Slashdot Mirror


US Offers $30M For High-Risk Biofuel Research

coondoggie writes "This one sounds a bit like really wishful thinking. The US Department of Energy today announced $30 million for research projects that would develop advanced biofuels that could replace gasoline or diesel without requiring special upgrades or changes to the vehicle or fueling infrastructure. The $30 million would be spent over the next four years to support as many as five 'traditionally high-risk biofuels projects,' such as converting biomass into biofuels and bioproducts to be eventually used for hydrocarbon fuels and chemicals."

5 of 183 comments (clear)

  1. Uh, how about butanol? by Xonstantine · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Pros:
    1) Burns in gasoline engines without modification
    2) Can be transported in existing gas pipelines (does not emulsify water like ethanol does)
    3) Higher energy content per gallon than ethanol, only a little less than gasoline
    4) Can be produced in the same manner that ethanol is (ie, fermentation)

    Cons:
    1) Does not have a farm lobby attached to it

  2. Re:The big oil and gov are afraid by RobertB-DC · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The big oil and gov are afraid of Hydrogen Too easy to make and too hard to control

    I wouldn't have bothered responding to this old canard, especially from an AC, but my future son-in-law laid this on me during a (very) long road trip. He was convinced that hydrogen must be that Secret That Oil Companies Don't Want You To Know. After all, it comes from WATER, for crying out loud. You can drop a 9-volt battery and get hydrogen, for crying out loud... all we have to do is put that in a car and run it on water, right? Right?

    *facepalm*

    For those new to the laws of thermodynamics: Hydrogen is combined with Oxygen to form Water, yes. But it takes energy to get the menage-a-trois separated. And the energy required to liberate H2 from that codependent relationship is, by the laws of physics, no greater than the energy you'll get by combining it *back* with O.

    My discussion partner said, "That's ok, we'll just have batteries to do the electrolysis." I gently suggested that if you're going to have enough batteries to generate enough electricity to generate enough hydrogen to run a car, you've got enough batteries to generate enough electricity to run a car -- without that lossy "generate hydrogen" step.

    To his credit, I think he understood. That's one. AC, here's hoping you're #2.

    --
    Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
  3. Re:High Risk? by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We really haven't seen a lot of basic research labs where companies throw money into R&D and see what happens. That's the way it used to work back in the day with places like Bell Labs and even Xerox.

    That's the "back in the good old days" version. The reality is that Bell Labs worked almost exclusively on research eventually intended to have commercial yield, any basic research was done in support of that goal.

  4. Henry Ford had it right all along. by Ozlanthos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It was this nation's #1 cash crop for over 100 years. As such, 90% of the components for the first automobiles were made of it (and previous to prohibition of alcohol, most cars were fueled by it). Henry Ford grew acres of it, and envisioned that we'd literally be "GROWING CARS"... But unfortunately William Randolph Heart made his money from newspapers printed on paper made from wood pulp (one of the three textiles it would have displaced had it remained legal after the invention of the decordicator...the other two being oil, and cotton). A medium he used to demonize it, and stigmatize our nation to the point where to this day (80 years later) all most of us do is make stupid snarky comments at the mere suggestion of it's use as an alternative to oil. Due to this nation's ignorance of it, and our resulting dependence on it's competitors, most of civilization will most likely perish before it becomes legal again....I am of course talking about Industrial Hemp.

    Think I'm lying? Rather than make stupid remarks about smoking it, try looking it up on Google or Youtube and enlighten yourself!!!

    -Oz

    1. Re:Henry Ford had it right all along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Its funny that Hearst and the US gubmint have been able to suppress this magical plant - yet no other country have discovered how wonderful the plant is. So you are saying that every other country on the plant is just stupid and the US is just oppressed?

      Tell me, why isn't Russia, Korea, Japan, China, etc using magical hemp to solve all their problems? They didn't have Hearst "influencing" them. Let me know, I'd like to see a Youtube video explaining it.