Tiny Biodiesel Reactors 369
Lee_in_KC writes "A professor of chemical engineering at Oregon State University
developed a small reactor to directly convert vegetable oil to biodiesel.
Goran Jovanovic reports his invention is approximately the size of a credit
card. It pumps vegetable oil and alcohol through parallel channels to
convert the oil into biodiesel almost instantly. Current mainstream
methods to produce biodiesel take more than a day and also produces other byproducts which must be neutralized before disposal or use in other manufacturing processes."
Two Words (Score:3, Funny)
better article (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not sure how feasible this is. Also, as per the longer article (above), it does not eliminate the need for NaOH; unless I'm reading it wrong.
Re:better article (Score:5, Informative)
NaOH is the catalyst used in the reaction.
The microreactor under development by the university and the Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute eliminates the mixing, the standing time and maybe even the need for a catalyst.
Re:better article (Score:2)
Re:better article (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_vegetable_o
In the UK drivers using SVO have been prosecuted for failure to pay duty to Customs and Excise.
Biodiesel just means that you can run an umodified engine -
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel [wikipedia.org]
Sometimes even unrefined vegetable oil is incorrectly called "biodiesel". Unlike unrefined vegetable oil, biodiesel does not require fuel pre-heating and filtration due to issues with coagulation, and also require no or minimal modification to the fuel system.
Re:better article (Score:5, Informative)
In general running pure veg oil is a pain in the arse because it's very hard to get the engine started. If you weren't going to switch off for more than a few minutes it would be just fine (which might be practical for generators).
Re:better article (Score:3, Interesting)
he drives across the US pretty much for free, grabbing waste oil along the way. except in texas. apprently the oil there is too gross to use for fuel
rapeseed (Score:3, Funny)
Re:rapeseed (Score:2, Funny)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapeseed [wikipedia.org]
Canola or SupriseSex! perhaps.
I think in the EU, the Common Agricultural Policy [wikipedia.org] could be tweaked to encourage people to grow it, and you could remove all fuel tax on biodiesel and SVO for a five years or so.
Bio diesel from Algae has this beat by a long ways (Score:5, Informative)
Nothing compares to the output from Algae as far as bio oil goes .
* Soybean: 40 to 50 US gal/acre (40 to 50 m/km)
* Rapeseed: 110 to 145 US gal/acre (100 to 140 m/km)
* Mustard: 140 US gal/acre (130 m/km)
* Jatropha: 175 US gal/acre (160 m/km)
* Palm oil: 650 US gal/acre (610 m/km) [2]
* Algae: 10,000 to 20,000 US gal/acre (10,000 to 20,000 m/km)
Ex-MislTech
Re:Bio diesel from Algae has this beat by a long w (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:rapeseed (Score:3, Funny)
The Economist with their dry humour suggested that we reclassify olive oils as Normal and Deflowered.
Re:better article (Score:5, Informative)
One of the most common things for biodiesel is A. It produces a large amount of Glycerol that might be economically used (I help test that concept last year) and B. it can be mixed with existing diesel to increase overall engine efficiency and reduce smog.
Since biodiesel is taking pretty much nothing but long chain HCs and using NaOH as a catalyst to reduce em down, and then cleaned (NaOH mostly goes to glycerol if i remember) once the sodium is cleaned out there is nothing but fuel. As a result it's sulfur content is nada. Adding it to regular diesel lets it run hotter and cleaner. The only issue is that biodiesel lacks normal fuel additives used to promote all climate use. Many places have a 20 or 50% mix if they offer it commercially. If you are interested in your self switching I'd suggest looking around for a locale fuel coop. I know the one in C-town has 1.50 a gallon for SVO, and 2.00 or so for Biodiesel.
The only changes you really need to make for SVO is a few hoses changed around. Not recommended always for colder climates with out adding an engine block heater.
Re:better article (Score:5, Interesting)
With microchannels like he's using, the surface area is so high you've got a naturally higher rate of reaction, so you may not need the catalyst at all.
