[Peak Oil] Addiction to Oil countered by... Grass

SLAM: debunk creationism, pseudoscience, and superstitions. Discuss logic and morality.

Moderator: Alyrium Denryle

User avatar
Einhander Sn0m4n
Insane Railgunner
Posts: 18630
Joined: 2002-10-01 05:51am
Location: Louisiana... or Dagobah. You know, where Yoda lives.

[Peak Oil] Addiction to Oil countered by... Grass

Post by Einhander Sn0m4n »

Viva la CELLULOSE!


Caution: Huge Fucking Lase^H^H^H^HArticle


Prologue
The Chemistry

On a blackboard, it looks so simple: Take a plant and extract the cellulose. Add some enzymes and convert the cellulose molecules into sugars. Ferment the sugar into alcohol. Then distill the alcohol into fuel. One, two, three, four — and we're powering our cars with lawn cuttings, wood chips, and prairie grasses instead of Middle East oil.

Unfortunately, passing chemistry class doesn't mean acing economics. Scientists have long known how to turn trees into ethanol, but doing it profitably is another matter. We can run our cars on lawn cuttings today; we just can't do it at a price people are willing to pay.

The problem is cellulose. Found in plant cell walls, it's the most abundant naturally occurring organic molecule on the planet, a potentially limitless source of energy. But it's a tough molecule to break down. Bacteria and other microorganisms use specialized enzymes to do the job, scouring lawns, fields, and forest floors, hunting out cellulose and dining on it. Evolution has given other animals elegant ways to do the same: Cows, goats, and deer maintain a special stomach full of bugs to digest the molecule; termites harbor hundreds of unique microorganisms in their guts that help them process it. For scientists, though, figuring out how to convert cellulose into a usable form on a budget driven by gas-pump prices has been neither elegant nor easy. To tap that potential energy, they're harnessing nature's tools, tweaking them in the lab to make them work much faster than nature intended.

While researchers work to bring down the costs of alternative energy sources, in the past two years policymakers have finally reached consensus that it's time to move past oil. The reasoning varies — reducing our dependence on unstable oil-producing regions, cutting greenhouse gases, avoiding ever-increasing prices — but it's clear that the US needs to replace billions of gallons of gasoline with alternative fuels, and fast. Even oil industry veteran George W. Bush has declared that "America is addicted to oil" and set a target of replacing 20 percent of the nation's annual gasoline consumption — 35 billion gallons — with renewable fuels by 2017.

But how? Hydrogen is too far-out, and it's no easy task to power our cars with wind- or solar-generated electricity. The answer, then, is ethanol. Unfortunately, the ethanol we can make today — from corn kernels — is a mediocre fuel source. Corn ethanol is easier to produce than the cellulosic kind (convert the sugar to alcohol and you're basically done), but it generates at best 30 percent more energy than is required to grow and process the corn — hardly worth the trouble. Plus, the crop's fertilizer- intensive cultivation pollutes waterways, and increased demand drives up food costs (corn prices doubled last year). And anyway, the corn ethanol industry is projected to produce, at most, the equivalent of only 15 billion gallons of fuel by 2017. "We can't make 35 billion gallons' worth of gasoline out of ethanol from corn," says Dartmouth engineering and biology professor Lee Lynd, "and we probably don't want to."

Cellulosic ethanol, in theory, is a much better bet. Most of the plant species suitable for producing this kind of ethanol — like switchgrass, a fast- growing plant found throughout the Great Plains, and farmed poplar trees — aren't food crops. And according to a joint study by the US Departments of Agriculture and Energy, we can sustainably grow more than 1 billion tons of such biomass on available farmland, using minimal fertilizer. In fact, about two-thirds of what we throw into our landfills today contains cellulose and thus potential fuel. Better still: Cellulosic ethanol yields roughly 80 percent more energy than is required to grow and convert it.

So a wave of public and private funding, bringing newfound optimism, is pouring into research labs. Venture capitalists have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in cellulosic-technology startups. BP has announced that it's giving $500 million for an Energy Biosciences Institute run by the University of Illinois and UC Berkeley. The Department of Energy pledged $385 million to six companies building cellulosic demonstration plants. In June the DOE added awards for three $125 million bioenergy centers to pursue new research on cellulosic biofuels.

There's just one catch: No one has yet figured out how to generate energy from plant matter at a competitive price. The result is that no car on the road today uses a drop of cellulosic ethanol.

Cellulose is a tough molecule by design, a fact that dates back 400 million years to when plants made the move from ocean to land and required sturdy cell walls to keep themselves upright and protected against microbes, the elements, and eventually animals. Turning that defensive armor into fuel involves pretreating the plant material with chemicals to strip off cell-wall protections. Then there are two complicated steps: first, introducing enzymes, called cellulases, to break the cellulose down into glucose and xylose; and second, using yeast and other microorganisms to ferment those sugars into ethanol.

The step that has perplexed scientists is the one involving enzymes — proteins that come in an almost infinite variety of three-dimensional structures. They are at work everywhere in living cells, usually speeding up the chemical reactions that break down complex molecules. Because they're hard to make from scratch, scientists generally extract them from microorganisms that produce them naturally. But the trick is producing the enzymes cheaply enough at an industrial scale and speed.

