My ideal microbe for biofuel production would consume garbage, excrete gasoline, and die if it escapes into the wild. Excretion of longer chain hydrocarbons like gasoline would enable a less energy-intensive separation, because the product would phase out of water. LS9 is exploring this sort of pathway via microbes, and Virent is trying to do the same thing catalytically.
It is quite a challenging problem, but should be technically viable. And a company that can achieve an edge in this space could really dominate the biofuels arena. As I have said, it is difficult, but Holy Grail research.
Today a new and quite novel approach was announced in the Journal of the American Chemical Society:
Synthesis of Methyl Halides from Biomass Using Engineered Microbes
Professor Christopher Voigt and his team at UC San Francisco are researching a multi-pronged approach to the problem. They are using a bacterium that was discovered at a landfill in France to consume cellulose and convert it to acetate. (This was exactly what I did in graduate school, except we were using microbes from the stomachs of cattle to convert cellulose into acetate. After all, the stomach of a cow is a cellulose conversion factory).
Once acetate is produced, Professor’s Voigt’s team utilized a yeast to convert the acetate into a methyl halide. The beauty of this approach is three-fold. First, the acetate poisons the bacterium as the concentration builds, but the yeast prevents that by consuming it as it is produced. Second, the product comes off as a gas, simplifying the separation of the product from the aqueous solution. Finally, methyl halides can be converted into gasoline catalytically.
So what’s the catch? Generally the yields and reaction rates via these sorts of approaches are too low to be economically viable. This means that even if you have something that phases out of solution (or a gas that bubbles out in this case) the reactor(s) may need to be enormous to produce commercial quantities of product. Another potential issue here is the possibility that other gases are produced along with the methyl halides, potentially requiring a separation after all. Finally, methyl halides have never been turned into gasoline at large scale. If the economics were attractive, we would probably be using this process to convert natural gas into gasoline.
Still, this is a very interesting approach and an avenue that appears to be worthy of much more research.
Finally, hat tip to a reader for bringing this story to my attention earlier today.
Additional Reading
Lab finds new method to turn biomass into gasoline
Yeast and bacterium turned into gasoline factory
Californians engineer microbes to produce methyl halides
Here’s another report:
“Oregon-based Diesel Brewing has launched an initiative to manufacture cellulosic biobutanol from biomass and dairy farm manure. Biobutanol can be blended into conventional gasoline or diesel stocks without engine modifications. Compared to ethanol, it has higher energy content, is substantially less corrosive, and can be transported utilizing existing fuel pipelines and containers.
Butanol is certified by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as an additive agent in gasoline up to 11%. Tests conducted at Argonne National Laboratory have shown that 20% butanol-diesel blends can be successfully used in engines calibrated for 100% diesel fuel. Results showed that butanol mixed with diesel can reduce emissions of criteria pollutants.”
There is more, and it sounds promising. But these kinds of promising reports seem to come out daily.
My own guess is that we are 10-15 years away from alternative fuels, as oil will stay cheap. Natural gas is abundant, and an easy sub for oil.
Palm oil production will rise inexorably. We may even get lucky, and a Venezuela, Libya, Iraq or Iran will stop being so thuggy and up production.
I guess the good news is that lots and lots research is gong on now, far in advance of any actual serious, sustained oil price hikes. If there is a transition to be made, I think we will be more than ready.
Mexico averaged producing 3.85 Million bpd in 2004, and consumed 2.0 Million bpd that year. That left 1.85 mbpd for export (almost, if not all, to the U.S.)
In March of 09′ Mexico produced 2.65 mbpd, and probably consumed 2.1 mbpd. Which left about 0.55 mbpd for “export.”The North Sea is “tanking.” Venezuela is steadily deteriorating, Nigeria, ditto, Russia seems to be starting to decline, and even the Canadian Tar Baby seems to be losing steam.
Rumors abound about Ghawar. I’m not sure I’d want to bet on “low” prices for long.
“I guess the good news is that lots and lots research is gong on now, far in advance of any actual serious, sustained oil price hikes.”
Research is always good news. The world has a supply-side energy challenge, which can only be met through further technological progress, not by going back to the 18th Century. Whether there is enough research, in enough diverse areas, is a good question — I seriously doubt that there is.
Benny, you cannot ignore the very high effective oil prices that European consumers have been paying for decades (thanks to high oil importer government taxes).
