Slashdot Mirror


Scottish Scientists Develop Whisky Biofuel

RabbitWho writes "It gives a whole new meaning to the phrase 'one for the road.' Whisky, the spirit that powers the Scottish economy, is being used to develop a new biofuel which could be available at petrol pumps in a few years. This biofuel can be produced from two main by-products of the whisky distilling process – 'pot ale,' the liquid from the copper stills, and 'draff,' the spent grains. Copious quantities of both waste products are produced by the £4bn whisky industry each year, and the scientists say there is real potential for the biofuel, to be available at local garage forecourts alongside traditional fuels. It can be used in conventional cars without adapting their engines. The team also said it could be used to fuel planes and as the basis for chemicals such as acetone, an important solvent."

172 comments

  1. ethanol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ethanol

    1. Re:ethanol by mweather · · Score: 2, Informative

      Butanol, actually.

    2. Re:ethanol by drunken-yeti · · Score: 0

      Alcohol was the original fuel used in Ford Motor cars. Standard Oil put allot of money into helping Prohibition happen which also banned ethanol go figure...

  2. Mmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    One for my car... one for me...
    Two for my car... two for me...

    1. Re:Mmmm by Dynedain · · Score: 2, Informative

      Should be:

      1 for my car,
      1 for me.
      2 for my car,
      1, 2, for me.
      3 for my car,
      1, 2, 3, for me...(hic)

      --
      I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
    2. Re:Mmmm by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Nonsense.

      What a horrible waste of scotch whiskey. :-/

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    3. Re:Mmmm by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      The term for this is "alcohol abuse".

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    4. Re:Mmmm by Pax681 · · Score: 1

      Nonsense.

      What a horrible waste of scotch whiskey. :-/

      only if it's a decent single malt... if it's grouse, teachers,black and white, johny walker, chivas regal of any other of those cooking whisky blends then fair enough

      NEVER mess wtih a finbe single malt... especially islay malts! all you need occassionally with an islay malt is a tiny spot of water if it's too peaty

    5. Re:Mmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&source=imghp&q=after+whiskey+driving+risky&tbs=isch:1,isz:l

    6. Re:Mmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm black and I saw this parallel. I believe there already is biofuel generated from spent frying oil.

    7. Re:Mmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scotch is distilled twice so it is a whisky.

  3. Misleading headline. by w0mprat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    IANMOFWF (I am not much of a whisky afficcionado) but I was worried for a minute there. The headline is misleading. They are turning byproducts of the whisky making process into biofuel and not the whisky itself, which would be a travesty indeed.

    --
    After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    1. Re:Misleading headline. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I agree, the headline is terribly misleading. The more important headline is... Since they would presumably need to produce ever more whiskey as demand for the fuel increase, these guys have finally found a use for Scottish people too.

    2. Re:Misleading headline. by Renraku · · Score: 1

      The lower and middle class people would fill up with whiskey-flavored spirits, while the rich would 'treat' their cars with cognac and Glen Livet.

      --
      Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    3. Re:Misleading headline. by Scarletdown · · Score: 5, Funny

      I was worried for a minute there. The headline is misleading. They are turning byproducts of the whisky making process into biofuel and not the whisky itself, which would be a travesty indeed.

      Aye, burning whiskey as fuel would be a serious case of alcohol abuse.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    4. Re:Misleading headline. by sexconker · · Score: 2, Funny

      IANMOFWF (I am not much of a whisky afficcionado) but I was worried for a minute there. The headline is misleading. They are turning byproducts of the whisky making process into biofuel and not the whisky itself, which would be a travesty indeed.

      You're also not much of a speller, anagram creator, etc.

      But basically what's going on here is that the Scottish have found yet another way to pinch their pennies.

    5. Re:Misleading headline. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It gets even better. Whiskey will become a byproduct of automobile fuel production. Supply will grow dramatically and you'll be able to afford as much of it as you could possibly want.

    6. Re:Misleading headline. by ZigiSamblak · · Score: 1

      Indeed, Oil would have to rise quite a bit in price before you would ever consider tanking up on single malt.

    7. Re:Misleading headline. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are turning byproducts of the whisky making process into biofuel and not the whisky itself

      I just wonder how an alcohol powered car would jive with ignition interlocks.

    8. Re:Misleading headline. by Moryath · · Score: 1

      Basically, we do this already.

      What did you *think* the difference between 87, 89, and 93-octane "ethanol enriched" gasoline was? They might as well replace the word "Ethanol" with "Jack Daniels" in American gas stations.

    9. Re:Misleading headline. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the cheap drunk bastards.

    10. Re:Misleading headline. by sortius_nod · · Score: 1

      I don't see how octane content is akin to a better drink.

      Some cars run really bad on low octane fuel. I know my Peugeot hates lower octane fuels.

    11. Re:Misleading headline. by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Use the ice level to tell if its bonded or blended.

    12. Re:Misleading headline. by oldhack · · Score: 5, Funny

      No kidding - the French complains about everything.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    13. Re:Misleading headline. by Local+ID10T · · Score: 1

      ICE?!?! In scotch? You pervert...

      (yeah, I do adulterate my scotch with ice on exceptionally warm days.)

      --
      "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
    14. Re:Misleading headline. by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      And fill the radiator with bottled water.

      The history of petrochemical plants is to move toward using waste products. Several commented that they could make a potable plonk. It is refreshing to see distillers moving similarly.

    15. Re:Misleading headline. by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      I did not consult a lawyer before committing the crime, Your Honor.