Today's cellulases are the enzyme equivalent of vacuum tubes: clunky, slow, and expensive. Now, flush with cash, scientists and companies are racing to develop the cellulosic transistor. Some researchers are trying to build the ultimate microbe in the lab, one that could combine the two key steps of the process. Others are using "directed evolution" and genetic engineering to improve the enzyme-producing microorganisms currently in use. Still others are combing the globe in search of new and better bugs. It's bio-construction versus bio-tinkering versus bio-prospecting, all with the single goal of creating the perfect enzyme cocktail.

President Bush, for one, seems to believe that the revolution is imminent. "It's an interesting time, isn't it," he mused this February. "We're on the verge of some breakthroughs that will enable a pile of wood chips to become the raw materials for fuels that will run your car." Whether the car of the future will be powered by wood chips isn't clear yet. But it may depend on the success of the hunt for tiny enzymes that could be discovered anywhere from a termite's stomach in Central America to a lab bench to your own backyard.
Lee Lynd
Lynd's microbe would be an all-in-one ethanol factory.
Portrait: Peter Yang

Chapter 1
The Veteran

Trace the fortunes of cellulosic ethanol over the past three decades and you'll find that the arc almost perfectly mirrors Lee Lynd's career. The 49-year-old Dartmouth professor started in a compost heap in the 1970s, seemed on the verge of a breakthrough in the '80s, and nearly went bust in the '90s. "There were times," he says, "when my lab barely had a pulse." Now, as a central player in the burgeoning cellulosic industry, he works out of a rejuvenated Dartmouth lab and sparkling new offices in nearby Lebanon, New Hampshire, freshly equipped and staffed by nearly two dozen PhDs. Many are recent hires, the beneficiaries of $60 million that Lynd's company, Mascoma, has raised. The firm is beginning construction on a pilot-scale ethanol plant in New York state this year, and it recently announced plans for a $100 million production plant in Michigan, projected to break ground in 2008.

Lynd has deep-set eyes and wavy blond hair graying at the temples. He dresses the casual businessman, his inner environmentalist betrayed only by a pair of leather sandals. Working on a farm as a biology undergrad one summer in the 1970s, Lynd noticed that a thermometer stuck in a compost pile registered 150 degrees Fahrenheit. He knew that microorganisms must be at work in there, digesting the plants and turning them into... something. Lynd became obsessed with harnessing that biology to generate usable energy from plants.

He certainly wasn't the first scientist to try. The oil crisis of the '70s spurred a wave of federally funded research on cellulosic ethanol. Then, in the mid-'80s, when President Reagan declared the fuel crisis over, the DOE money vanished with few results. Many academics fled to other fields where funding was easier to get. But Lynd — descended from what he calls "several generations of social reformers" — remained enamored with the potential of cellulosic ethanol, and he pieced together small grants to keep his lab running.

For Lynd, the key to the future lies in combining the two main stages of the cellulosic conversion pathway into a single process inside a single microbe. Instead of using enzymes to make sugar out of plant material and then using yeast to convert that sugar to ethanol, Lynd is trying to create a bacterium that serves as an all-in-one fuel factory, taking up cellulose and spitting out ethanol. Called consolidated bioprocessing, or CBP, this has been his dream for two decades. "Almost everybody believes it's doable," he says. "People disagree whether it'll take two years or 20."

To get there, he needs to engineer cellulase production into a sugar-fermenting microbe like yeast or modify a cellulase-producing organism to make it ferment sugar. With plenty of research money in hand, he's trying to do both. To accomplish the latter, Lynd and his colleagues are working with a cellulase-producing bacterium called Clostridium thermocellum. "You can isolate this puppy out of garden soil, hot springs, compost heaps, forest floors," Lynd says. In 2005, the researchers proved that a bug very similar to C. thermocellum could be modified to make ethanol. Their goal is now to modify C. thermocellum to do the same. If he succeeds, Lynd's analysis shows that CBP — by reducing the raw materials and capital required — could cut overall processing costs twofold, potentially the difference between a profitable ethanol plant and a money pit.

Meanwhile, Mascoma is pushing ahead to build factories that will use commercial cellulase enzymes until the superbug is available. That may not happen immediately, but Lynd is patient, having sought a breakthrough for three decades. "I'm not sure if that makes me inspired or an idiot," he says. "Probably a little of both."
Joel Cherry, a molecular biologist
Cherry is making existing enzymes cheaper and more efficient.
Portrait: Peter Yang

Chapter 2
The Suppliers

If you want to buy enzymes off the shelf, a good place to start would be Novozymes, the world's leading supplier of cellulases. Headquartered in Denmark, the company runs a tidy business selling millions of pounds of enzymes, used to do everything from brewing alcohol without malt to helping laundry detergent devour stains. Novozymes perfects its enzymes in state-of-the-art biotech labs and sends them to plants scattered around the world, where they are manufactured in bulk. Now, in a subsidiary office tucked away just off I-80 outside Davis, California, the company is prepping its next advance.

