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"
Warning: that link is goatse
grassoline sounds pretty snappy
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,
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.
Actually corn sucks as a fuel FYI. Most other alternative fuels pack more punch per ounce including waste materials like methane. Unfortunately as Americans, corn is all we really have because that's one of the few the crops the government chose to subsidize starting back in 1929. We have so much corn that the government at times decided to purchase and burn tons of it just to keep prices inflated and protect farmers. But if you care to save our sacred crop that makes us fat, makes our livestock sick, and sucks as a fuel then more power to you.
I support growing more grass even if we use it as fuel.
Whereas right now, corn productions is managed efficiently, and the starving people all get food... right.
Starvation is mostly a logistics and political problem. Low-grade corn is cheap near where it's produced, but that's generally not where people are starving. Moving the food to the people costs money, which raises the final cost beyond what the people can afford. A government could subsidize that cost, but that kind of action is often systematically abused and easily spun by political opponents as "propping up those greedy transport companies".
Basic economic analysis tells us that with starving people needing food, but only being able to pay a lower amount for it, a smart distribution company will simply ignore those people in favor of markets that will turn a profit. The simplest solution is to make starving areas profitable, either with a subsidy or by lowering the cost of transport.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
That's a bunch of fucking bullshit. With the TDI's, the only problem you'll encounter running biodiesel is maybe a dead injection pump due to seal cracking, which is caused by the lack of sulfates in the fuel... Since low-sulfur diesel was introduced about five years ago, all new vehicles have pump seals that work perfectly well with biodiesel -- my injection pump from 2002 went pretty quickly, and I had it rebuilt with modern seals that work properly with biodiesel and I've had no problems in over five years. Biodiesel will not hurt your TDI, it's a load of crap.
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.
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.
The benefit of cellulosic biofuels like the ones mentioned in this study is that the entire plant can be converted to fuel (rather than just the fruit), resulting in higher yields; less land is needed to produce the same amount of energy.
Additionally, most grasses that would be used as feedstocks, such as switchgrass, are perennial plants. According to Wikipedia:
"The main agronomic advantages of switchgrass as a bioenergy crop are its stand longevity, drought and flooding tolerance, relatively low herbicide and fertilizer input requirements, ease of management, hardiness in poor soil and climate conditions, and widespread adaptability in temperate climates." In other words, switchgrass will be a viable crop in many areas that aren't suitable for food anyway."
I just found the box to change my sig. Um.... [timeless witticism].