    16. Re:Misleading headline. by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Just think of it this way... with whiskoline, you'll always blow an over the limit level. :-/

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    17. Re:Misleading headline. by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      My old Integra would run on any crap I put in. I was of the same opinion as you for years. But then I replaced it with an '02 Xterra (with a supercharger, which I think was just tacked on because the '01 engine was really anemic - basically, you get a bit more power for a lot less economy and more expensive gas) and the one time my girlfriend put 87 in it (only 1/2 tank luckily) it sputtered and knocked all the way back to the gas station...

      It's a fact that engines can and are built to require higher octane gasoline. Octane is just a measure of resistance to auto-ignition (aka "knock") in an internal combustion engine. Many luxury cars that recommend 91+ octane just do it to inflate mileage numbers (since 91 octane gas usually but is not required to give *slightly* better mileage), but some engines just won't run well without it.

    18. Re:Misleading headline. by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Petrochemical plants can, in theory, produce absolute ethanol without a dehydration step. Not merely potable, but chemically pure!

    19. Re:Misleading headline. by Jon+Abbott · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yep. Also important to consider is that many cars have knock sensors and don't need higher octane fuel. Here's a good article that talks more about it.

    20. Re:Misleading headline. by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      Neh, that would mean there's finally something Jack D is good for.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    21. Re:Misleading headline. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cognac is a brandy, by the way. Distilled wine.

    22. Re:Misleading headline. by rapiddescent · · Score: 3, Informative

      I used to work at Glenturret Distillery and pretty much all of the by products were recycled or used in some way. Even the casks were ex-bourbon or ex-Sherry casks. The draff (remainder of the 'mash' process) was picked up by a local farmer twice a day and fed to his cattle (cue corny joke for the tourists about pissed cattle). Very rich in energy apparently.

      Distilleries in the past had had explosions from the from the spirit dense air in the still rooms - I can see why the pot ale (which is actually quite a lot of liquid that is left in the still) is useful for butanol. The spirit safe - a locked glass cupboard in the still room had a mechanical chute to "cut" the spirit run - from a wash still (the first distillation) only about 40% of the total volume was taken for the 2nd spirit still. The article didn't say whether the butanol was made from the wash still pot ale or the spirit still. This has quite significant volume ramifications. A wash still based product would have much larger potential volumes than a spirit still product. Often, a wash still is twice the size of a spirit still. On a slow day we used to make molotov cocktails from spirit and got up to all sorts of high jinks.

      Hopefully this will provide much needed jobs in rural Scotland.

    23. Re:Misleading headline. by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

      So does that mean that my whiskey will be cheaper, or will I get a warm feeling in my tummy every time I drink it.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    24. Re:Misleading headline. by sleigher · · Score: 1

      It is true that cars have knock sensors, but what they do is retard the timing in the engine. Retarding the timing removes power and thus the car is seen to be running worse. So they may not need higher octane fuel to operate, they do need it to run their best. Not all cars though.

      --
      All points of time and space are connected.
    25. Re:Misleading headline. by jbengt · · Score: 1

      Many luxury cars that recommend 91+ octane just do it to inflate mileage numbers (since 91 octane gas usually but is not required to give *slightly* better mileage)

      Adjusting gasoline formula to increase resistance to auto-ignition (increasing octane) generally results in less energy per gallon/liter and hence, poorer mileage. (though still better mileage than knocking would result in, where it makes the difference)

    26. Re:Misleading headline. by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I looked into this a bit more and the consensus (from a few different sources - the American Petroleum Instritute, the FTC, CarTalk, etc) seems to be that higher octane gas has negligible difference in total energy content (not more, and not less).

      However, higher octane gas generally allows engines to use a higher compression ratio, which allows them to extract more of that energy on combustion. It will result in more mechanical work with the same volume of fuel (resulting in more HP and better mileage) and less waste byproducts.

      However, this does NOT translate to better mileage per DOLLAR, since the additional cost is more than the efficiency gain.

    27. Re:Misleading headline. by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      You're Peugeot would probably run fine with some slight adjustments to the timing.

      Think how an engine works. Fuel air mixture is compressed and then ignited. The gas expands, pushing down on a piston, which pushes the dog leg of the crank. The mixture doesn't expand instantaneously. The mixture is fire off, and then a flame front propagates, taking a finite amount of time.

      If you set the mixture off to early, the mixture starts expanding to early. The piston is still trying to compress the mixture while it is heating up, which causes it to heat up even faster. The worst case is that all the mixture ignites at once (as in a diesel), and the heads blow off the engine from the resulting explosion.

      If you wait until the piston is at the apex of it's travel before igniting the mixture, the flame will just be propagating as the chamber volume is expanding. The flame will propagate slower, and not get as hot. The pressure will possibly still be building as the power stroke is finishing. A LOT of wasted power there.

      The octane of the fuel can be thought of as a measure of ignition reliability when tuning. The higher the octane, the more "clustered" the ignition events will be around a given pressure/temperature state. This allows the engineer to create an engine with closer tolerances, that can run at a higher compression ratio (a big determinant of fuel efficiency). With the lower octane, the engineer has to give more leeway, and allow for combustion events that won't start at exactly the right time.

      If I've drawn the picture correctly, you should be able to see that retarding the ignition (ie, not letting it fire off before the piston reaches the apex of its travel) will reduce the peak pressure in the cylinder and allow a fuel that isn't as constrained to run adequately. The engine won't have as much power, and won't run as efficiently, but it ?can? run smoother. (as always it is much more complicated than can be posted in a /. comment.)

      Here is something else that is completely counter-intuitive. 87 octane gasoline actually has a higher energy content than 93. It's the additives providing the higher octane that reduce the energy content.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    28. Re:Misleading headline. by Jon+Abbott · · Score: 1

      Definitely true. An engine can only retard timing so far. One must empirically find the octane that provides the highest efficiency per mile traveled while preventing the engine from knocking itself to death. Personally, I can run 85 octane fuel in my motorcycle that has a 10.8:1 compression ratio, and it runs great. As always, YMMV.