European cars (at least the mass maarket models for the great unwashed) have consequently become smaller — but they are still oil-based, and replacement fuels have not emerged. Europeans have not developed the electric car. Hell, Europeans did not even develop the hybrid.
Developing large-scale new energy sources is a major challenge, as is developing the transportation infrastructure to use those different energy sources. Don’t count on a few years of high oil prices being able to cause rapid change.
Butanol is certified by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as an additive agent in gasoline up to 11%.Benny, do you have a source for that? Interesting information, if true, but I was under the impression that butanol blends had not yet been certified.
Thanks, RR
“So what’s the catch? Generally the yields and reaction rates via these sorts of approaches are too low to be economically viable.”
Is that all? Of course economically viable means someplace in the process there is the guy driving the bobcat and carrying a clipboard who has a right to a safe work environment.
Least we forget, what about Brazil? All those folks who find emerging research with great potential very interesting are the same folks who come up with a long list of why coal, nuclear power, and ethanol are crimes against humanity.
I think this research is great. We need to continue to fund such efforts. Just like practical things like corn ethanol needs a mandate. Progress is often the daily grind of doing it a little better each time.
Is that all?No, which is why I mentioned several potential issues. That doesn’t mean those are the only ones, but it deals with the question of potential obstacles.
Just like practical things like corn ethanol needs a mandate.Mandates lead to unintended consequences. What should have been done with ethanol was at most subsidies and various incentives. What you do with a mandate is throw economics completely out the window and you distort the marketplace in completely unpredictable ways.
If you have a $0.50 gallon subsidy, and corn ethanol is still not gaining ground, you have an idea of the costs. If you simply mandate 10 billion gallons into the fuel supply, the outcome and costs are very unpredictable.
No to mandates. Yes to incentives.
RR
Kinu:
At the risk of sounding a bit nationalistic or ideological, the European system seems to produce little innovation. A few years of higher gasoline prices in the USA, China and Japan, and all sorts of advances were made in hybrid and PHEV vehicles. Thailand is moving ahead with palm oil and CNG. Europe? Just diesel and smaller cars.
But much, much higher mpg cars seem feasible, and are coming soon. They will be developed by Chinese, Japanese and Americans, not Euros. The Ford Fusion and the Prius prove we can hit nearly 50 mpg and sacrifice no creature comforts. The GM Volt may provide unlimited mpgs for urban drivers. PHEV and CNG are coming. That being the case, oil demand looks flimsy for decades ahead.
Rufus: Rumors about Ghawar–spread by whom? To what end? Sheesh, the problem for KSA is they do not have a market for their oil right now. They have to cut production to try to prop up oil prices. RR has looked many times at KSA, and he thinks they have capacity to increase production. The obession with one of the world’s oil fields is an oddity of the times.
I agree with you that unreliable thug state oil production is a treacherous reality. Mexico, KSA, Venezuela, Libya, Nigeria, Iran, Russia–not a trustworthy government in the lot, and they have not developed their fields properly. Despite that, we are in a glut now. Food for thought. Libya seems to be returning to the fold. What if Iraq and Iran calm down? What if Chavez gets serious about oil investment, using Chinese money? We could see 6 mbd from those three countries alone. Brazil?
RR: Here is a document from Ethanol Today magazine. It says 11 percent, I don’t know if it is accurate. I could not check online with EPA. http://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/March_07_ET_secondary.pdf
One thing IS predictable, though. You will have a negative affect on the price of oil, and gasoline. I’m just sure that gives Exxon the “warm, and fuzzies;” aren’t you?
I don’t know Benny. Oil is all about Opec, Opec is all about SA, and SA is all about Ghawar. It’s not just an oil field. It’s the super duper quadruper huge momma of all time, and it’s really, really OOooooold.As to what Saudi Arabia “is” producing, “can” produce, and “will” produce, I’ll punt. I think the King of Saudi Arabia, and one other person might have the answer to ONE of those questions. I know I certainly don’t.
“We could see 6 mbd from those three countries alone.”
Benny, I could not agree more with you. That is why predicting the price of oil over the near/middle term is a mug's game — politics trumps geology.
Of course, both supply & demand could go either way. E.g., China is rumored to be in the wise process of converting some of their $1 Trillion-worth of US bonds into a stockpile of inflation-proof copper. What if the Chinese rulers decide that it would be smart to have a really huge strategic stockpile of oil? What could that do to demand?
