Breakthrough in Biodiesel Production 406
MGR writes "National Geographic is reporting that Japanese scientists have discovered a way to convert vegetable oil into biodiesel with a much less expensive catalyst (between 10 and 50 times cheaper) than what is currently used. From the article: 'Any vegetable oil can become fuel, but not until its fatty acids are converted to chemical compounds known as esters. Currently the acids used to convert the fatty acids are prohibitively expensive. Michikazu Hara, of the Tokyo Institute of Technology in Yokohama, Japan, and his colleagues have used common, inexpensive sugars to form a recyclable solid acid that does the job on the cheap.'"
Finally! (Score:4, Insightful)
key word is catalyst (Score:5, Insightful)
Note: the catalyst is 10 - 50 times cheaper, not biodisel fuel itself, while the breakthrough is meaningful, the headline is misleading. I'd be curious to know what percentage of the total cost of producing biodisel is related to the cost of this catalyst.
Lye = expensive? (Score:4, Insightful)
Vegetable fuel (Score:5, Insightful)
If this biodiesel process can be applied to enough different types of plants, then it should be possible to pick and choose crops based on what does well in a given area -- after all, we don't have to worry about market pressures and what people want to eat, it's just going to be converted into fuel -- which should minimize the effects of choosing hihg-impact crops.
not a catalyst (Score:4, Insightful)
Everone wins! (Score:4, Insightful)
If the government could help farmers grow soybeans and in return reduce dependence on foreign oil, both left and right wingers would be happy. Imagine that! Good for security, good for American jobs, good for the environment, and even good for business (cars would need some retooling).
Where do I sign up? Oh, it's one of those "This technology will be really cool when it becomes available in 10-15 years" stories, huh?
Re:not a catalyst (Score:5, Insightful)
A catalyst not being used up is all good and well, but it doesn't do you very much good in the cheap department if you can't easily get that catalyst to stay where the reaction is taking place; i.e. if there's no way to get the catalyst out of the resultant biodiesel and into a fresh batch of vegetable oil, it's not getting consumed, but it's getting siphoned off (via the endproduct) none the less.
Re:key word is catalyst (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:key word is catalyst (Score:5, Insightful)
Or you could just use straight vegetable oil... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh... yeah, that's right... if people pushed the use of straight vegetable oil then they probably couldn't justify selling biodiesel for $4-$6 a gallon.
Re:key word is catalyst (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:key word is catalyst (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Vegetable fuel (Score:5, Insightful)
Bioethanol is ethanol made from cellulose feedstocks. These should, in practice, be much lower in terms of energy input required than corn or similar crops used for human consumption. The economics of bioethanol produced by SSF (simultaneous sacharination and fermentation) bears almost nothing in common with corn ethanol.
Furthermore, if you get rid of farm subsidies from the equations, then the market should take care of making sure energy costs are fully reflected in all prices. Carbon impact is another story, but shouldn't be too hard to measure (and probably is closely correlated with the portion of costs attributable to energy use).
As for biodiesel - I am under the impression that the major costs are associated with the feedstock itself, not with the acid used in processing. From memory, I think that the feedstock cost is responsible for at least 60-70% of the final cost of biodiesel, so I wouldn't expect a 10x reduction in acid costs to save more than a few percent in total cost. Genetically engineered bacteria seem to provide the most reasonable way to make an oil feedstock for bioethanol production efficiently. The reason that some people think biodiesel is cheaper than diesel is that in Europe they get huge tax breaks on biodiesel, so they are comparing apples to oranges.
Bioethanol is by far the most promising alternative fuel available today, with attractive envrionmental impact and economic characteristics, and only modest incremental cost to make Flexible Fuel Vehicle engines that can burn either ethanol or gasoline. It's too bad there is zero governmental support for this here in the US. We could greatly reduce our foreign oil dependence within 5-10 years with just a bit of political willpower.
Re:Human energy use linked to global warming (Score:5, Insightful)
All that reduced carbon in the plant-oils COMES FROM CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE ATMOSPHERE.