  4. How tiresome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is anyone else getting just a little shell shocked over all these wonderful new bio-fuel stories? This one's made of left overs from scotch distilleries. Hoorah. Just find a way to produce the dang stuff at a price that makes it competitive to good old gasoline and put it on the market. Quit haranguing us with all these wonderful expectations. Nothing's come up as cost effective, energy dense and ready to use in the current infrastructure yet. When it does, then we'll have news.

    1. Re:How tiresome. by SEE · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, butanol at least meets the energy density (pretty close to gasoline) and ready-to-use (can be used in most gasoline infrastructure as-is) criteria, which means it makes a hell of a lot more sense than ethanol. If, of course, they can make it cost-effective.

  5. Energy density by by+(1706743) · · Score: 3, Informative

    Butanol has almost the same energy density as gasoline, and burns with less air. Send me a few gallons, and after I rich out the mixture (no fancy computer-controlled mixture for me...), I'll report back!

    1. Re:Energy density by russotto · · Score: 1

      Don't forget to retard the shit out of the timing to handle the reduced octane.

    2. Re:Energy density by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...almost the same energy density as gasoline...

      Well, within ~10% from the source you cited...

    3. Re:Energy density by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Don't worry, enough alcohol and it will act retarded on its own

    4. Re:Energy density by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget to retard the shit out of the timing to handle the reduced octane.

      Actually Ethanol has a greater Octane rating than Standard Gasoline !

    5. Re:Energy density by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not? Fancy computer control systems are awesome.

    6. Re:Energy density by by+(1706743) · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually Ethanol has a greater Octane rating than Standard Gasoline !

      Sure, but we're talking about Butanol, not Ethanol. And while Butanol does have a reasonable RON octane rating, it has a less favorable MON octane rating.

    7. Re:Energy density by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      So maybe the solution is a certain mix of ethanol and butanol?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  6. Wait, wait, wait ... I've seen this before ... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Oh yeah, here it was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tight_Little_Island

    One of the guys poured a bottle of scotch into the tank of his truck, to escape the police that were looking for the, um "stolen" whisky that was removed from a banked ship.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:Wait, wait, wait ... I've seen this before ... by BitZtream · · Score: 0, Troll

      You do realize that Scotch isn't Whiskey ... RIGHT?

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    2. Re:Wait, wait, wait ... I've seen this before ... by cawpin · · Score: 2, Informative

      He didn't say "Whiskey" but "Whisky" which is correct.

    3. Re:Wait, wait, wait ... I've seen this before ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      scotch is as much a whiskey as a bourbon is a whiskey.

    4. Re:Wait, wait, wait ... I've seen this before ... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I'm curious why they renamed Whisky Galore! as Tight Little Island for the US, the original title is so good.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    5. Re:Wait, wait, wait ... I've seen this before ... by Creepy · · Score: 1

      According to Merriam-Webster, either whisky or whiskey is correct.

      and my favorite part:
      Etymology: Irish uisce beatha & Scottish Gaelic uisge beatha, literally, water of life

    6. Re:Wait, wait, wait ... I've seen this before ... by IRGlover · · Score: 1

      From the same wikipedia page "In the United States, both the novel and the film were called Tight Little Island, as a ban existed at the time on using the names of alcoholic drinks in titles." I also think the original title is much better and "Tight Little Island" sounds like a Disney film to me (probably part of their 'Disney Nights' series for the more discerning viewer)

    7. Re:Wait, wait, wait ... I've seen this before ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize you're a cocksucker, right?

  7. butanol isn't really anything new by RandomChars · · Score: 1

    people have been trying to make this stuff cheaply and efficiently for a while now -> http://parts.mit.edu/igem07/index.php/Alberta was one such attempt that I heard about

  8. Scotty, we... need... more... POWER by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Aye, ittle be just a weee bit Captain, I have to make sure the fuel is of an acceptable quality... *hic*

    --
    Wherever You Go, There You Are
  9. Blended or Single Malt? by filesiteguy · · Score: 1

    I can see the filling stations now.

    On one pump you have gas with 87 octane, one with 92 octane and then single-malt or blended whiskey...

    What about the Americans? Will we develop a fuel based on Budweiser or Tequila?

    1. Re:Blended or Single Malt? by TheDormouse · · Score: 1

      What about the Americans? Will we develop a fuel based on Budweiser or Tequila?

      Bourbon.

    2. Re:Blended or Single Malt? by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What about the Americans? Will we develop a fuel based on Budweiser or Tequila?

      Since this was about whiskey, how about using the byproducts of Bourbon, Tennessee, and other American whiskies, just as can be done with the byproducts of Scotch whiskey? American production dwarfs that of Scotland, tequila is gross, and no one educated about beer likes Budweiser.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    3. Re:Blended or Single Malt? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      What about the Americans? Will we develop a fuel based on Budweiser or Tequila?

      Nope, you've already contributed your fuel idea: French Fry Grease

    4. Re:Blended or Single Malt? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Will we develop a fuel based on Budweiser or Tequila?

      Alcohol content is too low.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    5. Re:Blended or Single Malt? by lewiscr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This can be done with the Budweiser by products too. The first step in making Whiskey is to make beer. Then you distill the beer, and age the grain alcohol to get whiskey. "pot ale" is the beer left over after distillation. "draff" is the spent grains, used to make the beer. So Budweiser has tons (many thousands) of draff, but no pot ale.