If we take the hundred-year view,geology becomes important. The problem is clearly going to be exhaustion of conventional oil resources. The human race will definitely need non-fossil sources of energy — and we won't be able to subsidize them; indeed, we will need to tax them heavily to replace lost tax revenues from fossils.
Nuclear fission is a good start, but we need serious research on a broad portfolio of other possiblities. As RR says, we don't need mandates — where fallible politicians make decisions for the wrong reasons. I would argue that we don't need long-term subsidies either — for the same reason. Eliminating obstructive regulations and X-Prizes would be a better approach.
Sad thing is that whether we are looking at demand, fossil supply, or alternatives, politics is always the key issue. Not a happy prospect.
Rufus:
Ghawar produces 5 mbd. That is a lot.
The world produces 87 mbd. Yes, the Ghawar is important–but keep perspective.
A single CTL plant planned for Indonesia is slated to produce 1 mbd. China is building several; I don’t what size.
Palm oil production shoul rise to several mbd in the 15 years.
US oil demand will probably fall a few mbd going forward.
The TOD’ers have priapism when it comes to Ghawar. But they have priapism about a lot of things.
benny – there is no 1 million barrel per day CTL plant. Likely you meant 1 thousand. There isn’t even a 1 million barrel per day refinery. ExxonMobil Baytown Refinery at 557,000 barrels per day is the largest in the world.
The biggest GTL plants are in Qatar and they are only around 100,000 bpd.
“Mandates lead to unintended consequences.”
What, like the number of times RR can be wrong without admitting it. The purpose of mandating a certain amount of ethanol was to see if we could and what would happen. Corn farmers did and nothing happened.
As for market distortions, there seems to be a lot of that going around. What else does RR want to blame on corn ethanol? Obesity, lung caner and asthma are popular.
Sure RR you have heard that association is not causation!
King-
A 1 mbd CTL complex (not plant, you are correct) is planned for Indonesia. The build-out will take a while. Is is planned to be 1.1 mbd, not 1 mbd. That is the plan, anyway. The reality?
Who knows. But if just five such complexes could replace Ghawar, why all the huffing-and-puffing about Ghawar?
here is a short story:
Newswire Bloomberg quoted an Indonesian government official as saying that Sasol might be investing up to $10-billion on the coal-to-liquids plant. The official said that Sasol was scheduled to sign an accord with the Minister of Energy to study the possibility of such a plant.
It was reported that the plant could start fuel production at 80 000 barrels a day, and could be increased to produce 1.1-million barrels a day.
“What, like the number of times RR can be wrong without admitting it.”
Kit, claiming someone is wrong – even if you do it again and again – isn’t the same as demonstrating that someone is wrong.
As for market distortions, there seems to be a lot of that going around. What else does RR want to blame on corn ethanol?My biggest gripe – which has been my biggest gripe for years – is that the process is so inefficient that corn ethanol is primarily fossil-fuel derived. Yet we are paying subsidies for this.
I bet Kit would think it was a terrible idea to mandate that 50% of our electricity must come from solar power by 2020 – with penalties awaiting utilities who don’t meet this target. Why? All sorts of unintended consequences. On the other hand, he probably wouldn’t complain about incentives to increase the penetration of solar power. The only difference between this and the ethanol situation is that Kit doesn’t know too much about ethanol, so he gives it much more credit than he should. He thinks ethanol mandates are good energy policy, and solar power mandates are a boondoggle.
RR
Okay, considering that we’re steadily taking land out of production, what if we burned half the DDGS for process energy?
That would replace all of the nat gas used in fertilizer production, the diesel used in cultivation, and the nat gas used in process heat.
Oop, wait a bit. I overstated my case. They have about 8,400 btu/lb. Half of them would cover the process energy, but you would have to burn another 3, or 4 lbs (and, convert it to electricity, I suppose) to cover the fertilizer, and cultivation.
What, like the number of times RR can be wrong without admitting it.Kit,
Let’s review. Strike #1: If you have nothing to say, why not save everybody’s time by NOT typing it up? Strike #2: If you don’t know the topic, there is no need to insult yourself by revealing it to all and sundry. Strike #3: No need to complain about how little RR knows, as you keep reading his blog. Do you just like complaining?
As an engineer, you’re a disgrace: I have yet to see you use facts (rather than insults) in any of your arguments.
RR, stay above it, Bro. No need to resort to Kit doesn’t know… or Kit believes… Leave the mind reading (and insulting) to Kit. It’s all he seems capable of.