Re:better article (Score:2, Informative)
Just what America needs... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Just what America needs... (Score:2)
Re:Just what America needs... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Just what America needs... (Score:2)
Re:Just what America needs... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just what America needs... (Score:2)
Re:Just what America needs... (Score:2)
Just because plant lipids contain less cholesterol than animal ones does not mean they don't contain any.
less != none
Did I miss something, or..? (Score:3, Informative)
It mentions a byproduct in the conventional method. Am I missing something, or does it not clarify whether or not this new method produces a byproduct?
Re:Did I miss something, or..? (Score:5, Informative)
Great news... (Score:4, Funny)
What room temp IQ modded this troll? (Score:5, Informative)
Don't they teach kids ANY organic chemistry nowadays? How are we to produce the next generation of recreational drug designers and home-made explosives producers that made the West what it is today?
Ah, but they're not tracking everything... (Score:4, Informative)
source of oxidization (which could be any reactants, really, so long as it's a combustion type reaction...).
1) You can make your own liquid oxygen- all you need is to machine the right gear and it doesn't red-flag as the resources to make the liquification machine are needed to make tools, cars, etc.
2) Anything combustable that is LOX saturated will explode if ignited- it effectively has an unlimited amount of oxidizer at it's disposal to combust with.
3) A carcoal briquette, such as out of a Kingsford bag will explode with about the force of a stick of dynamite if thoroughly soaked with LOX and ignited or hit with a primary detonator like a blasting squib. This is the basis of a lot of commercial mining explosives these days. Don't want to do a blast? Let the LOX out and it's no longer explosive.
This is just ONE piece of chemistry that, you too, can play with without much notice. There's raftloads others.
And before you get on to me about "revealing" this to the terrorists- it's common knowlege and they also know how
to make comparable substances that don't need cryo containment to go with it. Contrary to popular belief to the
otherwise, the leaders , while quite nuts themselves, aren't stupid. Many of them are very well
educated- by the US educational system, even.
(By the way, black powder rocketry's fun, but Zinc/Sulphur mix rocketry's even moreso and easier to get
the stuff...
Can I get Tiny Reflective Mudflap Women... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Can I get Tiny Reflective Mudflap Women... (Score:2)
I'm waiting. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm waiting. (Score:2)
Re:I'm waiting. (Score:2)
.
.
.
.
I's OK you'll either adjust or go insane.
-nB
Re:I'm waiting. (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you think the 'oil companies' would really buy this patent for the sole purpose of burying it?
Re:I'm waiting. (Score:2)
What's so hard to believe about it? Oil's a cash cow. Buy the patent, maintain your margins. From a business perspective, it would be dumb for them not to do this.
Re:I'm waiting. (Score:5, Informative)
Basically, in the US you have two ways of protecting an innovative process: a patent or a trade secret.
A trade secret is just what it sounds like, a secret. You develop something and don't tell anyone. So let's say I invent a way to turn lead in to gold at my company. I decide to keep it a secret. I release the plans to nobody and make all my employees sign an NDA. Thus I'm the only one who can do it. Fair enough, but there's no special legal protection. If a rival happens to discover how I do it, they are free to use it, it's not a secret anymore.
So the other route I can take is a patent. Here I publish my method for lead to gold for the world to see in the form of a patent. However, in doing so, I recieve a legal gaurentee that it's mine. You can read all about it, but you can't use it without my permission. I'm free to set the terms on that. But I only have 20 years to do that in. After 20 years, it's assumed I should have made my money, and it's now free for the world.
Now, while I can decide to patent a trade secret, I can't take something I've patented and make it a secret. Trade secrets are things you have to enforce actively. They don't have any special legal standing, they are just a defacto sort of thing. The government recognises your right to keep a secret if you want, but offers it no special protection. One it's no longer a secret, too bad for you, should have gotten a patent before hand.
So if the oil companies bought a patent to sit on it, they are just buying themselves 20 years. Ok maybe that's the point, but you can't keep claiming that they are "sitting on a patent" that they allegedly got 50 years ago, because it's been public domain for 30 years already.