    6. Re:Blended or Single Malt? by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      Since this was about whiskey, how about using the byproducts of Bourbon, Tennessee, and other American whiskies, just as can be done with the byproducts of Scotch whiskey?

      I believe that, in America, we feed distillers grain (the leftovers from the distilling process) to cattle.
      http://www.google.com/search?q=distillers+grain+cattle+feed

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    7. Re:Blended or Single Malt? by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      It would be brilliant for brewers to have outlet stores that sold both their product and fuel right at the brewery. Or power the distribution vehicles off the by-products.

    8. Re:Blended or Single Malt? by filesiteguy · · Score: 1

      Well, according to my wife, I'm much more efficient at creating methane-based fuel.

      I've researched the heck out of a grease-powered (frybrid/lovecraft) mercedes or even truck.

      ATM, I'm spending less on simple gas.

      I have filled up twice on ethanol, but I have to drive ten miles to the only E85 station near Los Angeles and I get crappy mileage for the effort.

    9. Re:Blended or Single Malt? by NekSnappa · · Score: 1

      But a certain amount of the mash is reused in bourbon, and Tennessee whiskey. Hence the term "sour mash". The point being to help ensure consistency of taste.

      --
      I want to shoot the messenger!
    10. Re:Blended or Single Malt? by LeperPuppet · · Score: 1

      It would be brilliant for brewers to have outlet stores that sold both their product and fuel right at the brewery. Or power the distribution vehicles off the by-products.

      Yes, MADD would absolutely love that.

    11. Re:Blended or Single Malt? by d3ac0n · · Score: 1

      Frankly, Ethanol blended fuels wreck your efficiency anyway. I don't know what the overall ratio of % ethanol to % efficiency loss is, but I've heard that it's bad. Not to mention the acidity in Ethanol will pretty much ruin your average gas engine if you use enough of it often enough.

      There is a chain of stations around my area that advertise 100% gasoline, no Ethanol. I did a little test, driving my car almost all the way down to 0 and filling up with regular 87 octane 10% Ethanol and drove my normal amount. Then I did the same thing again with the 100% gasoline, and checked my results.

      I got an extra day of normal driving out of the regular gasoline. That's about an extra 50 miles for my regular commute + evening errands. The cost difference? 1 cent per gallon more for the normal gasoline. As my tank + filltube holds almost exactly 18 gallons, that's 18 cents more to drive that extra day. I'd say it's worth it.

      100% gasoline for me any day. I'll keep the Scotch in my glass, thank you very much.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    12. Re:Blended or Single Malt? by pspahn · · Score: 1

      tequila is gross

      One of those? Do yourself a favor a find a good bottle. As with most hard booze, the bad stuff is bad and the good stuff is good. Tequila gets a bad rap, mainly because of Jose Cuervo, which is not even tequila but "mixtos" which is part tequila, part cheap sugars mixed in, hence the horrendous hangovers.

      Even cooler is mezcal, which is made from another variety of Agave (agave americana vs. agave tequilana). Agave americana, known commonly as Century Plant, is hands down the stoutest plant you will ever see. Take a trip to Alcatraz and check out the natural security barrier made with A. americana, it is a truly impressive use of plants to defend an island. The Western Garden Book (though often containing erroneous info) describes A. americana:

      Be sure you really want one before planting, as they are formidable to remove.

      Not a lie. I feel into one once. My neck appeared as if I was attacked by a mountain lion.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    13. Re:Blended or Single Malt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good. Burning Budweiser seems like the humane thing to do.

    14. Re:Blended or Single Malt? by filesiteguy · · Score: 1

      What does Budweiser have to do with beer?

    15. Re:Blended or Single Malt? by filesiteguy · · Score: 1

      The ethanol does wreck efficiency. It is - IIRC - about 60% as efficient as gasoline.

      Keep in mind that we already have a 15% ethanol blend here in California.

      IMO, if I could get ethanol that reduces our dependence on totalitarian regimes like Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and others, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

      My best option would be to switch to diesel and utilise either veggie oil blends or some form of bio diesel from soy or other plant materials.

      Unfortunately, diesel is a hard sell here in California.

    16. Re:Blended or Single Malt? by plj · · Score: 1

      As a sidenote, Scottish whisky production, at least single malt, is actually nowadays somewhat dependent of bourbon production. This is because maturing bourbon requires new casks and single malts require used casks.

      I took a tour of Talisker distillery in July, and our guide explained us that as sherry is no longer as popular product as it used to be, they nowadays use mostly bourbon casks to mature their whisky, and the regular stuff that has been matured ten years is entirely matured in bourbon casks. (Their double matured variety gets a second round in sherry casks.)

      Personally I prefer stuff that's matured entirely in sherry casks; it usually has smoother and sweeter finish. Something like this Bowmore. Not that “normal” bourbon cask matured malts are bad, either.

      --
      “Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
    17. Re:Blended or Single Malt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the Scottish want to keep their Angus beef as tasty as it is nowadays (and it IS!) they better still reserve some of that draff for their cows.

      Maybe they should start thinking to make bio fuel of the by products of cows ;)

    18. Re:Blended or Single Malt? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Because in your world, people only walk, bike, skateboard, or kayak to the liquor store?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    19. Re:Blended or Single Malt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually like Budweiser

    20. Re:Blended or Single Malt? by BeardedChimp · · Score: 1

      American production dwarfs that of Scotland

      I'd like a reference for that. Whisky is a huge industry for Scotland with extremely large quantitys being exported. The only figure I could quickly find was that Scottish production topped 1 billion bottles in 2001. I would image it would be hard to dwarf that.

    21. Re:Blended or Single Malt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like Budweiser but it's the Czech one, not the AB one.