My ideal microbe for biofuel production would consume garbage, excrete gasoline, and die if it escapes into the wild.
RR,
That’s internally inconsistent right there: a bug that dies in the wild is wimpy (as most GM organisms are). That also means you need to sterilize the feedstock to prevent the wild types from taking over your reactor. Any idea how much it will cost to sterilize garbage?
You are also going to run into this bit of microbial diminishing returns: a bug that has a high efficiency for converting *anything* has a low yield, meaning low biomass production and slow growth. In other words, in a microbial system, High efficiency = Slow Growth. Again, the likelyhood of getting outcompeted by a wild type organism is high.
Not so much Holy Grail as Pie in the Sky.
After all, the stomach of a cow is a cellulose conversion factory.
And if you want to prevent serious constipation, the overall efficiency needs to stay low…
Q: Has any of these systems demonstrated superior conversion efficiency compared to standard anaerobic digestion?
I read, somewhere, a while ago that Kinder Morgan is thinking about shipping ethanol through the Plantation Pipeline. Oops.
“Okay, considering that we’re steadily taking land out of production, what if we burned half the DDGS for process energy?”
That has actually been suggested. In fact, there was a company at one point making DDGS boilers. But they just can’t compete with the lower priced natural gas option.
“Any idea how much it will cost to sterilize garbage?”
First, it needn’t necessarily be wimpy. It could be designed so that it needs some specific component to survive. For instance, imagine a hardy organism that has been designed to require Vitamin K. That wouldn’t necessarily be outcompeted by a wild microbe.
But, I wonder if you could sterilize garbage with microwaves or low-pressure steam? I don’t think either option would be that expensive.
RR
California’s going to force them into some sort of co-generation scheme.
@KingOfKaty
Not to be too nit-picky but Baytown isn't the largest refinery in the world.
From the Oil&Gas journal (2007) :
ExxonMobil Singapore-Jurong: 607KBD
SK Corp: Ulsan (South Korea): 817KBD!
And of course Reliance in Jamnagar. Not quite complete yet, but I'm going for some start-ups in a month or so, it will be over a million barrels.
So I can imagine there might be a million barrels a day plant, but extremely unlikely.
RR
I did demonstrate you were wrong. You provided no evidence of unintended consequences. If you can show a cause and effect, then we can talk about unintended consequences.
Again, the corn ethanol mandate is good energy policy because it accomplished the goal of producing more ethanol so we can judge the benefits for reducing energy imports.
RR wrote,
“My biggest gripe – which has been my biggest gripe for years – is that the process is so inefficient that corn ethanol is primarily fossil-fuel derived.”
That is you criteria RR. As a result of mandate, it has been demonstrated over and over that RR gripe is out of date.
Texas mandated a small amount of renewable energy generation in 1989 when NG generation was cheaper than wind. This mandate demonstrated the economics of wind and wind farms started springing up in places like Washington and Oregon.
Mandates are not good or bad policy per se.
“He thinks ethanol mandates are good energy policy, and solar power mandates are a boondoggle.”
I do not think solar power mandates are a boondoggle. I think we should erect solar panels as fast as possible and to that extent mandates will provide incentive for manufactures to build solar infrastructure.
I suspect I am much more of a pragmatist than RR. I do not think we should stop drilling for oil when ethanol is a small fraction the supply. I do not think we should stop building coal and nuke plants when wind and solar are a small fraction the supply. If a combination of building energy capacity results in a large reserve margin, we can then use government decide who gets paid to produce and who gets paid to supply capacity.
“I did demonstrate you were wrong. You provided no evidence of unintended consequences.”
I need to listen to Optimist when he tells me that I need to just ignore you. Much of your post – as is the case with many of your posts – is simply nonsensical.
Further, you are just making claims, and you think this means something is ‘demonstrated.’ For instance, I have demonstrated numerous times that the claim “Ethanol is primarily recycled fossil fuel” is true. Actually demonstrated, as opposed to your claims, through references and calculations. If you understand the energy balance, you understand why that is. But you don’t understand the energy balance, and so you are reduced to “Is not. Thus, by claiming you are wrong I have demonstrated that you are wrong.”
You are just wasting my time. I don’t have any patience for someone who frequently wastes my time. Ethanol 101 was 3 years ago around here. Sorry you missed that class, because I don’t have time to reteach one slow student.
