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."

Comments

High Risk?

[Thelasko]

As in, high risk of genetically modified bacteria escaping the lab and turning every carbohydrate it finds into fuel oil?

Re:High Risk?

[ducomputergeek]

High risk or what used to be called "basic research". These are project that may work or provide useful insight for down the road. Chances are they may not lead to some kind of "success" in the commercial world. When companies fund research and development it usually evaluates projects based on the likely hood they'll be able to produce something that is commercially viable and they can break even or profit from the work. 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. Today this is usually done at research universities.

Re:High Risk?

[DerekLyons]

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.

But the engine upgrades are what make it fun...

[rwa2]

Biofuels like Ethanol have a very high octane rating, so you can increase power output with really high compression ratios with superchargers and turbochargers. Supposedly these turbo gasohol vehicles are popular in Brazil, where they can actually grow and produce their cane sugar ethanol with a net positive energy output (whereas corn-based ethanol in the US costs more energy to make than you get from it in return... so it's really just an agricultural subsidy as well as a way to water down imported petroleum-based fuels and decreasing your gas mileage - FTW!)

Meh, some interesting reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel

Re:But the engine upgrades are what make it fun...

[bruno.fatia]

That's not really true. Ethanol-only vehicles have been discontinued and now the flex fuel vehicles are the most usual.
You can read more at wikipedia it's pretty complete.

Uh, how about butanol?

[Xonstantine]

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

Re:Uh, how about butanol?

[jpedlow]

Was lucky enough to do some work with butanol while in school (O-chem, with some manufacturing chemistry)
Apparently nowdays there's several fancy nickel catalysts that do the trick, but with relatively low yields
BUT, fiberous bed bioreactors are the trick for half decent yields...
I'm out of chem now, I stuck with my computer nerd roots and am in a server room right now, but it was readily apparent (back in the day) that butanol was the clear choice for ease of transition, octane rating, transportability, and it's emissions are 'supposed to be' cleaner than current gas offerings.
ANYWAY, go butanol go! Not quite the same octane ratings as ethanol, but it'll run on almost any vehicle with very little-if any- tuning

Re:Urgency

[jfengel]

Well, I wouldn't call $30 million over 5 years "urgent". That's doughnut money to the Department of Defense, whose budget is 100,000 times more than that.

US domestic oil production peaked 40 years ago. We've been subject to nasty oil shocks ever since, as well as the unpleasant fact that many key oil exporters are avowed or tacit opponents of the US. We'd much rather be self-sufficient in oil, regardless of whether the rest of the world experiences Peak Oil or not.

Grandpa Munster invented this already

[countSudoku()]

Back in the 60s he invented the Gasoline Pill, which converts water into gasoline right in your tank! Unfortunately he lost the formula, so that's why there's a prize now.

There's nothing that Grandpa Munster, The Professor from Gilligan's Island, or Scotty can't solve with their engineering geniusness!

Re:Less wishful thinking then one might think.

[ciggieposeur]

It's not only in the labs. Terrabon is right now demonstrating a biomass-to-gasoline process on a pilot plant scale. It's real gasoline, not alcohol or other alternative fuel.

Re:The big oil and gov are afraid

[RobertB-DC]

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.

Re:$30m/5 years?

[jameskojiro]

OMG, what about using a beta-volatic cell utilizing a lightweight isotope that decays via beta emission into a stable element.... Something like say Sulfur 35. Use the small reactory to continually recharge the battery packs in an electric car like a Nissan Leaf or Chevy Volt....

Beta Emitters = No pesky neutrons, Gamma rays of alpha particles...

The "reactor" actually more like a batter cell type design, can be shielded with the same kind of tin foil bat shit insane people use to cover their heads for crying out loud.

Re:The end winner has to be fueled

[Red Flayer]

Battery technology will never be at the point where we can go as far as we currently can in a small car, and along the way charge up in under a few minutes (unless people start gaining acceptance for sealed personal nuclear power supplies)...

So you say. People also said that gasoline cars would never be as reliable as a horse and wagon.

People don't want and cannot afford specialized cars just for commutes.

Horseshit. I drive a specialized car just for my commute. You think I *enjoy* driving an econobox? I do it becaause it's cost-effective. The family wagon gets used by my wife during the week, and by the family on the weekends.

When liquid fuel prices get high enough, then you better believe people will want to drive a specialty vehicle for commuting... and all their other driving.

I'm sure battery powered cars have a future but I just cannot see them as being the mainstream car that most people drive.

Obviously, I disagree. I think there are inherent disadvantages to fuel systems due to:
(1) distribution and transportation costs
(2) the relative inefficiency of small engines, and
(3) the decreased dependence on a limited set of fuels.

With regards to (3), I think from a security standpoint, as well as a market efficiency standpoint, we're far better having a system where we can swap out power sources as needed. This gives us better long-term viability (for example, allowing us to more easily change to nuclear and renewable energy sources).

Henry Ford had it right all along.

[Ozlanthos]

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