  10. Straw please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can I get a straw installed to the tank please?

  11. No better time to start by Gohtar · · Score: 1

    I had better pick up drinking to save our mother earth.

  12. Meh. by SEE · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Making acetone and butanol with the Weizmann organism is downright ordinary. People stopped doing in the the 1940s mostly because hydrocarbon cracking was cheaper than ABE fermentation. The feedstock isn't particularly unusual. Wonder what they're specifically trying to patent.

    1. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wonder what they're specifically trying to patent.

      Thank god it's Scotland

    2. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they were looking to patent some innovation, they could patent controlling it by computer instead of by hand!

      (I kid, I kid)

    3. Re:Meh. by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Funny

      Heh....I can think of four or five patents for that no problem. Here's a sample:

      Making acetone and butanol with the Weizmann organism.......on a computer.
      Making acetone and butanol with the Weizmann organism.......on the internet.
      Making acetone and butanol with the Weizmann organism.......on the cloud.
      Making acetone and butanol with the Weizmann organism.......using XML for that extra sharp angled taste.
      Making acetone and butanol with the Weizmann organism.......using a protocol.

      If you don't think those will work then you don't know the patent system.

      --
      Qxe4
  13. byproduct by DaveGod · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Scottish Scientists Develop Whisky byproduct Biofuel, is what the headline should read. The current one announces a ridiculous insanity involving using one even more scarce resource when the actual significance is that they've created a use out of a waste product. This is better than something from nothing, since the waste product was itself a problem (though I understand some distilleries were already converting it into fuel to power the plant).

    p.s. I never understood the draw to whisky when I'd tried and found "meh" even the supposed coveted bottles that are semi-widely available until I was signed into the Whisky Society in Edinburgh one night. Sure selling whisky by number without identifying the source is probably another marketing tactic but this was one of those rare "wow" moments where all the hype and marketing hyperbole actually seemed understated. Water of life indeed.

    1. Re:byproduct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love the Edinburgh Whisky Society. The difference in the whisky alone is worth it, but the surroundings are stunning, especially the one down in Leith. A proper "gentleman's club" (i.e. old fashioned, not sexist), but one in which you can comfortably turn up in a hoody and jeans.

    2. Re:byproduct by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      This is better than something from nothing, since the waste product was itself a problem

      The pot ale may be a problem but spent distiller's grains are excellent livestock feed.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    3. Re:byproduct by bhenson · · Score: 1

      They have been using Moonshine in the south for fuel for a very long time.

    4. Re:byproduct by Inda · · Score: 1

      Whisky is the poor mans brandy. It's no wonder they have to dilute it with cheap mixers. Brandy, served neat at blood temperature, is a mans drink; it has class.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    5. Re:byproduct by Pop69 · · Score: 1

      Ahh, a fellow denizen of the Scotch Malt Whisky Society !

      The numbered bottles is indeed a marketing thing, the distilleries they come from do not want them being marketed under their brand name so the Society number them to keep them semi-anonymous

  14. Drink more whiskey! by P0ltergeist333 · · Score: 1

    Support the environment. Drink more whiskey!

    --
    One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
    1. Re:Drink more whiskey! by Alanonfire · · Score: 1

      Support the environment. Drink more whiskey!

      This is going to be on a tshirt.

  15. So... by Some.Net(Guy) · · Score: 1

    ...getting drunk and saving the world could become synonymous?

  16. Unfortunately... by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    There are a lot more cars consuming more fuel than the whisky industry will be able to service.

    i.e. this is an irrelevant but amusing story.

    btw. Try this one:
    http://www.oldpulteney.com/whisky.php

    They don't half talk a load of bollocks on their web page, but their 12 year old is better than many distilleries 18year malts. It won't rip your throat out or make you want to boak. It will however give you a blinding headache the following day if you drink one too many, but they all do that.
     

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:Unfortunately... by timeOday · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are a lot more cars consuming more fuel than the whisky industry will be able to service.

      Even a couple percentage delta in demand for fuel might impact the price dramatically due to inelastic demand: "That is, a 10% hike in the price of gasoline lowers quantity demanded by 2.6%. In the long-run (defined as longer than 1 year), the price elasticity of demand is -0.58; a 10% hike in gasoline causes quantity demanded to decline by 5.8% in the long run." I suppose whether the reverse is true - a 5.8% decrease in demand is necessary to decrease prices by 10% in the long run - depends on how efficient you believe the market for gasoline to be. But there's no good reason to believe decreasing demand by 1% would equal only 1% reduction in price.

    2. Re:Unfortunately... by Colin+Smith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Even assuming it's cheaper than oil, unfortunately Jevons Paradox pretty much ensures that any reduction in cost will simply result in an increase in usage. It is predicated on efficiency gains, but is effectively cost reduction.
       

      --
      Deleted
    3. Re:Unfortunately... by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Whether you take the benefit as a decrease in cost or an increase in mobility doesn't really matter in this case. This waste is currently being dumped into the environment anyways, so the net environmental impact of using it as fuel instead should be very small.

    4. Re:Unfortunately... by RabbitWho · · Score: 1

      Did you read the article? They explain how the cars won't need special engines and how this could reduce the fuel requirements of the nation by 10% And it uses a by-product that would otherwise go to waste.

  17. Hey hey! by MaufTarkie · · Score: 1

    Great news! I'll drink to that!

    --
    Without you I'm one step closer to happiness without violence.
  18. Scottish ingenuity by WinstonWolfIT · · Score: 1

    Better than vegemite from beer castoffs in Oz.

    1. Re:Scottish ingenuity by adamofgreyskull · · Score: 1

      Better than vegemite from beer castoffs in Oz.