Back in 2000, Joel Cherry, a molecular biologist who now runs the company's research on biomass enzymes, began urging Novozymes to develop some that could be used to produce fuel. "There were a lot of people who said it wasn't worth doing," he recalls. But Cherry pressed the company to apply for a DOE grant, and the agency awarded Novozymes and Palo Alto-based Genencor about $15 million each to make the currently available cellulases cheaper and more efficient at chopping up plants. Cherry now heads a team of nearly 100 researchers focused exclusively on cellulosic enzymes, the company's largest single R&D effort.

The enzymes used today to make cellulosic ethanol come from a microbe that was discovered during World War II, eating away at the tents used by US forces in the South Pacific. It turned out to be a tropical fungus named Trichoderma reesei, which secretes a mixture of more than 50 cellulose-processing enzymes. Researchers have since bred strains of it that can produce the stuff much faster. "It's definitely the gold standard for cellulase production," Cherry says, holding up a sample plate covered in the green dust of T. reesei spores.

Novozymes sells T. reesei derived cellulases today, primarily to fabric companies that use them to create the stone-washed look for jeans. But profit margins are fatter on jeans than on commodities like fuel, and the enzymes have remained too expensive to make cellulosic ethanol commercially viable.

So Cherry's team transplanted four new enzyme-producing genes into the fungus — sequences from other cellulase-generating organisms in the company's culture collection. For some of the samples, bioengineers used what they call directed evolution: They mutated the genes and then used high-throughput screening to test the resulting enzymes for improvement in properties like heat resistance and ability to degrade cellulose. The best of the mutated-enzyme combinations were then tested in tabletop reactors on corn stover, the cellulose-laden stalks of the crop. After four years, Cherry and his team say they've reduced the cost of the enzyme mixture from $5 per gallon of ethanol to well under a dollar. Genencor claims similar improvement.

The only way to truly judge the enzymes' cost and effectiveness, however, is to put them to work on real feedstocks under industrial conditions. To that end, Novozymes is currently supplying its new enzymes to several companies in the US, Europe, and China that are building cellulosic demonstration plants. Those are among over a dozen outfits — from a company using a thermochemical process to break down wood chips in Georgia to a Massachusetts-based firm that is working on a CBP bug to rival Lynd's — scrambling for the first commercial cellulosic success.

"We're at the place now where the enzymes could be significantly cheaper, and we are going to continue to pound on it," Cherry says. "If one of those efforts can show a clear path to economic viability, I think it's just going to go crazy."
John Doyle, Verenium's vice president
Doyle looks to nature for better enzymes.
Portrait: Peter Yang

Chapter 3
The Collectors

Could there be better enzymes in the wild, as yet unknown, just waiting to be discovered? Verenium, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, thinks so, and it's prospecting the globe for a bug that produces them. The company's scientists will go just about anywhere — they've explored the excrement of rhinos and the stomachs of cows — but their most intriguing work so far took them to Costa Rica, home to one of the world's most diverse insect populations. There, working with Caltech microbiologist Jared Leadbetter and a group of Costa Rican scientists, the team gathered termites from the rain forest floor.

Termites are master cellulose processors, using a mixture of bacteria, fungi, and other microorganisms in their hindmost gut to break down leaves and dead trees. "There are lots of organisms that naturally degrade and digest plant cell-wall material," says biologist Kevin Gray, the company's director of alternative fuels. "Termites are top on the list."

After pinching out the termite's gut, which holds a microliter of material containing an entire ecosystem of microbes, they shipped it back to the US and isolated the DNA. Now, together with the DOE, they're sequencing that DNA to find the genes responsible for creating the cellulases. A preliminary analysis shows "a large diversity of enzymes," Gray says. Next, they'll determine the most effective mix of cellulases by testing what they've extracted on plant matter. They hope to find one that will chew up cellulose bonds faster and more efficiently than anything Novozymes' T. reesei fungus churns out.

But Verenium is not an enzyme company like Novozymes — it's in the fuel business. Just outside the farm town of Jennings, it also runs a pilot-scale biorefinery amid the steaming bayous of western Louisiana. This is one of the few places in the world where enzymes are already on the job, turning plants into usable fuel.

The process starts with a three-story-high mound of bagasse, a woody byproduct of sugarcane that farmers often discard. The bagasse, which resembles sweet-smelling mulch, travels on a conveyer belt through stainless steel pipes where it's treated with an acid mixture. Then it's dumped into 10-foot-diameter tanks for the two biological stages of the process. First, microbes that churn out cellulose-chomping enzymes are funneled into the batch, turning the bagasse into sugar. Then, two micro organisms — including a special strain of Escherichia coli bacteria developed by University of Florida microbiologist Lonnie Ingram — are used to ferment the sugar into alcohol.

This facility churns out enough ethanol to test the basic technology, if not to prove its viability at commercial volumes. But John Doyle, Verenium's vice president for projects, is overseeing the construction of a larger demonstration plant and hopes to show that the economics can scale, even before the company finds the right termite-derived enzymes.

"The high tech part of our process is the organisms," Doyle says, "and you can always swap new organisms into the infrastructure." The refinery, in other words, is just hardware, while the biology supplies the software — with the enzymes upgraded whenever a new, better one is pinched out and perfected.