RR
“corn ethanol mandate is good energy policy because it accomplished the goal of producing more ethanol so we can judge the benefits for reducing energy imports.”
That does not make sense. If we know the energy balance of ethanol production, we can use ‘arithmetic’ to estimate the benefits for reducing energy imports. If we don’t know the energy balance for ethanol production on an industrial scale, then the taxpayer (or an industrialist) can pay for a demonstration plant. No need to put in place some long-term mandate — either way, that would be foolish.
“Texas mandated a small amount of renewable energy generation in 1989 when NG generation was cheaper than wind. This mandate demonstrated the economics of wind and wind farms started springing up in places like Washington and Oregon.”
The economics of wind factories have indeed been demonstrated — which is why they are built only where there are direct subsidies or indirect subsidies (such as mandates) — often it takes both. Same explanation for why so much of the planet's solar cells have been installed in cloudy Germany.
RR has an excellent point that mandates make the true costs of an energy supply very difficult to ascertain. Mandates thus defeat the stated objective of establishing clear information about the costs of alternatives. If only the political class would listen to RR.
Look, the human race is using about a cubic mile of oil every year, and the equivalent of another 2 cubic miles of oil in the form of coal & natural gas. The scale of human energy demand is staggering. So-called "alternatives" that rely on mandates & subsidies are a waste of time, never going to amount to anything significant. We need true large-scale alternatives that can compete with fossil fuels without subsidies. That is the challenge.
A blog should actually try to get somewhere, to reach some conclusions.
Other-wise, what’s the point ? It’s just a bunch of people arguing,
John
John, the story itself contains some breakdown of what the researchers are actually trying to do, and my views on what this means. Don’t let people who are trolling for attention in the comments section lead you to the belief that no conclusions are reached.
Having said that, though, the purpose of the comments section is to discuss and debate. Not everyone has the same views, and sometimes that may seem like just a bunch of people arguing.
RR
RR, I’m reading this press release it it seems a bit strange to me. I was wondering what your opinion on it is.
http://www.originoil.com/company-news/originoil-announces-breakthrough-process-to-extract-oil-from-algae.html“OriginOil, Inc… announced an innovative single-step process to extract oil from algae….In the process, the company’s Quantum Fracturing™ combines with electromagnetism and pH modification to break down cell walls, thereby releasing the oil within these cells. Algae oil rises to the top for skimming and refining, while the remaining biomass settles to the bottom for further processing as fuel and other valuable products.”
Kiran – thanks for the update. Hadn’t kept up lately with the Asian refineries. I know Reliance is building a really big one. Shell Motiva in Beaumont theirs to around 750,000.
GTL plants are running around $150,000 / daily barrel. So that would make a 1,000,000 BPD GTL plant $150 billion.
Saw an ad for the new Insight while channel surfing last night. All of this effort to increase supply at horrific costs when we could be reducing use and saving billions.
http://www.biodiversivist.com
“All of this effort to increase supply at horrific costs when we could be reducing use and saving billions.”
Please explain how “reducing use” helps provide the large increase in energy supplies required by the ~4 Billion human beings outside the OECD? You know, the people (mainly of color) who do not have the secure food supplies, water supplies, sewage treatment that energy consumption provides to people in the west.
RR – I totally enjoy your blog!
Not to worry to much about the ones who type first and then think later.
Nice to hear the common sense you put out – are you right all the time? I doubt it but most of the time I suppose you are.
Biobugs and fermentation huh? The only benefits here go back to corn ethanol. The leftovers from this inefficient batch fermentation process (distillers grains) are still a wonderful food product for both man and beast.
Others making all sorts of claims of putting more bugs on clarified trash streams to convert either to sugars for fermentation or even into acidic acid or esters for further hydrocracking processes are still leaving some reallly nasty waste behind which must be re-landfilled with every batch process.
The publics and bureaucrats remain soooo confused. They don't see or interpret the leftover problems herein – and these waste leftovers – just like a professor from Texax A&M who RR studied with – isn't showing off what remains after genetically engineered bugs are done with their front-end conversion jobs.
Some firms are presently focusing on a genetically engineered variety of e-coli. Let's see what happens when some of that leaks into a municipal water supply.
The building blocks for all fuels are hydrogen and carbon. When oxygen is added, the alternative fuels become alcohols, not oils.
There is really very little discussion in this area about gasification technologies which do a good job of removing ALL the carbon in wastes or coal, not just a part of it as with any biobug pretreatment process.
