Slashdot Mirror


Researchers Develop Biofuel Alternative To Ethanol

coondoggie writes "Researchers say they have developed a method of using bacteria to convert decaying grass directly into isobutanol, which can be burned in regular car engines with a heat value higher than ethanol but similar to gasoline. The research could mean great savings in processing costs and time, plus isobutanol is a higher grade of alcohol than ethanol, according to the Department of Energy's BioEnergy Science Center (BESC) and its Oak Ridge National Laboratory"

4 of 320 comments (clear)

  1. How many lobbyists by overshoot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    are backing this process? Because they're going to be up against some huge opposition from the big agribusiness firms plus Big Oil.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
  2. Re:Call me when it's on shelves. by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ethanol fuel in the US is a subsidy for corn growers, plain and simple. Any effect is has on the fuel supply is a distant afterthought. Therefore, any alternative to ethanol that isn't made from corn, corn, and only corn completely misses the point and won't get any national attention. I tell you, the first and most important step in balancing the US budget is to move the first few. most inluential, presidential primaries to states that don't grow corn!

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  3. Re:Its not called gas but its called... by headLITE · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's why it's an advance if we can create it from cellulose. It's not like we couldn't synthesize isobutanol from plants before. Making fuel out of sugar is no big secret. What's new is that this time, it's from parts we can't eat. It's not perfect, but it's an advance.

  4. Re:Its not called gas but its called... by 517714 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The law of unintended consequences has proven many times that moving food to the starving tends to put the local farmers out of business creating the need to continue moving food. Why subsidize something to make it profitable? If there is not a natural profit in the venture, a government should do it directly thus saving taxpayers the "profit". Lowering the cost of transport does not fall under the term "simple solution". I'm not advocating letting people starve, but I don't know of any simple solutions that work though eliminating farm subsidies is a good start.

    --
    The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.