Re:I'm waiting. (Score:3, Informative)
That's ever so wrong [upenn.edu]
Re:I'm waiting. (Score:2)
They control the supply of the fuels we use now. Not so easy with alternatives.
Re:I'm waiting. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I'm waiting (Score:5, Insightful)
This story has been floating around since the 1950s, far longer than any patent term. Either EvilOilCo has a hundred-year patent to go with their hundren-mile-per-gallon car, or there never was such a device...
Re:I'm waiting (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'm waiting. (Score:2)
I hear ya... (Score:2)
If Big Oil could make a 100 mpg car (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, let us assume this is the status quo:
1: Big Oil owns a patent for a 100 mpg car that can be produced at the same cost with the same features as a regular car
2: A "regular" car costs $20,000, gets 25 mpg, and is driven 100,000 miles (4000 gallons, lifetime) at $3/gallon
3: Big Oil has a 10% profit margin on gasoline, and Detroit/Japan have a 10% margin on regular cars
Now, here is the first question. How much would YOU, the average consumer, be willing to pay for a new BigOil brand car? Well, the total cost of car + gas of a regular car is $32000. So as long as a BigOil car costs less in total, you would buy it. Since it will have a gasoline cost of $3000, it stands to reason that you will choose a Big Oil car for any price up to $29000.
Now, where does Big Oil make more profits? The status quo or by selling BigOil cars? Well, in the status quo, they sell you $12000 worth of gas and keep $1200 after costs. Not bad! But what if they instead sell you a BigOil car? Well, the cost of producing a BigOil or regular car is $18,000. Yet they can sell it to you for $29000, an $11000 profit. They can then snatch $300 more on profits from the remaining gas they sell you, for a total of $11,300.
Now assuming Big Oil is greedy (a safe assumption), which do you think they would rather have? $1200 or $11300?
Myth refuted. Please move along.
Re:If Big Oil could make a 100 mpg car (Score:3, Informative)
[1] http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=XOM [yahoo.com]
What difference does that make? (Score:2)
Re:If Big Oil could make a 100 mpg car (Score:3, Insightful)
The urban myth is back (Score:2)
If this was real one of the car manufacturing countries that are less encumbered by patents would be selling it to us and you would also be able to supply a link to the patent on the US patent office website.
There are however reasons why people think it's real. Simply changing the distance the mixed fuel travels before it gets burnt reduces fuel consumption dramaticly - but that's on an engine that is id
Re:I'm waiting. (Score:2)
If that is true, then everyone in government and industry who KNEW and didn't FORCE that technology onto the street should be shot, hung, or emasuculated (if male)... Assholes...
THAT kind of technology could have prevented wars in the Middle East!
THIS is EXACTLY the kind of shit that makes me say that if a UFO crashed in my presence and I were the
Whereas this is a troll... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Whereas this is a troll... (Score:4, Insightful)
Dear consparicy guy (Score:5, Informative)
Prove it.
This story has been around forever and seems to have no merit to it. Snopes addesses it as false:
http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/carburetor.a
So unless you can show me some proof to the contrary, I'm going to to say it's just so much BS.
There's been con artists that have claimed to have miracle devices. However there's always some common threads:
1) They do something that seems to be impossible.
2) They'll never let anyone mess with and test their devices.
3) There's always some string of "unfortunate problems" that keep it form coming to market.
Also please remember: Patents last only 20 years, and by definition they are public. So if an oil company bought a patent for a super efficent car, they could sit on it for only 20 years, and everyone who wanted to know how it worked would, since the patent is public record. It's not like they could cover it up.
So, please, provide a link to the 100mpg patent if you think it's real.
Re:I don't even know where to begin... (Score:2)
Id tell you but I'm off to the shops to buy some software.
What about the university... (Score:3, Insightful)
Or how much the university demands in licensing fees.
Far too much good technology goes unused for years until patents expire because their creators overestimate how much they're worth (or simply get greedy.)