This is the missing paradigm shift here folks. Carbon, is carbon is carbon as a liquid fuel building block. Might as well isolate all of this carbon on a continuous 24×7 basis via gasification for recombination into either float-on-water oily fuels or water soluble, oil soluble, biodegradable alcohols.
I can't believe that so many of the new biofuels companies providing more hype than facts haven't yet realized this.
Gary
Kinu-
I wish I had written that: “Politics trumps geology.”
Well put.
Some say Venezuela has a trillion barrels in the Orinico Trench. Imagine a smart government in there, what they could do for their people and the world. Sad.
Sasol’s Secunda CTL plant only produces 150 kb/d; upgrade to 180 kb/d is due in 2015. I’ve been telling people that Secunda was the largest CO2 emission source in Africa, but Wiki states it’s the world’s largest. The source they cite actually gives that honor to Sasol proper. At any rate, a plant 7 times the size of Secunda would be quite the Satanic mill.
There is really very little discussion in this area about gasification technologies which do a good job of removing ALL the carbon in wastes or coal, not just a part of it as with any biobug pretreatment process.Gary, I have written loads on gasification, and my preference for gasification technologies over most biological technologies. Just Google gasification in this blog and you will find over a dozen essays dealing with it.
RR
RR:
When I said gasification “in this area” I meant overall. I’m well aware of many of your past comments regarding gasification vs: batch fermentation.
My comment was relative to the ‘overall feeling’ plus discussion and interpretation in the biofuels sector.
Most of the publics, voters and bureaucrats don’t have a clue herein. Ligno-cellulosic ethanol is still a misunderstood buzzword amid the next corn ethanol bankruptcy or USDA loan guarantee for something totally opposite of ligno-cell true tech.
Gary
First, it needn’t necessarily be wimpy.
Most GMOs are wimpy. Making a hardy one won’t be as simple as some would suggest.
Like I said, you can get hardy (fast growing) with a lousy yield. But, what good would that be?
It could be designed so that it needs some specific component to survive. For instance, imagine a hardy organism that has been designed to require Vitamin K. That wouldn’t necessarily be outcompeted by a wild microbe.
Assuming it could be done, your Vitamin K requiring bug may well survive in the wild, anywhere where there is Viatmin K. It may also develop a symbiotic relationship with a Vitamin K producer.
Even better: bugs tend to exchange DNA. It might pick up the gene for Vitamin K production from another bug.
Bottom line: it’s not so simple to guarantee that you can keep a GMO from escaping.
But, I wonder if you could sterilize garbage with microwaves or low-pressure steam? I don’t think either option would be that expensive.
Adds another unit to an already complicated process. As you pointed out before, complication adds to cost and subtracts from reliability.
Here’s a simple alternative: Anaerobic digestion, followed by GTL on the biogas. Biogas, with its high CO2 content might be a good fit for this gasification technology.
“Here’s a simple alternative: Anaerobic digestion,”
As RR pointed out, bacterial process are rate limiting and there high capital cost. Anaerobic digesters on farms and industrial facilities are well established for the production of electricity. The complexities of increasing the rate and adding GTL would require an economy of scale that requires added miles for waste transportation.
I can think of many specific examples where waste is transported great distances to be buried in expensive land fills. The present system passes the cost on to citizens while reducing the risk of a minor official needing a good attorney. While small amounts of transportation fuel production + fuel saved from hauling waste = an environmental no brainer, the cost would have to be subsidized. Optimist, RR, King, Kinu, et all would then be outraged.
I am all for big oil refineries, big coal plants, and big nuke plants to keep cost low. I am also for subsidizing small operations because it will most likely never be big enough to effect the market and provides secondary economic benefits. There are lots of small places at the end grid without a pipeline that enjoy these benefits.
Most of the posters on this board live in ugly, dirty, smelly big cities and want a better way to live then reject alternatives that may provide that.
The complexities of increasing the rate and adding GTL would require an economy of scale that requires added miles for waste transportation.
Not necessarily: you could also pipe the biogas to your GTL facility. And at least one company now offers modular versions of those, which would suggest that you could scale to your comfort/affordability. Even at the end of the grid.
I can think of many specific examples where waste is transported great distances to be buried in expensive land fills.
Exactly. Ideal places for anaerobic digesters and GTL plants, then.
I am also for subsidizing small operations because it will most likely never be big enough to effect the market and provides secondary economic benefits. There are lots of small places at the end grid without a pipeline that enjoy these benefits.