      Better how?! To run a car on? Yes. To consume? No. Vegemite and Marmite are yet two more good reasons, as if reason were needed, to brew beer.

    2. Re:Scottish ingenuity by WinstonWolfIT · · Score: 1

      Obviously a pom. Fuck off.

  19. Fuel grades by Caerdwyn · · Score: 1

    "Regular or premium?"

    "Cask strength!"

    And, of course, if you're running a turbo with about 20 pounds of boost... Talisker 10. If that don't kick your car in the teeth, nothing will.

    Mind you, none of this is really all that new to the automotive industry. I mean, Irish whiskey has been good only for washing engine parts for years now... and this is the part where I go run and hide from offended Bushmill's partisans

    --
    Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
    1. Re:Fuel grades by Wizard+Drongo · · Score: 1

      You'd risk precision-engineered engine parts by putting them in Bushmills?

      --
      The truth shall always be free: Boris Floricic is Tron.
  20. ethanol sucks by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

    They say you can use it in conventional cars without a problem. It's a lie. If the fuel system was designed for it and you don't let it sit in the tank for more than a few months, then it's won't hurt anything. But it still doesn't perform as well.

    This crap is causing more damage than it's worth in everything from lawnmowers to racecars.

    1. Re:ethanol sucks by OrangeCatholic · · Score: 1

      >ethanol sucks

      I suspect it does, but since I'm not allowed to buy anything else (pure), how can I tell?

    2. Re:ethanol sucks by Amouth · · Score: 1

      this isn't ethanol it's Butanol

      different substance - different properties...

      but i agree Ethanol is shit - and i make a point not to buy gas from places that have it.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    3. Re:ethanol sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In turbocharged engines (where you can run more boost) or ones retrofitted with high-compression heads/pistons, it actually performs on par with gasoline in miles/gallon (less energy density, but more efficient due to higher compression -- just about balances), and the reduced air requirements coupled with more compression/boost mean serious increases in power from the same block.

      Yeah, it's not the drop-in substitute for gasoline some people like to think it is, but it's damned good in a vehicle properly set up for it.

      Then again, since tfa's about butanol, not ethanol, I guess you were trolling rather than looking for a meaningful discussion in the first place.

    4. Re:ethanol sucks by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Good thing it's not ethanol.

    5. Re:ethanol sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >ethanol sucks

      I suspect it does, but since I'm not allowed to buy anything else (pure), how can I tell?

      I suspect that the fact you aren't allowed to buy anything else is often a good indicator that what you are allowed to buy sucks.

    6. Re:ethanol sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Ethanol is pretty bitchin.
      Great resistance to predetonation/knock, plus it's oxygenated, which produces more power (which is traded off in consumption, unfortunately).
      This makes it a great fuel for heavily modified cars, without running environment poisoning leaded race fuels.
      High compression and forced induction are no problem, provided your fuel system can supply the fuel.

      For your typical flex-fuel cars, you'll lose power and MPG, so the trade off is purely cost (E85 needs to be 30%+ cheaper than standard gas to start saving anything though), and I wouldn't recommend it.
      For modified cars and cars built to run E, however, I think it's a great solution.

  21. Ah, the King's English by Shag · · Score: 1

    I've been to Scotland numerous times, and have never heard of a "garage forecourt" but can only presume it's a petrol station. I'm curious about the performance of this proposed biofuel, and whether vehicles would achieve the same efficiency as on petrol. How many furlongs to the mutchkin are we talking about here?

    --
    Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
    1. Re:Ah, the King's English by NekSnappa · · Score: 1

      There are a couple of teams using it in the American Le Mans racing series in the US. One of them even won the last round a week or so back.

      --
      I want to shoot the messenger!
    2. Re:Ah, the King's English by SEE · · Score: 1

      Butanol is pretty near gasoline in energy density, doesn't have the hydrophilic tendencies or corrosion levels of ethanol (so it can be used in existing gasoline infrastructure, like tanks and pipelines), and 100% pure butanol has successfully been used in cars designed only to burn gasoline. Of pretty much all the alternative fuels that have been proposed, it's the one that could replace gasoline with the absolute least difficulty and infrastructure adjustment.

      On the other hand, nobody's managed to get the fermentation process cheap enough to be competitive with gasoline. Pretty much all commercially-available butanol is made synthetically from natural gas feedstock, because that's cheaper.

    3. Re:Ah, the King's English by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, the "cheap" fossil sources... you'd think that'd change over time, no?

    4. Re:Ah, the King's English by teh+kurisu · · Score: 1

      The term 'garage' is still used as an alternative to 'petrol station' in Scotland. I guess it's a remnant of the time when you could get basic car maintenance done at a petrol station.

      (That's pronounced 'GAR-age', as opposed to the French pronunciation that Americans use.)

  22. A toast by Dave+Emami · · Score: 1

    "Whiskey for the gentlemen that like it, and for the gentlemen that don't like it... whiskey! "
    -- Colonel Jock Sinclair (Sir Alec Guinness), Tunes of Glory

    --

    "The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
  23. Cheaper than Brazilian Ethanol? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Brazil has the answer, with sugar cane ethanol. And, if that isn't enough, try some unaged cachaca distilled at 50%+ alcohol. Woooooot!

  24. The "Pizza-baking truck" phenomenon? by brasselv · · Score: 2, Informative

    Am I the only one noticing a pattern here.