Epilogue
The Forecast

Skeptics argue that rosy projections for cellulosic ethanol ignore its drawbacks — mainly, that cars need to be converted to run on it, that existing oil pipelines can't transport it, and that we don't have the land to grow enough of it. Advocates counter that if the fuel is cheap and plentiful enough, the infrastructure will follow. "If we could make ethanol at a large scale in a way that is sustainable, carbon-neutral, and cost-effective, we would surely be doing so," Lynd says, citing the fact that most cars can easily be converted to run on ethanol, something already done with most new cars in Brazil. "Meeting these objectives is not limited by the fuel properties of ethanol but rather by the current difficulty of converting cellulosic biomass to sugars."

Neither government funding nor venture capital, of course, guarantees research breakthroughs or commercial blockbusters. And even ardent proponents concede that cellulosic ethanol won't solve our fuel problems — or do much to stop global warming — without parallel efforts to improve vehicle efficiency. They also worry that attention could again fade if the first demonstration plants fail or oil prices plummet. "To get this industry going, you need some short-term breakthroughs, by which I mean the next five to seven years," says Martin Keller, a micro biologist at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee and director of its new BioEnergy Science Center. "Otherwise, my fear is that people may leave this field again."

The problem comes from the quotidian difficulties of making benchtop science work on an industrial scale. Undoubtedly, even some well-funded efforts will fail. But the proliferation of research — the prospect of Lee Lynd's superbug, the evolution of current cellulases, and the addition of new enzymes harvested from nature — stacks the deck in favor of cellulosic ethanol.

Alexander Karsner, assistant secretary for the DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, says that with plants going up around the country, the industry could make cellulosic ethanol cost-competitive within six years. "I think there won't be a silver-bullet process, where you say, 'That has won, and everything else is done,'" he says. "So you need many of these technologies."

Having known lean times, Lynd is reluctant to predict the future. But given the freedom of fat wallets, he says, "I truly think that in five years all the hard issues about converting cellulosic biomass to ethanol may be solved."

The researchers' vision, of green and gold switchgrass fields feeding a nationwide network of ethanol plants and filling stations, often has an effortless quality to it — as easy as a few steps sketched out on a blackboard. The money and momentum is here. Solve the science, they argue, and the market will take care of the rest.
User avatar
Gil Hamilton
Tipsy Space Birdie
Posts: 12962
Joined: 2002-07-04 05:47pm
Contact:

Post by Gil Hamilton »

Yeah, it's good stuff, once we figure it out. I'd still perfer to cultivate kudzu for it. It's grows fast, it's actually good for the soil*, and if push comes to shove, you can eat it like spinach and use the roots medicinally (something they've been doing in Asian for many many centuries).


*kudzu roots are deep and draw up minerals from lower soil layers into the topsoil, plus, the roots contain symbotic bacteria that actually nitrogen fix. Once you actually get rid of the kudzu (which can be a challenge), you are left with some good soil to group vegetables in.
"Show me an angel and I will paint you one." - Gustav Courbet

"Quetzalcoatl, plumed serpent of the Aztecs... you are a pussy." - Stephen Colbert

"Really, I'm jealous of how much smarter than me he is. I'm not an expert on anything and he's an expert on things he knows nothing about." - Me, concerning a bullshitter
User avatar
Zixinus
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6663
Joined: 2007-06-19 12:48pm
Location: In Seth the Blitzspear
Contact:

Post by Zixinus »

Another "solution to oil addiction"? I recall it was "oil dependence" and it was only an addiction in the naive minds of greens and researchers who want to get rich on the alternative they are developing.
Credo!
Chat with me on Skype if you want to talk about writing, ideas or if you want a test-reader! PM for address.
User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Outside Context Problem
Posts: 31572
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:17pm
Location: UK

Post by Admiral Valdemar »

Cellulosic ethanol has been the Holy Grail for longer than the PO debate has raged. IF, not when, it becomes viable, it'd be great. Until then, it's far too expensive and energy intensive for full-scale use. The best you can hope for now is widespread adoption of biomass gasification.
User avatar
Eris
Jedi Knight
Posts: 541
Joined: 2005-11-15 01:59am

Post by Eris »

Zixinus wrote:Another "solution to oil addiction"? I recall it was "oil dependence" and it was only an addiction in the naive minds of greens and researchers who want to get rich on the alternative they are developing.
Well, if it's not an addiction that's only because there's not a formal definition of addiction out there. One commonly used in academic research, though, is continued behaviour despite negative consequences resulting from that behaviour (usually drug use, but it can apply to other things). Under that definition the US is certainly addicted to oil use. We're still doing it despite it ruining the environment, supporting terrorism, being unsustainable...
"Hey, gang, we're all part of the spleen!"
-PZ Meyers
User avatar
Gil Hamilton
Tipsy Space Birdie
Posts: 12962
Joined: 2002-07-04 05:47pm
Contact:

Post by Gil Hamilton »

