotely cost effective even when the source materials are free or nearly so, as when wood chips or other waste products from other industries are used.

      Or possibly less than free.
      I know a few people who do tree care for a living, and one of their larger expenses is paying someone to dispose of their wood chips.
      Several tons of wood chips a month.
      They would be thrilled if someone would take them for free. Or for less than the cost of tipping fees at the landfill (also solving another problem in the process...)

    4. Re:Duke Nukem Forever by Americano · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Man I wish I could have figured out that this is just another clever lie from the cellulosic ethanol cabal.

      How do you do it? It's like you're privy to data that's not available to normal people!

      Skepticism is perfectly healthy. Refusing to consider anything because "it's never worked before" just makes you look sort of dumb.

    5. Re:Duke Nukem Forever by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A few years ago I did a write up about a company in Missouri that was converting waste from a turkey plant into crude oil. I don't remember details, but it seems that operations like that, even if not strictly cost effective on oil production, could have a major role to play once you factor in the elimination of a large portion of what now goes to a land fill.

  4. Monsanto effect by RyanFenton · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There's a potential problem with the whole 'special yeast' part - yeast is airborne, and its main feature is that it rapidly reproduces as it eats. Historically, yeast strains were developed by leaving starched/sugared water out, then selectively culling the foam that grew on top until you had something that made bread rise and taste good.

    Basically, yeast is everywhere - and the problem with using a special yeast is the same problem that many biofuels using microflora have: Contamination of your carefully bred cell lines, and spread of your proprietary licensed lines into nature leading to lawsuits.

    I hope the Netherlands has better laws about owning and licensing life than Monsanto follows. Yeast would be FAR harder to legally control than even food crops, as enough use would mean you could accidentally gather their 'product' almost anywhere on earth just by leaving out some floured water, then rapidly selecting for best performance across quick generations.

    Ryan Fenton

    1. Re:Monsanto effect by Patch86 · · Score: 2, Informative

      As you quite rightly mention in your first paragraph, people have been creating "special" yeasts for years. There are already literally countless "special" yeasts manufactured for use in beverage making and industry.

      In other words- that's hardly new. Presumably that problem has long since already been encountered and solved.

    2. Re:Monsanto effect by MikeyO · · Score: 2, Informative

      An overwhelming majority of the beer and wine and spirits we drink are made from specialized yeasts. Its not terribly difficult to keep a specialized yeast strain from being contaminated by other yeasts. Ask any homebrewer (like me).

    3. Re:Monsanto effect by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It has been encountered and ignored. For brewers and bread makers (and the many other varied users of yeast), it is really not that important that the yeast not get into the wild because that's where they got it from. Basically the question is, is this "special" strain of yeast one that they isolated from the wild or is it one they created by injecting new DNA into an existing strain? If the former, it is no problem if it gets into the wild, it was already there. If the latter than there may be problems, but just as important, it will be harder to monetize it because others will be able to obtain it by setting up collection points near your plant and using similar selection processes to what people have been usign for years to isolate this strain.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  5. But are the enzymes cheap enough? by Animats · · Score: 2, Informative

    Enzymes for conversion of cellulose into something more useful as a fuel have been around for years. The problem is that the enzymes tend to cost too much. This outfit at least has a plan to grow the enzymes at the refinery, rather than shipping them in. The costs of these processes have dropped substantially in recent years.

    Fuels are very cheap per unit volume. Any input to the process has to be even cheaper.

  6. makes for a nice talking point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You just might want to do a little more in depth research to see where the huge price rises in corn, etc come from. Hint: not from farmers, nor from ethanol production. It comes from wall street speculators, people who produce *nothing*, parasites, who take and take and take as much as they can get through controlling the government.

    Assholes who live in NYC and Chicago make more money off of food products than the farmers make.

    Even then, we have had mountains of surplus corn sitting around, you can go buy all you want. The "poor" suffer because those speculators drive the prices up.

    If the anti ethanol people are so concerned over corn ethanol, they can put their wallets where their mouths are and actually buy shiploads of corn and distribute it..but they don't, they just run their mouths and never even do the most minimal research about that subject, or any number of other subjects where there is this far left urban centric legend about commodities.

    Farmers want to grow food, they don't want subsidy to not grow food, that was forced on them when the government-at the direction of wall street-forced the ending of buying surplus crops in bumper years to maintain prices and switched to credit card based financial "food" for welfare and aid.

    You want someone to blame for high food prices, blame those jerks, the sames ones and same mindset like with the oil spill, cut corners, skim off all you can, never think of the future or your global neighbors, just be a bloated tick and live off the labors of others.

    1. Re:makes for a nice talking point by richardkelleher · · Score: 4, Informative

      As we all learned in Econ 101, if you decrease availability you push the price up. This is not to say that the higher price goes to the farmer, unless you are a large corporate owned farm where the corporation owns the distribution chain.

      You will get no argument from me that the Options markets are parasitic, but they can only hold prices up for so long before the increased prices cause surplus goods and thus push prices down which cause options contracts to become very costly to the investors who manipulated the market. Having an alternate use for the food, like the production of ethanol, only helps the speculators hold the price higher. Since these same people are the ones who invest in things like ethanol plants, they can help themselves by building more ethanol capacity and getting government regulations in place to force more ethanol into the fuel supplies.

      Any way you look at it, family farmers and the poor (and yes most poor work and work hard) end up getting screwed again by large multi-national corporations and the politicians they buy.

