Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lowering the Cost of Biofuel Production

Posted by Soulskill on from the baby-steps dept.

sciencehabit writes: 2014 was a banner year for making automotive fuel from nonfood crops, with a series of major new production plants opening in the United States. However, producing this so-called cellulosic ethanol remains considerably more expensive than gasoline. So researchers are always on the lookout for new ways to trim costs. Now they have a new lead: a microbe that can use abundant nitrogen gas as the fertilizer it needs to produce ethanol from plants. The discovery (abstract) is "a major commercial accomplishment for biofuel production," says microbiologist Steven Ricke.

11 of 56 comments (clear)

  1. One more promising lead.... by knwny · · Score: 2

    ...that will ultimately end up where it started - the research lab. And in the meantime we mostly continue guzzling traditional fuel with the exception of a few EVs (with an admittedly fringe popularity).

  2. Alcohol is not the answer by penguinoid · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sad to see that yet another person, when faced with the problem of our reliance on fossil fuels, turns to alcohol.

    I'd tell them to get off my lawn, but if there's a chance they can turn my grass into fuel for my car, I guess I'll let them stay.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  3. not in my tank! by swell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That stuff is nasty! It'll mess up your engine, hurt your gas mileage and do little if anything to clear the atmosphere.

    If we accept it's about cleaner air. And we assume that it burns X% cleaner. And we assume that we will burn X% more fuel over the same distance ... What have we gained? I have seen good arguments for using biodiesel but not ethanol.

    It's all about corporate welfare. Big corporations and well funded universities make a show of looking for clean, efficient alternative fuels while sucking up taxpayer dollars. Where is MY lobbyist? Who will pay to overhaul my engine when it corrodes internally?

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...
    1. Re:not in my tank! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sure, it'll mess up your existing engine in your existing vehicle. Theoretically, if an advance such as the one discussed here were to actually reduce the cost of producing ethanol-based fuel to the point where it could compete against gasoline, then that would create a market for new vehicles and new fuels. Car manufacturers already certify their newer vehicles to tolerate the currently-available corn crap that's out there.

      As far as the politics, here in Illinois, it's all about propping up the megafarm corporations which own 99% of the corn farms. The politicians have been trained to vote for anything that boosts business, since that correlates to jobs and tax revenues.

    2. Re:not in my tank! by donaldm · · Score: 3, Informative

      If we accept it's about cleaner air. And we assume that it burns X% cleaner. And we assume that we will burn X% more fuel over the same distance ... What have we gained? I have seen good arguments for using biodiesel but not ethanol.

      I have a diesel car and I get excellent economy as well as producing less green house gas than an equivalent petrol engine. My car is able to take 5% bio-diesel (B5) as per manufacturers guidelines however in Sydney Australia I find it almost impossible to get B5 or any bio-diesel for that matter. Of course if I had a petrol car I can get 10% Ethanol (E10) which is normally cheaper (Government/Taxpayer subsidised) than diesel although because I get a better fuel economy the price evens out.

      Actually even though many people will seen E10 as cheaper than diesel many are not aware (or don't care) that while a hike in petrol can be felt by the petrol consuming motorist a hike in the price of diesel is actually felt by everyone since all haulage in Australia and in the Americas is by trucks that normally have diesel engines. Even most fishing boats and smaller sea going craft use diesel mainly because it is economical and is a much safer fuel. As an example (don't do this at home) throw a lighted match into a can filled with petrol and you better have a decent fire extinguisher handy. Do the same with a can of diesel and it will most likely go out. Don't try this in an enclosed space since the resulting petrol fume explosion may be hazardous to your health.

      It is possible and very economical to grow crops and even use animal fat for bio-diesel providing you have the land and Australia has the land which is not that much smaller tan the continental USA. However our government seems to prefer using ethanol in petrol possibly due to the lobbying of the sugar producers which I suppose could be likened to the corn lobbyists in the US.

      I should point out that Australia has a fairly small population (approx 24 million) and a population density of approximately 3.2/square km compared to the USA which has a population density of 35/square km. It is even worse for smaller countries with larger population and even worse population density (see the following ).

      The problem with growing crops for bio-fuel is that you need large areas of land and many countries with a large population density may should not attempt this or at least go for limited production. In the short term these countries may be ok but whether the long term growth and sustainability is feasible that remains to be seen.

      It's all about corporate welfare.

      I could not agree more.

      --
      There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
    3. Re:not in my tank! by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There's only one rationale I can think of for ethanol - that we produce more food than is needed so that if there were a problem with food production we'd still have enough.

      A quick back-of-the-napkin calculation suggests that even if we threw away 90% of our food, it still wouldn't be enough to fuel our cars. Actually, I lied. I didn't use a napkin.

      But growing corn explicitly for ethanol seems pretty retarded.

      Virtually all fuel feedstock corn is grown continuously, meaning without crop rotation or even letting fields lie fallow. It is beyond retarded.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:not in my tank! by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Bio has never been about clean air. It's been about not having to dig up hydrocarbons.

      Unfortunately as the colossal waste of crops show, the benefits of switching to biofuels are dubious at best, in my opinion, but I welcome some evidence to the contrary from the pro biofuel crowd.

      Also it doesn't mess up your engine any more than any other chemical composition change in the fuel has messed up engines over the years. Some engines won't run well and will get messed up, some run just fine on it, some require it to run properly. There is no one engine design.

    5. Re:not in my tank! by Chas · · Score: 2

      That and having to replace engine seals frequently.

      One of the main problems high-E engines is the Ethanol tends to eat the seals, even on engines designed to handle high-E fuel.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
  4. LPG FTW by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Could we please slay the ethanol white elephant? It has lousy energy density and is highly corrosive. There are far better fuels out there.

    --
    'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
  5. There are more costs than economic ones by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 2

    There are more costs than economic ones to consider. Making ethanol uses vast amounts of water -- water that is then not available for other uses. If they could find a way to do it with, say, sea water, that would be one thing, but in the Midwest, where much of the production is, water is becoming a scarce resource.

  6. Oh Boy by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 2

    Let's take more plant material off of the land which means that we'll have to replace the nutrients. We do that with fertilizer (most of it derived from fossil fuels) that don't completely stay in the fields and contaminate our waterways. Wonderful.