Dolby had it right. He licensed Dolby technology at a price so cheap (a few cents per tape player) that manufacturers were happy to pay it. So- every tape player ended up with Dolb
Precisely nothing (Score:3, Interesting)
IF Big Oil is greedy, and IF Big Oil owns a useful patent, they Will use it.
Re:Precisely nothing (Score:2)
You act like this is some inherent law of the universe. It's not.
There can be many situations in which the profits generated by a fuel-saving device would be miniscule next to the loss of profits for the oil companies.
In fact I recall a specific case where Honda simply refused to license a specific patent it had on battery technologies, opting to keep it locked-up instead. Due to the overwhelmi
Didn't your Econ101 prof dispel this myth for you? (Score:2)
Will that be cash - or biodiesel? (Score:4, Funny)
Biodiesel car upgrade $50
New fuel lines $80
Energy independence
For a free fuel life, there's GTA
For everything else, there's BiodieselCard.
Re:Will that be cash - or biodiesel? (Score:2, Informative)
So it's really going to suck that we have to buy the corn from Mongolia.
KFG
Re:Will that be cash - or biodiesel? (Score:2)
Re:Will that be cash - or biodiesel? (Score:2)
No, not really. Remember: there's a LOT of ariable land in this country. As the price of oil keeps going up, we're getting closer and closer to the point where an acre of corn-for-fuel looks like a better and better deal.
In less than 200 years, expect the United States to be back as a net exporter of "oil", due both to the loss of fossil fuels and our high tech return to our agrarian roots.
Re:Will that be cash - or biodiesel? (Score:2)
"Charge Carred"
And, if it acts as your ignition key, then it could be...
"Plug-in-Drive"
Re:Will that be cash - or biodiesel? (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been making biodiesel for a few years now and it still gets me just how uninformed everybody is on it.
You can see pics of my reactor at http://www.watters.ws/gallery/biodiesel [watters.ws]. I just uploaded some newer pictures last week.
How much juice is this going to produce? (Score:2, Interesting)
From the article:
The device - about the size of a credit card - pumps vegetable oil and alcohol through tiny parallel channels, each smaller than a human hair, to convert the oil into biodiesel almost instantly...The device is small, but it can be stacked in banks to increase production levels to the volume required for commercial use.
Re:How much juice is this going to produce? (Score:2, Informative)
On a side note the device still does use NaOH but
Well now that's just silly. (Score:5, Funny)
Cellular Reactions. (Score:5, Insightful)
What results is not only a tiny stream of 100 percent biodiesel fuel, but also glycerin, the latter having uses in making soaps and even fossil fuel-free plastics.
The microreactors, each of which produces only a minute amount of biodiesel, are designed to be used with thousands of others of the same size in a single, integrated system."
Sounds like the mechanical equivalent of an organ.
Re:Cellular Reactions. (Score:2)
Re:Cellular Reactions. (Score:2, Interesting)
Now just add the glycerin to a couple of acids in the correct quantities and BOOM! (Actual details not supplied for pretty obvious reasons!)
Really? (Score:4, Funny)
"Jovanovic compared it to Hewlett-Packard when that company invented the inkjet printer cartridge."
Looks at printer sized bio diesel generator:
This guy must really like printers.
Re:Really? or why Universities Love Printers (Score:2, Interesting)
This guy must really like printers.
Actually, many scientific labs at state universities use printers and printer heads a lot - for example, a new sealed plastic crystal suspension device created at the University of Washington uses HP inkjets (cheap to get, and colored Husky Purple) to deliver reagants in controlled amounts into plastic tubes which are then sealed by laser.
Every university has a section that recycles compute
Re:Really? (Score:2)
Not to mention that HP has sometimes been good with funding and he might be trolling for some.
I think we should use animal fat (Score:2, Funny)
Plus, PETA's reaction would be hysterical.
Yeah, Yeah...come back when it works (Score:4, Insightful)
"If we're successful with this, nobody will ever make biodiesel any other way,"
So, what you are trying to say is that you haven't ever done it, but in *theory* it should be a phenomenal improvement over exiting methods of biodeisel production...
I'll be over here holding my breath.