  7. Re:Won't be too long... by show+me+altoids · · Score: 2, Informative

    You must mean a Mr. Fusion.

    --
    I feel sorry for people that don't drink, because when they get up in the morning, that's as good as they're gonna feel
  8. Re:Won't be too long... by geekoid · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's all fun and games until we reach peak banana peel.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  9. Markets are symbiotic, NOT parasitic by mangu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You just might want to do a little more in depth research to see where the huge price rises in corn, etc come from. Hint: not from farmers, nor from ethanol production. It comes from wall street speculators, people who produce *nothing*, parasites, who take and take and take as much as they can get through controlling the government.

    If this were true, farmers would have a very simple way to get rid of those parasites: sell directly to the consumers. AFAIK there are no militias that force farmers to deliver corn to the speculators at gun point.

    Here's a farmer that grows corn, there's an industry that consumes corn. Both meet, agree on a price, the corn is delivered. Simple, isn't it?

    However, both farmers and industries much prefer the system where intermediates guarantee prices and delivery. With a commodities market farmers know they will always have someone to sell their products to, industries know they will have someone to buy from. The futures market tell them what price they will get so they can plan ahead.

    If markets were as bad as you say, then North Korea and Cuba would be the richest nations in the world. Albania would still be Stalinist, China would have continued with Maoism and the Soviet Union would still be a union.

    1. Re:Markets are symbiotic, NOT parasitic by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      AFAIK there are no militias that force farmers to deliver corn to the speculators at gun point.

      But there's something much more effective that does force them: economic realities of farming. Their exposure is so great because of input costs and weather conditions and their profit margins so small that they don't really have a lot of choice in comes to selling their crops. Usually, they're just delivering on contracts and the end-user of their product is often not even known, unless they have a specific deal with a cereal company or corporate bakery. They have to play with various hedge investments to protect themselves from getting wiped out in the event of a sudden drop in prices, or bad weather or a surge in a particular input cost (fuel, for example). Independent farming (aka "family" farming) is one of the hardest ways to make money, and thank goodness there are still people willing to do it. Far from being in a position of power regarding their transactions with "speculators" farmers are pretty much at their mercy. As you correctly point out, those speculators are the futures markets that provide the farmers with some stability.

      Unfortunately, the futures markets long ago ceased being tied to anything like real world conditions and have become centers of outrageous levels of speculation. Just like the stock market has long ago stopped having anything to do with companies raising capital, commodities markets have long ago stopped having anything to do with bringing stability to the producers. The same sort of wacky derivatives that have brought such a high level of danger to economic systems are now also part of commodities markets, to the detriment of everyone but a small group of high-stakes gamblers. A lot of farmers are suddenly getting knocked about by market forces that don't make a lick of sense. It's hard enough for them as it is. We don't need to see more of them giving up on careers of such strategic importance to us all.

      I don't know about you, but I'm not yet willing to completely cede our food supply to the Duponts and ADMs of the world.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  10. Re:I for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yeah, here in the gulf, we're swimming in it!!!

  11. Farmer checking in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This may not be true of every farmer out there, but I'm not obliged to sell anything to anyone I don't want to. We're not all just hapless pawns of some faceless organisations resident in a Manhattan skyscraper.

    If a nice man comes to me at the beginning of the season and promises to buy however much (beet/potato/turnip/broccoli/whatever) I produce at a given price, and it's a price I like, we do business. It takes a lot of the uncertainty out of the whole business. I have insurance for crop failures (owing to various natural disasters) which takes more uncertainty out. Does it all cost me money? Sure it does. If I have a surplus over and above what a speculator will pay for, I can then sell it on the spot market, or compost it, or whatever makes the most sense.

    If I'm feeling lucky and I've had a few good years I can try to second-guess the market and fight it out on the spot market unaided, but the fact is that that is not easy to get right. Farmers basically invented the futures market to guarantee some kind of return, and the commodity markets revolve around that whole issue.

    So, here's a big, fat hint for you: if you don't like AmeriGloboLeechCorp crushing the hapless peasants under the heel of its italian leather pumps, find some other way to ease the wild uncertainties which dominate the farming industry. Oh, and until you find that other way? Get used to poor ignorant peasants like me doing business with people who will work with us. Call them speculators, call them what you will, they can wheel and deal the futures that they have bought (with real cash money) amongst each other until they get dizzy. I got the cash in my pocket, and I'm using it to plant whatever's on order this season.

    PS: I maybe sound more combative than I feel, and people obviously realise some of this, but I get very tired of people painting farmers as illiterate hicks. A modern farmer in the west is an entrepreneur (or the US, anyway) and the stupid and lazy ones go broke by the dozen. As with any small business, it's the smart ones that survive. We have inputs, capital and running expenses, markets and regulations by the score. A modern farmer has to have a sound working knowledge of everything from livestock first aid through to economic principles, to do well. As far as the purchasers? I really don't care who or what they are as long as the currency is genuine. I will charge what the market will bear, and if someone else takes the delivery and sales stuff off my hands for a cut of the action, so be it. I have plenty of work to do out here on the land.

    PPS: The single biggest cause, as far as I can tell, for the rise of agribusiness in farming concerns particulary is that this is about the best way of gathering the kind of big capital that really large scale farming demands. It's not my style, and I don't need it, but a lot of people who complain about factory farming (which is really a misnomer) would do well to, again, come up with some kind of alternative rather than just whining about where the economic realities of today have led.