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Cellulosic ethanol has been the Holy Grail for longer than the PO debate has raged. IF, not when, it becomes viable, it'd be great. Until then, it's far too expensive and energy intensive for full-scale use. The best you can hope for now is widespread adoption of biomass gasification.
I don't see why I can't be made viable with the right funding. I mean, there are things that eat cellulose and turn it into sugar now. The big trick is to get it to do it quickly and we are pretty much set. I know you automatically default to things never working and that we are all doomed DOOMED!, but I really don't see how this is a dodgy proposition to work out. Certainly it's less dodgy than hydrogen fuel economy, to say nothing about nuclear fusion.
"Show me an angel and I will paint you one." - Gustav Courbet

"Quetzalcoatl, plumed serpent of the Aztecs... you are a pussy." - Stephen Colbert

"Really, I'm jealous of how much smarter than me he is. I'm not an expert on anything and he's an expert on things he knows nothing about." - Me, concerning a bullshitter
User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Outside Context Problem
Posts: 31572
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:17pm
Location: UK

Post by Admiral Valdemar »

Because this is something that has had just as much funding and hope behind it as the Canadian tar sands. If it was viable now, it'd be popular already. There are many limitations to this process, because I assure you, if it were a simple case of getting bacteria to breakdown the cellulose, I'd do it in five minutes in the lab. That plants around the world aren't turning to mush and dooming us all is testament to how tough cellulose is.

Then you have water dilution issues that impact EROEI which adds to the huge amounts of biomass needed to be delivered to such plants for marginal gain. With the buzz around bio-fuels the US Govt. is whipping up, there's no lack of funding. I'd recommend looking at Vinod Khosla's work on the process and seeing how much he has promised and failed to deliver, consistently, for years.

At least biomass gasification is workable. The only problem is cost. Big cost. You can't pump plant matter down a pipe like NG.
User avatar
Zixinus
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6663
Joined: 2007-06-19 12:48pm
Location: In Seth the Blitzspear
Contact:

Post by Zixinus »

Well, if it's not an addiction that's only because there's not a formal definition of addiction out there. One commonly used in academic research, though, is continued behaviour despite negative consequences resulting from that behaviour (usually drug use, but it can apply to other things). Under that definition the US is certainly addicted to oil use. We're still doing it despite it ruining the environment, supporting terrorism, being unsustainable...
I have a different word of use, a more medical one (based on this page written by a practising physician, although it is on House MD episodes, I believe that the information on the page is accurate).
Addiction is the mental need for something, while dependence is the physical need for something. The two are often tightly connected (usually one follows the other), but not necessarily the same. Dependence is physical need, like insulin for a diabetes patient.
Drugs like cocaine, LSD, crack, whatever all begin as psychological need, and then develop physical need, as the person's body chemistry got used to the drug.

I keep hearing our dependence on oil being talked about as if we were talking about a cocaine addict. This is simply not true, and even ridiculous. We are not addicted to oil, we DEPEND on it. If all oil in the world would suddenly disappear by magic, then we would have a collapse of entire Western civilization and then some. The industry needs it, transportation needs it (I recall that jet engine specifically require kerosene, imagine if no plane can fly again), several power plants run on it, almost every damn car on the planet uses it, heck I recall that several important chemicals for medicine is from it.

We have a really, really big industry. An important component to that industry is oil, and everything that comes from it. Every alternative presented is between the state of conjuncture and a rolling prototype. Nowhere, are working models that can competitively do the same as oil does.

Every week or two, someone does post "cure to America's addiction to oil lol" thing proposing an alternative that is simply not done yet, or if it is, it is not ready to replace oil. Or "we merely have to figure out how to turn water to wine" problem. Science is not that simple. Engineering is not that simple. Infrastructure is not that simple. We are dependent on oil. We are at the point of realizing it, and we are working againts it, but we are still dependent on oil.
Credo!
Chat with me on Skype if you want to talk about writing, ideas or if you want a test-reader! PM for address.
User avatar
Zixinus
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6663
Joined: 2007-06-19 12:48pm
Location: In Seth the Blitzspear
Contact:

Post by Zixinus »

Oh, and the page is here: http://politedissent.com/archives/572
Credo!
Chat with me on Skype if you want to talk about writing, ideas or if you want a test-reader! PM for address.
kinnison
Padawan Learner
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-12-04 05:38am

Post by kinnison »

Zixinus, it is perfectly true that jet fuel is exclusively kerosene at the moment. However, that is a matter of design, which can be changed even with an existing engine. I used to work for the oil industry; it is a fact that jet fuel used to be a crudely-refined form of gasoline, and this was changed around 35 years ago to kerosene for safety reasons (in the military, JP4 to JP8 IIRC). One of the people I worked with ran his car on it. 8) I was told that the change was a reasonably simple retrofit. Therefore, I can see no reason why it shouldn't be possible to change it again. It will undoubtedly be something to do with fuel mixing proportions, fuel nozzle size and shape, etc. etc.
User avatar
Zixinus
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6663
Joined: 2007-06-19 12:48pm
Location: In Seth the Blitzspear
Contact:

Post by Zixinus »

From kerosene to what? Hydrogen? Aircraft are not dangerous enough, you want to fly with boomgas under your butt?

Fuel can change, yeah, its a solvable engineering issue. But from what to where? That is the billion dollar question.
Credo!
Chat with me on Skype if you want to talk about writing, ideas or if you want a test-reader! PM for address.
[R_H]
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2894
Joined: 2007-08-24 08:51am
Location: Europe

Post by [R_H] »

Or instead of investing all this money into finding another way to support fossil fuel dependancy, there could be more funding for public transit and [gasp] nuclear powerplants.