            1. Reputable scientists publish research "X".
                    --> e.g.: "On some possible applications of AI-blabla to improve car safety"
            2. Same scientists explain X to mainstream journalists, and in the process they simplify the message (sometimes in good faith, sometimes to get PRs).
                    --> e.g: "Cars will become more intelligent in the next 5 years"
            3. Mainstream journalists write articles where X is further stretched.
                    --> e.g: "May be cars will drive themselves in the next 5 years"
            4. Headline of such articles go a further mile in stretching X.
                    --> e.g.: "Are drivers obsolete?"
            5. by the time X morphs on /. it has totally become Y.
                    --> e.g. "Scientists claim that uber-intelligent robotic cars have made drivers redundant. And my home-assembled truck overlord is also baking pizzas. It runs Linux."

    --
    "Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong." (Oscar Wilde)
    1. Re:The "Pizza-baking truck" phenomenon? by sayfawa · · Score: 1

      It's a well studied cycle.

      --
      Free the Quark 3 from asymptotic confinement! Bring your charm! Don't get down! All colours and flavours welcome!
    2. Re:The "Pizza-baking truck" phenomenon? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      my home-assembled truck overlord is also baking pizzas. It runs Linux.

      Imagine a Beowulf Cluster of those things.
      In Soviet Russia, pizza delivers you to the overlord!

  25. Homer the Wise by jimmydigital · · Score: 1

    Here's to alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems.

    -HJS

    --
    Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. -HLM
  26. Progress? by NemoinSpace · · Score: 1
    So they're going to take "waste products" (which they already have plenty of uses for) and substitute a more expensive fuel to replace gasoline. Which also happens to provide 10% less energy - (which means you'll have to burn that much more of it) While increasing the amount of emission by products.

    Yeah, I bet they'll have plenty of patents on it.

  27. Re:Scotty, we... need... more... POWER by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    I had a coworker who one time actually did try the fuel-grade ethanol. Strong stuff. Unfortunately for him, they need to put benzene in fuel grade ethanol, and he got very sick. Turned green. Didn't move for a few days.

    --
    Qxe4
  28. Butanol ... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Butanol, actually.

    I hear butanol has a vapor pressure, ignition point, flame propagation rate, and energy content that let it be dropped in essentially straight as a substitute for gasoline, without retuning modern engines.

    Does anybody have better info than this rumor?

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Butanol ... by Whalou · · Score: 2
      From the article:

      It can be used in conventional cars without adapting their engines.

      --
      English is not this .sig mother tongue...
  29. Of Course They Would! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What else would they make? Tequila fuel? (Saki fuel?) Duh!

  30. Does it work with bourbon byproducts? by Posting=!Working · · Score: 1

    Speaking for the people of Kentucky, I'd like to say:
    Please, please, please work with bourbon.
    There's about a dozen distilleries within 50 miles of where I live. I'd love to use locally produced fuel.

    Plus, drinking bourbon would be considered an environmentally friendly act.

    --
    This sentence no verb.
    1. Re:Does it work with bourbon byproducts? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      There's about a dozen distilleries within 50 miles of where I live. I'd love to use locally produced fuel.

      If it works, they're not going to give it to you for free. Although, I can see running their own fleet off it and saving a bunch of cash on trucking expenses.

      Of course, if your tailpipe smelled like bourbon, I can see a lot of people in Kentucky asphyxiating as an unfortunate side effect of this. :-P

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Does it work with bourbon byproducts? by box4831 · · Score: 1

      I can see a lot of people in Kentucky asphyxiating as an unfortunate side effect of this

      unfortunate?

      --
      Miller Lite tastes like water that's somehow managed to rot.
    3. Re:Does it work with bourbon byproducts? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      unfortunate?

      *laugh* Now now, play nicely. :-P

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:Does it work with bourbon byproducts? by Posting=!Working · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't expect free, but locally produced fuel with several competitors has a much better chance of being cheap than the current system.

      --
      This sentence no verb.
  31. Powers the economy, eh? by moosesocks · · Score: 2, Informative

    "It gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "one for the road". Whisky, the spirit that powers the Scottish economy, is being used to develop a new biofuel which could be available at petrol pumps in a few years.

    Whisky accounts for approximately £2bn of Scotland's £86.3bn GDP.

    Nice try though. Check your references before making absurd generalizations like this one. (I'll bet you also didn't know that there are also large swaths of the country that neither produce nor consume Whisky in meaningful quantities. )

    --
    -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    1. Re:Powers the economy, eh? by SEE · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes, but though large, they aren't significant swaths. They're full of No True Scotsmen.

    2. Re:Powers the economy, eh? by pspahn · · Score: 1

      Thanks. That number seemed a bit suspect. Though, I suppose it could have been worded a little differently so that it was clear it is the spirit that powers the economy, versus the other spirits produced in Scotland.

      Don't Scots also have logs and sheep? Once a year near Santa Cruz people dress up in kilts and throw huge-ass logs for fun. I also recall a joke about a sheep and a cliff.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    3. Re:Powers the economy, eh? by splutty · · Score: 1

      I think you're misunderstanding the statement being made.

      They weren't talking about a monetary value of the whiskey production vs the GDP.

      They were talking about it fueling the economy. Consider the fact whiskey fuels the average Scots(wo)man, who in turn fuel the economy, and you'll see where the statement comes from!

      Similar to Guiness fueling the Irish economy.

      --
      Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.
    4. Re:Powers the economy, eh? by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Of course we understood that: Any idiot knows that wool accounts for the other £84.3bn.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  32. Floyd Landis was right!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It WAS whiskey that powered his breakaway on the TdF, not PEDs! In your face, WADA!

  33. 30% more power out than ethanol ... w/ethanol? by lpq · · Score: 1

    I don't think AC bothered to click through to the article at all.

    Photo by-line says 30% more power than ethanol -- so if they are doing that with ethanol, doesn't that imply (through recursion) a new source of infinite energy?

    Cool!