Careful, there! Your selfishness is showing!
I’m not necassarily against all subsidies. But a thankful attitude from the recipients would sure help.
Optimist, RR, King, Kinu, et all would then be outraged. & Most of the posters on this board live in ugly, dirty, smelly big cities and want a better way to live then reject alternatives that may provide that.
One more time: YOU tell us what YOU think (and why). WE will tell you what WE think. Capishe?
A blog should actually try to get somewhere, to reach some conclusions. Other-wise, what’s the point ? It’s just a bunch of people arguing.
Thanks for the lecture, John. Here I was under a complete misunderstanding of what blogs are all about…
In case you missed it: RR concluded that this is some Holy Grail technology, that is going to change everything. I respectfully disagree. Not one, bit two (opposite) conclusions.
If you wanted agreement on everything, you’re not going to be at ease anywhere where free speech is allowed.
I think, I’ll have a beer.
“While small amounts of transportation fuel production + fuel saved from hauling waste = an environmental no brainer, the cost would have to be subsidized. Optimist, RR, King, Kinu, et all would then be outraged.”
As Bill Clinton might have remarked, it depends on what the meaning of ‘subsidy’ is.
At present, I pay the County for disposing of my domestic garbage. Is that a subsidy, or am I simply paying a fair price for a valuable service? Is it any different from paying the electric utility?
Now, if the County disposed of my garbage and sent the bill to you, you might be forgiven for calling that a subsidy.
There are some (I’m one) who believe that within 3, or 4 decades every county in the U.S. will be producing a large amount of their own liquid fuels.
“Moonshining” is just too easy.
Case in Point: The Big Island: Macadamia shells to Ethanol, and Carbon.Every county in the U.S (The World) has a feedstock.
There are some (I’m one) who believe that within 3, or 4 decades every county in the U.S. will be producing a large amount of their own liquid fuels. “Moonshining” is just too easy.
It’s SOOOO easy, yet nobody’s doing it!?!
You’re in for disappointment…
Optimist, thanks for the link. The site was a little short of details but their was an independent (?) report,
“Each of these reactor blocks would be of a demonstration and commercial scale proof of concept nature, with a productive capacity of about 30 to 40 bbl/day of liquid product.”
This would be a nice size for 1000 head dairy farm or a small town with forest biomass.
Oh, Optimisti, me boy. I won’t be “disappointed.” I’ll be dead. Even I don’t expect to live, forever.
We were making whiskey in this country before it was a country. The first thing we did after the Revolutionar War was have a Civil War between the small Western Pa. farmers, and the Eastern Power Establishment over the “Right” to make moonshine (it was disguised as a “taxation” thing.)
Numerous members of my family tree were involved in the “shine” bidness. But, we won’t go there.
Seriously, I used the phrase, “making moonshine” as a metaphor for making ethanol. It’s, really, very easy to make out of grains, and “cellulosic” is just a matter of enzymes, gene-splicing, and economy.
Also, there are gasification, and other technologies.
Anyway, it won’t matter to me. It’ll be my Kids, and Grandkids that decide how they’re going to handle it.
OK Rufus,
So we agree that people have been making ethanol in the US as long as there have been immigrants in the US, possibly before that. And somehow, it STILL can’t be done profitably (as a fuel; food is, of course, a different matter). You seem convinced that will change soon. The evidence suggests otherwise…
and “cellulosic” is just a matter of enzymes, gene-splicing, and economy.
That simple, eh? Again, why hasn’t it been done yet? Could it be that all that enzymes and GM technology costs too much to compete in the (extremely volatile) liquid fuel business?
As I’ve stated before, GM technology is great for making SMALL quantities of HIGH VALUE, complex, precise (several chiral centers, all set the right way) products, such as insulin. Liquid fuels are at the opposite end of the scale: HIGH quantities of LOW VALUE, mixed, imprecise (any hydrocarbon in the C4 – C12 range qualifies as gasoline) products. You can’t beat thermo-chemical in doing that.
Also, there are gasification, and other technologies.
Indeed. Thermo-chemical, as I said. And you’d be a fool to use gasification to make inferior fuels such as hydrogen and ethanol…
Have a drink, Rufus, that’s what ethanol is for. Sounds like your forefathers understood that…
Found a little more detail on the OriginOil algae oil separation. More detail makes it sound a little less suspicious.
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22572/