That being said, alternative fuel sources are needed, but not for Joe Sixpack to tool around in his SUV - instead for agriculture, aviation, the chemical industry etc.

My two cents.
User avatar
Gil Hamilton
Tipsy Space Birdie
Posts: 12962
Joined: 2002-07-04 05:47pm
Contact:

Post by Gil Hamilton »

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Because this is something that has had just as much funding and hope behind it as the Canadian tar sands. If it was viable now, it'd be popular already. There are many limitations to this process, because I assure you, if it were a simple case of getting bacteria to breakdown the cellulose, I'd do it in five minutes in the lab. That plants around the world aren't turning to mush and dooming us all is testament to how tough cellulose is.

Then you have water dilution issues that impact EROEI which adds to the huge amounts of biomass needed to be delivered to such plants for marginal gain. With the buzz around bio-fuels the US Govt. is whipping up, there's no lack of funding. I'd recommend looking at Vinod Khosla's work on the process and seeing how much he has promised and failed to deliver, consistently, for years.

At least biomass gasification is workable. The only problem is cost. Big cost. You can't pump plant matter down a pipe like NG.
I didn't say viable to day. What I meant was that I don't see why it couldn't be made viable in the near future. I know how tough cellulose is, I can even tell you way. What I'm saying is that it doesn't seem like the tremendous hurdle that something like a hydrogen economy or nuclear fusion is.
"Show me an angel and I will paint you one." - Gustav Courbet

"Quetzalcoatl, plumed serpent of the Aztecs... you are a pussy." - Stephen Colbert

"Really, I'm jealous of how much smarter than me he is. I'm not an expert on anything and he's an expert on things he knows nothing about." - Me, concerning a bullshitter
User avatar
Zixinus
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6663
Joined: 2007-06-19 12:48pm
Location: In Seth the Blitzspear
Contact:

Post by Zixinus »

I didn't say viable to day. What I meant was that I don't see why it couldn't be made viable in the near future. I know how tough cellulose is, I can even tell you way. What I'm saying is that it doesn't seem like the tremendous hurdle that something like a hydrogen economy or nuclear fusion is.
The same thing can be said about every other idea that has been promoted/posted on this forum, as well as hydrogen economy and nuclear fusion. Things aren't just that simple.

Answer me this please:
Are you a chemist or a biologist or a person that is closely related to those two fields of knowledge and study in regards of own profession?

If the answer is yes, then I'll shut up, as it end up in a technical debate where my knowledge is poor and vague at best.

But if the answer is no, then how can you honestly measure JUST how difficult is this idea to take from theory to everyday practise?
Credo!
Chat with me on Skype if you want to talk about writing, ideas or if you want a test-reader! PM for address.
User avatar
Zixinus
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6663
Joined: 2007-06-19 12:48pm
Location: In Seth the Blitzspear
Contact:

Post by Zixinus »

Or instead of investing all this money into finding another way to support fossil fuel dependancy, there could be more funding for public transit and [gasp] nuclear powerplants.

That being said, alternative fuel sources are needed, but not for Joe Sixpack to tool around in his SUV - instead for agriculture, aviation, the chemical industry etc.

My two cents.
Your two "completely and utterly unrelated to the topic of question" cents. Global warming is in another topic. Please go there.
Credo!
Chat with me on Skype if you want to talk about writing, ideas or if you want a test-reader! PM for address.
User avatar
Fingolfin_Noldor
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11834
Joined: 2006-05-15 10:36am
Location: At the Helm of the HAB Star Dreadnaught Star Fist

Post by Fingolfin_Noldor »

Zixinus wrote:
Or instead of investing all this money into finding another way to support fossil fuel dependancy, there could be more funding for public transit and [gasp] nuclear powerplants.

That being said, alternative fuel sources are needed, but not for Joe Sixpack to tool around in his SUV - instead for agriculture, aviation, the chemical industry etc.

My two cents.
Your two "completely and utterly unrelated to the topic of question" cents. Global warming is in another topic. Please go there.
Please tell me, how reducing fossil fuel consumption, is considered altogether unrelated to the oil problem.
Image
STGOD: Byzantine Empire
Your spirit, diseased as it is, refuses to allow you to give up, no matter what threats you face... and whatever wreckage you leave behind you.
Kreia
User avatar
Zixinus
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6663
Joined: 2007-06-19 12:48pm
Location: In Seth the Blitzspear
Contact:

Post by Zixinus »

Please tell me, how reducing fossil fuel consumption, is considered altogether unrelated to the oil problem.
Okay, not totally unrelated, but still not related.
Credo!
Chat with me on Skype if you want to talk about writing, ideas or if you want a test-reader! PM for address.
kinnison
Padawan Learner
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-12-04 05:38am

Post by kinnison »

Zixinus wrote:From kerosene to what? Hydrogen? Aircraft are not dangerous enough, you want to fly with boomgas under your butt?