Thus, biodiesel is sustainable.
The *real question* is, how much energy from fertilizer does it take to make this biodiesel? I'd understood that to be the big expense (along with the water,) and not the processing, but I could be mistaken.
Re:MOD PARENT DOWN TO HELL (Score:5, Insightful)
Can that be right? One acre is barely enough for a horse. Either I slipped a decimal point or horses are really inefficient.
The real problem with biofuels is not efficiency. It is chemical conversion. Getting the molecules into the proper shape at low cost will take a lot of clever chemistry that hasn't been done yet. The "breakthrough" under discussion is one piece of the puzzle.
Re:key word is catalyst (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesnt help (Score:2, Insightful)
Bursting bubbles... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:key word is catalyst (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Finally! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:key word is catalyst (Score:4, Insightful)
Interestingly enough, there is some indication that the oil companies actually share our concerns over energy needs more than we think. It may not entirely be about money to them, they want to stay in business don't they? For instance from Chervon [willyoujoinus.com]:
The cynic would probably think that this is just a scam or excuse to raise oil prices and increase profitability. I think that is shortsighted. The ramifications are too great to ignore [blogspot.com], even the greediest among us would not like to face the economic and societal ramifications that would follow sustained oil shortages. What good is money if you can't spend it?
On second thought, maybe I should hope that is exactly what they are trying to pull! It beats the bleak outlook sustained shortages would lead to any day...
Truly NOT +4 Insightful (Score:3, Insightful)
Biodiesel is already a good business and has seen exponential growth in the US for the past 5 years (nearly doubling in output each year).
Why aren't you growing it? I don't know. But I'm fueling up with it.
In absolute terms, the volume is still but a dent in our energy supply. But then there is also that "square state" interest resulting in Minnesota mandating a 2% minimum blend of biodiesel in all diesel sold. In Germany, nearly 5% of all diesel-type fuel sold is biodiesel. As alternative energy goes, that's one heck of a gain especially when you consider the very favorable energy balance associated w/the bioidiesel lifecycle.
Mods need a clue here. (Score:3, Insightful)
OTOH if you had even Googled "biodiesel carcinogens" you would know that one of the benefits of BD is exhaust that is 90% less carcinogenic than exhaust from petro-diesel. One of the reasons its less toxic is because BD reduces particulates and unburned hydrocarbons.
The main downfall of BD at the tailpipe is NOX, and even then only a slight increase. It can be argued that reducing unbuned hydrocarbons, even with a 5% bump in NOX output, has a net positive effect as far as ozone and smog are concerned.
Re:Not Invented Here (Score:3, Insightful)
Their business is transportation, processing and delivery. Whether they are moving and refining petrolium or veggie oil it's the same basic ball game.
If I were to fear anyone it would be Big Agriculture, not Big Oil.
Re:Finally! (Score:3, Insightful)
reference [doe.gov]
So, don't count on breaking that dependence on 'foreign oil' so easily.
Re:Finally! (Score:4, Insightful)
Nuclear power and electric cars are a solution, probably not the solution.
It actually seems quite close, aside from the infrastructure.
Infrustructure is a HUGE problem. How do you get electricity or hydrogen to where you need it? For the US anyway, you're talking about reworking the entire electrical grid. And we still don't have an acceptable way to dispose of the nuclear waste. I'm a proponent of both nuclear and hydrogen power. But we need to be realistic.
With biofuels you can use current infrastructure. And current vehicles can use it with little or no modifications. Probably the reason there is so much interest in biodiesel is that with a cost effective solution there, you could convert every train and semi in America. Go for the least disruptive method that targets a very large market. From there you can look at either diesel cars or ethanol as the next step.
That's not to say you can't use more than one solution, but I don't see electric/hydrogen cars being popular outside of larger cities any time soon.
Re:necessity of exporting? maybe not... (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree that petroleum will be exhausted, regardless of alternatives. But hopefully finding new energy sources will let us use it in much more far-sighted ways. This should be right up there in the benefits list, alongside environmental advantages and the opening of foreign policy options.