Yeah, but... (Score:2)
Two Word (again) (Score:2)
What I really want to know... (Score:4, Funny)
biodiesel++ (Score:5, Interesting)
Yep - Quite cool (Score:2)
After all, it's not like is has had the kind of push that other technologies have had for much longer..
They haven't developed anything yet... (Score:3, Informative)
$ Cost and Energy Cost of methanol? (Score:2)
Before anyone complains about lack of Oil supply (Score:4, Informative)
Size of a credit card! (Score:2)
I'm wow-factor-shocked! Size of a credit card.
Ok now that this has passed, the amount of fuel you can process with one of these a diesel butterfly, for more, you need a pretty large stack of those.
Pretty impressive and futuristic nonetheless, even if the prospect of carrying a portable biodiesel reactor in your wallet is busted.
unresolved technical concerns (FORD on biodiesel) (Score:4, Informative)
Requires special care at low temperatures to avoid excessive rise in viscosity and loss of fluidity
Storage is a problem due to higher then normal risk of microbial contamination due to water absorption as well as a higher rate of oxidation stability which creates insoluble gums and sediment deposits
Being hygroscopic, the fuel tends to have increased water content, which increases the risk of corrosion
Biodiesel tends to cause higher engine deposit formations
The methyl esters in biodiesel fuel may attack the seals and composite materials used in vehicle fuel systems
It may attack certain metals such as zinc, copper based alloys, cast iron, tin, lead, cobalt, and manganese
It is an effective solvent, and can act as a paint stripper, whilst it will tend to loosen deposits in the bottom of fuel tanks of vehicles previously run on mineral diesel
https://www.fleet.ford.com/showroom/environmental
Re:unresolved technical concerns (FORD on biodiese (Score:3, Informative)
ASTM already has standards for a 20% blend.
Go to Biodiesel.org's Fact sheets [biodiesel.org] and have look for yourself. If you were to use 100% biodiesel, some of your quoted concerns would need to be addressed. Not that big a deal- just need to replace pure rubber for fuel lines, check and replace fuel filters for diesels that have already been in service, and preheat/keep warm any diesel driven vehicles i
Or is it a good way to become oil-independent? (Score:3, Informative)
According to scientific papers searchable in ScienceDirect (if you have university access), the Netherlands is acheiving around 40 percent energy - and since it's derived from solar radiation (sun on plants), this is a lot more efficient than our current 30 percent usage of Canadian Tar Oil Sands, which uses barrels of oil to release more oil from the sands.
So, from that perspective, it's more efficient.
Now, it's true
Re:Or is it a good way to become oil-independent? (Score:2)
While you might be inclined to confuse your efficiency ratings, photovoltaics efficiency is measured with respect to the energy input, not the production energy. Since we only care about how much energy it took to produce the thing, it's a lot better than it looks initially. We're talking about
Re:We're saved! (Score:4, Informative)
If thousands of cancers a year are being blamed on ultraviolet, well, there's a lot more ultraviolet streaming down from the Sun then you could theoretically come up with as coming out of your car engine. Now, secondhand smoke is another matter, and I suspect a highly overrated cancer threat, but that's another story. Don't hold your breath for an "amazing blessing".
Re:We're saved! (Score:3, Informative)
In a gas the electrons will never reach more than a few tens ev. As they accelerate they strike another atom and their energy goes in ionizing the gas.
Tim.
Re:We're saved! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:We're saved! (Score:2)
Re:We're saved! (Score:2)
Re:NaOH is a reactant not a catalyst (Score:5, Informative)
(BTW, oil = liquid fat).
The problematic side reaction is hydrolysis of the oil to fatty acids (i.e. saponification to soap), due to the presence of water in the crude oil. This side reaction is compounded by the difficulty of mixing the fat and alcohol during reaction (fat and alcohol not completely miscible), which reduces the efficiency of the catalytic transesterification, thereby increasing the extent of the unwanted side reaction (saponification to soap). Also crude oils contain fatty acids which could quickly neutralize a catalytic amount of sodium hydroxide (stopping the process).