Fuel can change, yeah, its a solvable engineering issue. But from what to where? That is the billion dollar question.
Actually, I suspect that hydrogen would be the last choice for jet fuel - if only because its energy per unit volume is pathetic, although its energy per unit weight is quite good, because liquid hydrogen is so light. Also, LH2, being a deep cryogen, is damn difficult to store.

Given a source of energy it is possible to make any number of fuels. I haven't looked into the numbers, but I suspect that biodiesel may well be the one with the best energy density - very important for jet travel in particular, much more so than it is for automotive fuels.

The solution may be in your sig - the only actual reason for carrying fuel around for a jet engine is as a source of heat, which is a very different situation from space applications. The air going through the engine is the reaction mass. If you have a working fusion reactor of reasonably small size, you can then heat said air using fusion energy, probably in the form of electrical heating - perhaps a plasma discharge within the engine, but I'm no expert. (Is anyone, on this subject?)

Another solution for some applications is lighter-than-air transport, perhaps using helium and perhaps, with some loss of efficiency, some slightly heavier gas such as neon (molecular weight 20, about two-thirds that of average for air). Or even some sort of hot-air or hot-gas filling. (Hot neon would be slightly better than cold.) I mention the alternatives because one of the upcoming shortages is helium.

I have been reading some stuff about thermal depolymerisation - essentially a heating process in the absence of air, which can be used to get liquid fuels out of all sorts of rubbish - waste plastic, slaughterhouse waste, the solids from sewage, and possibly cellulosic plant material - even such stuff as the straw left after you've processed wheat.

Another source of energy, possibly, is blue-green algae. Conceptually, all you need for this is a hell of a lot of transparent plastic tubing and some water and algae, along with some source of mineral nutrients - possibly from water treatment - and some sunshine. This does a number of things at once - cleans up the effluent, creates a large amount of protein probably suitable for feeding animals if nothing else, and creates, if certain species are used, quite a lot of oily material (IIRC the figure was 30%) which can be used as chemical feedstock or fuel in the same way as vegetable oils can. This last process has been shown to work in small-scale trials. Really, it's just another biofuel variant, but possibly more controllable than some.

There are solutions - there really are.
User avatar
Eris
Jedi Knight
Posts: 541
Joined: 2005-11-15 01:59am

Post by Eris »

Zixinus wrote: I have a different word of use, a more medical one (based on this page written by a practising physician, although it is on House MD episodes, I believe that the information on the page is accurate).
Addiction is the mental need for something, while dependence is the physical need for something. The two are often tightly connected (usually one follows the other), but not necessarily the same. Dependence is physical need, like insulin for a diabetes patient.
And therein lies the problem, albeit it is at most a terminological one. Each time you pull up an example such as that, I can point you to someone like Howard Shaffer, the director of Division on Addictions at Harvard Medical School, who claims that while the definition of addiction is unclear, some of the general characteristics under a reasonable model are behaviour motivated by cravings or compulsion, continued use in spite of adverse consequences, and loss of control - none of which really specify whether addiction is a physical or psychological condition. (And indeed, Shaffer talks about everything from drug use to gambling as examples of addictive behaviour.) There are likewise some physicians and researchers that refuse to use the word addiction for anything but the biochemical reactions and needs, and instead talk about psychological dependence.

Not to say that anything you wrote is wrong per se, and I agree generally on your assessment of how we have come to rely upon cheap oil to keep our economy going. However, calling this an addiction isn't really as squirrelly as it might seem because in this case there really is no right answer about how the term ought to be used. It's more important here to simply carefully define the terms used to avoid confusion than use any particular words with an established precise definition.
"Hey, gang, we're all part of the spleen!"
-PZ Meyers
[R_H]
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2894
Joined: 2007-08-24 08:51am
Location: Europe

Post by [R_H] »

Zixinus wrote:
snip
Your two "completely and utterly unrelated to the topic of question" cents. Global warming is in another topic. Please go there.
Where do you get the idea that I was talking about global warming? I was just saying that we're at the point of needing to use valuable cultivateable (sp) land to fuel a luxury. I'd understand if they'd mandate that all fuel made from cellulose (and all other biofuel etc) be prioritised for essential activities that require fossil fuels because other alternatives aren't adequate (like agriculture, the chemical industry and so on) to reduce the dependancy on other countries/continents - but just to support a priviledge of being able to drive around is ridiculous. I don't know about you, but food and medicine are more essential to me than driving around.

That's why I mentionned public transit and Joe Blow's SUV. Hopefully you now understand why I said what I said in my previous post.
User avatar
Zixinus
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6663
Joined: 2007-06-19 12:48pm
Location: In Seth the Blitzspear
Contact:

Post by Zixinus »

There are solutions - there really are.
And where are they? In labs or on the stage with a spotlight. Yes, there are solutions. You listed plenty. They should be looked into more vigorously. But where are they?