  34. Uncle Jesse by sharkey · · Score: 1

    Wasn't this a Dukes episode?

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  35. Temperature dependant? by ksandom · · Score: 1

    I'll be interested to see how well cars running this mix perform in the cold. Many years ago I was in Brazil where they have Alcohol powered cars, and during winter there it was a problem getting these cars to start. To put that in perspective a cold winters day in Brazil is a like a warm summers day in New Zealand. This was many years ago and may well be solved by now.

    --
    Funnyhacks - Wierd, unusual, and fun hacks
  36. Like for like by ksandom · · Score: 1
    I'm very pleased this was in there:

    "What people need to do is stop thinking 'either or'; people need to stop thinking like for like substitution for oil. That's not going to happen. Different things will be needed in different countries. Electric cars will play some role in the market, taking cars off the road could be one of the most important things we ever do."

    --
    Funnyhacks - Wierd, unusual, and fun hacks
  37. I need no excuse to listen to Heifetz perform, but by ChristianMc · · Score: 0

    For this most special occasion, I shall indulge myself to listen to Scottish Fantasy by Max Bruch, for that's what this seems to be.

  38. Reason to drink single malt scotch by woboyle · · Score: 1

    I think I need to tell my sister that we should drink more scotch and less tequila... :-) Time to head down to the liquor store and pick up a bottle I think. Of course, Irish whiskey should work just as well from the biofuel perspective. So, I guess that bottle of Jameson's I got tonight will serve as well?

    --
    Sometimes, real fast is almost as good as real-time.
  39. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  40. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  41. Byproducts - draff by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It was implied by the article that the spent grain, draff as it is called, is going to waste. I would really hope that is a mistake in the article.

    Spent grain is very nutritious for livestock and unsurprisingly they love it, especially pigs. It's only the alcohol the distillers are interested in, but the farmers and their pigs are interested in the extra nutrients converted by the yeast that remain in the draff. There are also many old, traditional recipes for making bread from spent grain. I know a few that actually brew small beer just to have a supply of spent grain for these recipes.

    These "byproducts" are very valuable economically even they might not have a high direct resale value. It's not too unlike metal shops and the filings swept up at the end of the day. I read about a fellow that had arranged to sweep shop floors at the end of each shift for free. After a few years, he had a small team of employees and was covering many shops in the region and turning a good profit. That was before the metal shortage. Once converted to meat or bread they have high value.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
    1. Re:Byproducts - draff by carrier+lost · · Score: 1


      That was before the metal shortage. Once converted to meat or bread they have high value.

      That's a delightfully confusing pair of sentences.

  42. I am more interested in the inverse process. by Alien1024 · · Score: 1

    Let me know when I can turn fuel from the gas station into Laphroaig.

  43. Re:Scotty, we... need... more... POWER by Aeternitas827 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Turned green. Didn't move for a few days.

    Did he have a strong desire for brains afterward?

    --
    I don't post AC. I like my -1, Flamebaits. Trump/Sheen 2012 on the Batshit Insane ticket!
  44. Selling Scotch by prefec2 · · Score: 1

    Instead in using Scotch as fuel, they should use Scotch for drinking. Drunk people shouldn't drive which automatically results in more walking for the drunk (exercise is good and healthy) and less traffic (good for nature, less noise of the public, and fewer accidents).

    More cheap Scotch for everyone. You could use Bourbon as fuel it is much better suited for fuel than for drinking. ;-)

    1. Re:Selling Scotch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is the genius behind this...

      The fuel is made from whisky byproducts, so each distillery provides 2 things which work together:

      1) Whisky for us (yay!)
      2) Fuel for the taxi/ambulance to take us home/hospital (delete depending on how much of (1) was consumed)

  45. Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why use it as fuel for cars when you can just as easily start burning it the make more whiskey!

    That saves you from dragging stuff around as well...

  46. Re:Scotty, we... need... more... POWER by Erikderzweite · · Score: 1

    He was in dire need of brains indeed. Before he drank the stuff. Otherwise he'd thought better of it.

  47. Wasted byproducts? by hoover · · Score: 1

    I thought most of those byproducts weren't wasted, but used to feed cattle? No more happy days for the cows, it seems, and Scottish milk is bound to deteriorate from now on (no more whisky flavour).

    It's hard to believe that the nation that invented haggis to be able to use *all* parts of a slaughtered animal should simply toss away the byproducts of whisky-making.

    --
    Ever wondered whats wrong with the world? http://www.ishmael.org/
  48. Sigh... burning WHISKY is terrible. It is too good by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    Sigh... burning WHISKY is terrible. It is too good for whiskey.

    One is Scottish. The other Irish or worse... Your engine would spit out the American stuff. Although to be fair, it makes a better solvent. American whiskey is a close relative to vodka, but without the taste.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  49. Home Brewer by WED+Fan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Leaving home distillation laws aside for the moment, I'd be interested to see if the process could be used by the home distiller.

    --
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
    1. Re:Home Brewer by mweather · · Score: 1

      Probably, but why would you waste a still on that when you can make booze and just not drive?

  50. Cor, what a sight! by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

    I can put whiskey into my horseless whisky carriage and ride around! How splendid!

  51. Re:Scotty, we... need... more... POWER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, but he did smash everything in our office.

  52. "Scottish Scientists Develop Whisky Biofuel" by igaborf · · Score: 1

    Today's front-runner for "Slashdot headline that most sounds like a headline from The Onion."

  53. Re:Sigh... burning WHISKY is terrible. It is too g by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

    Eh, my humble little Geo Metro wouldn't be able to handle any sort of whiskey anyway. She's too much of a lightweight. Now, if something like a pina colada, daquiri, or wine cooler could be burned as fuel... :p

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.