Therefore the conventional (batchwise) process is to treat the fat with excess sodium hydroxide in a non-catalytic initial step; whatever water is present is consumed in a conventional, non-catalytic saponification to sodium salts of fatty acids, glycerin, and excess sodium hydroxide. Any fatty acid is converted to its sodium salt. All of which are easily removed from the fat (oil). The resulting purified fat is suitable for the catalytic transesterification process to biodiesel.
I'm a chemist, but haven't worked with these microreactors, so the following is guessing:
A microprocessor can increase the efficiency of the desired transesterification by allowing intimate mixing of the alcohol and the fat, which is half the battle in this case. Also, a continuous processor can have advantages over batch processing in that the reaction conditions (pH, temp, etc.) can be dynamically controlled.
My guess is that the fat (oil) would still require pre-treatment to remove water, fatty acids, and fine particles before entering the fuel cell.
Re:NaOH is a reactant not a catalyst (Score:2)
one of the parts is getting the raw materials (the vegetable oil or whatever they want to use) as there simply isn't really enough available land (land that isn't being used for growing food) to be able to supply anything near the current demand. even if they use waste oil (which is already used in other industries such as soap and cosmetics) and waste animal fats, that still won't come close. but even just 10% of total consumption would make a go
Bigger picture of CO2 (Score:3, Informative)
And that CO2 would be released after the plant dies anyway, because of all microbic activity etc. So why not to use the released energy tp move a car instead of as food for microbes. So it's kind of recycling the CO2.
But when you burn fossile oils, then you are creating CO2 from coal that would have staid under ground for a loooo
Dumb argument (Score:3, Insightful)
Second doesn't need to be repeated as other posts have explained it.
Third, do you realize how many tens of thousands of pounds (maybe hundreds of thousands???) of food the US government buys from farmers and destroys each year to control food prices? The issue of the starving world isn't food. It's getting them the food. And much blood has been spilled trying to do it (
Magic solution is hemp (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Ostriches. (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, yes, but biodiesel's energy comes from the Sun, via photosynthesis. And while solar will eventually run out, when it does the Earth will be uninhabitable anyway.
Second, the result of combustion will always be CO2 (except for Hydrogen and electricity), so forget about cancelling global warming.
Except, of course, all the CO2 put out by burning by biodisel is CO2 that the plants took out of the air in the first place, so there's no increase in atmospheric CO2.
Third, where are you going to grow all the plants needed to make all that vegetable oil and alcohol???
Ah, now you've struck a useful note. Even if all the Earth's arable land surface were farmed at American productivity levels with maximum-production oil crops, we still couldn't displace ordinary diesel use.
However, there is an alternative; oily algae. While the infrastructure to start producing it in necessary qantities would be expensive, it has high-enough oil output per acre to be a practical alternative. And the land for it can be vast tracts of desert, the pools filled with seawater.
Where are you going to take the energy needed to transform all those plants into biodiesel?
The energy content of biodiesel exceeds the energy necessary to process high-oil algae; the primary energy source for the creation of the long oil chains is the plant's photosynthesis. The result is that biodiesel-powered generators could be used to generate the power for the pressing and conversion process.
How many people will starve so the americans can still move their arses in their plush trucks???
None, just like today. Some will continue to starve because of deliberately chosen policies of thier national governments, like every recorded famine of the last thirty years. But changing that is a matter of willingness to violently violate the soverignty of the famine-causing governments, not economics or resource distribution.
There is no miracle solution,
Right, just solutions that require difficult and expensive -- but achievable -- engineering.
Re:Ostriches. (Score:2)
But not as good at taking CO2 out of the atmosphere as planting lots of trees or other plants and using them to make paper, and then burying the used paper (not recycling it).
Re:The diesel engine was designed to run on coal (Score:2)
http://www.cyberlipid.org/glycer/biodiesel.htm [cyberlipid.org]
Re:people,think about lost jobs (Score:3, Insightful)
Gas stations, etc., would still need to exist -- they would just sell a different fuel.