BTW, a Polywell and its plasma might not be the most ideal for replacing kerosene-based jet engines, unless we are talking about very big planes.
However, calling this an addiction isn't really as squirrelly as it might seem because in this case there really is no right answer about how the term ought to be used.
Perhaps not the term itself, but how we talk about it. I keep getting the impression that whenever we are talking about addiction, we are talking addiction like a drug addict, which isn't as simple case.
Where do you get the idea that I was talking about global warming?
Sounded like it was a quote from just such a topic. My responce in that way was unjistified, sorry.
I'd understand if they'd mandate that all fuel made from cellulose (and all other biofuel etc) be prioritised for essential activities that require fossil fuels because other alternatives aren't adequate (like agriculture, the chemical industry and so on) to reduce the dependancy on other countries/continents - but just to support a priviledge of being able to drive around is ridiculous.
I see more logic behind your idea. The part that set me off is that you were thinking of spreading biofuels with government mandiation, while I was thinking in terms of the free market. Whatever will replace kerosene for jet planes, will most likely replace gas in cars. The price will be automatically higher of course, but that depends on the economics of the biofuels in question.
Credo!
Chat with me on Skype if you want to talk about writing, ideas or if you want a test-reader! PM for address.
[R_H]
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2894
Joined: 2007-08-24 08:51am
Location: Europe

Post by [R_H] »

No problem, Zixinus, I'm glad you understand what I was saying. I think there should be a government mandate against the use of biofuels by owners of personal vehicles and instead towards to fufilling higher priority, essential, needs so that if the shit ever hits the fan there won't be an absolute collapse of infrastructure, of trucking, of agriculture and so forth.

My problem with the biofuels basically boils down to people wanting to have their cake and being able to eat it too (don't think that's the right way to use that expression though). We wouldn't have this problem if there would be more support for public transit, sustainable energy generation and elimination of suburbs.

I've seen both worlds. I lived in Calgary for 10 years, a car there is a necessity to get around. That being said, I could ride the LRT (Light Rail Transit) from the Northwest of the city down to the Southwest, or the Northeast down to the Southeast for roughly 2 dollars. Here in Switzerland, a car is completely unnecessary. I use public transit to get everywhere, a car here is more of a liability than anything else (high gas prices, taxes on vehicle size, engine size etc), quite a few people have cars, but they're mostly what would be considered small sedans or smaller (SUVs here are crossovers in North America) and most people only use their cars on weekends. Consequently, there aren't any huge ass parking lots, the highways here are as large as most city streets in Calgary and the population density is much higher.
User avatar
Gil Hamilton
Tipsy Space Birdie
Posts: 12962
Joined: 2002-07-04 05:47pm
Contact:

Post by Gil Hamilton »

Zixinus wrote:The same thing can be said about every other idea that has been promoted/posted on this forum, as well as hydrogen economy and nuclear fusion. Things aren't just that simple.

Answer me this please:
Are you a chemist or a biologist or a person that is closely related to those two fields of knowledge and study in regards of own profession?

If the answer is yes, then I'll shut up, as it end up in a technical debate where my knowledge is poor and vague at best.

But if the answer is no, then how can you honestly measure JUST how difficult is this idea to take from theory to everyday practise?
Well, I do go to university for Chemistry, so let me explain my reasoning.

Cellulose is so tough because aside from being physically strong and comes in large fiber bundles, it is molecularly strong because it is alternating alpha-glucose and beta-glucose sugars, and beta-glucose situated like that requires enzymes to break down that single celled organisms tend to possess. You can break it down with those and get sugar from it, cows and termites both have organisms in their tummies that do it and they get along fine, but the problem is the get ALOT of it quickly.

Cellulase, the enzyme mentioned in the article, does it, but not on a level that would allow us to produce the sugar to make billions of barrels of ethanol fuel. Hence, the goal is to either engineer a better bug or to find one, which will eat cellulose and spit out sweet white crude in an economic fashion. While this is certainly challenging, to say the least, it's less beset by the physical problems that economic nuclear fusion has.

While I'm not up to date on the latest on the issue, I just don't see why we should adopt a "It'll never work... still doomed, folks!" attitude with cellulose ethanol. It's certainly something we can achieve with some effort.
"Show me an angel and I will paint you one." - Gustav Courbet

"Quetzalcoatl, plumed serpent of the Aztecs... you are a pussy." - Stephen Colbert

"Really, I'm jealous of how much smarter than me he is. I'm not an expert on anything and he's an expert on things he knows nothing about." - Me, concerning a bullshitter
User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Outside Context Problem
Posts: 31572
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:17pm
Location: UK

Post by Admiral Valdemar »

Gil, it's not really the technical issue of breaking down cellulose, which we all know is quite doable given every herbivore on Earth does it daily. The issue is with making this work on and industrial scale, for our daily liquid fuel use and that is somewhere this side of financially viable. The Law of Receding Horizons tends to mean that, as with heavy oil like tar sands and shale or deep-water sources, the price rises of conventional crude don't make these unconventional sources more viable. Instead, they suffer higher costs as a result of increased energy prices across the board.

So while I can see it being done on some scale if necessary, I can't say I see it replacing what we use now in crude and not killing the global economy in the process. Of course, the alternatives are all this difficult to choose from and inaction would be a death knell more so than going to wrong route, but life sucks that way.

Gasification is easier though still suffers the same problems. At least some Scandinavian countries used this system to great effect decades ago.
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Post by K. A. Pital »

Do people think about mass conversion of foodstoffs for energy, and what effect that would have on the world food supply situation? :?
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
Post Reply