Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on February 4, 2014
‘Biogasoline’ from plant waste
Gasoline-like fuels can be made from cellulosic materials such as farm and forestry waste using a new process invented by chemists at the University of California, Davis. The process could open up new markets for plant-based fuels, beyond existing diesel substitutes.
“What’s exciting is that there are lots of processes to make linear hydrocarbons, but until now nobody has been able to make branched hydrocarbons with volatility in the gasoline range,” said Mark Mascal, professor of chemistry at UC Davis and lead author on the paper published Jan. 29 in the journal Angewandte Chemie.
Traditional diesel fuel is made up of long, straight chains of carbon atoms, while the molecules that make up gasoline are shorter and branched. That means gasoline and diesel evaporate at different temperatures and pressures, reflected in the different design of diesel and gasoline engines.
Biodiesel, refined from plant-based oils, is already commercially available to run modified diesel engines. A plant-based gasoline replacement would open up a much bigger market for renewable fuels.
The feedstock for the new process is levulinic acid, which can be produced by chemical processing of materials such as straw, corn stalks or even municipal green waste. It’s a cheap and practical starting point that can be produced from raw biomass with high yield, Mascal said.
“Essentially it could be any cellulosic material,” Mascal said. Because the process does not rely on fermentation, the cellulose does not have to be converted to sugars first.
UC Davis has filed provisional patents on the process. Coauthors on the paper are postdoctoral researchers Saikat Dutta and Inaki Gandarias.
22 Comments on "‘Biogasoline’ from plant waste"
Davy, Hermann, MO on Tue, 4th Feb 2014 12:04 pm
Too little and too late to change the trend down are my 1st thoughts. You can’t fight thermodynamic laws and the power of depletion at this point. Maybe 15 years ago. Give me some economics also. The number one issue with 2nd gen biofuels is transport. So if this is a breakthrough then its applications will be local. How many of these articles do we see in a year! I hope it has some potential because as I have said we need multiple options for the 1st step down the collapse ladder. I want to clarify that 1st step down is vicinity 2020 if not sooner. So those of you complaining about investing in BAU and fossil fuels I am only advocating “Katy bar the door” now to hold on to some semblance of normal when collapse starts. You don’t want to go to a bypass operation with a fever.
peakyeast on Tue, 4th Feb 2014 12:30 pm
I am wondering that when they make these biofuels – does it not prevent all this waste from being channeled back as fertilizer in nature? IOW the fields and forests being harvested now will get less replacement for the harvested materials.
Nony on Tue, 4th Feb 2014 12:35 pm
1. That website is one that has those double underline links for advertising (not a good sign…junky publication).
2. Do a web search on levulinic acid. You’ll see stuff going back to at least 1999 of different universities or startups touting this biofuel strategy. The article doesn’t discuss any of this perspective, but just describes it as all new.
3. Yawn.
Makati1 on Tue, 4th Feb 2014 1:10 pm
Proper farming methods means that there are NO wastes to be used for anything but soil building. Anything you take from the land and do not put back is like annually taking money out of your savings and not putting any back in. That is why there is no real topsoil left on most commercial farms. It is all sand requiring petro chemical ‘fertilizer’ to grow anything and why it cannot hold water. We have killed most of the soil in America by taking and not putting back. Lawns included.
More techie dreams of soil killing ideas. Chemical engineers with no biological intelligence. Stupidity with a degree.
meld on Tue, 4th Feb 2014 1:38 pm
Very good point peakyeast. We are slowly moving all the fertility off the earth and into the oceans and atmosphere as far as I can tell. I am presuming they think chemical fertiliser will do the job biomass does in the future. Wrong! haha
Makati1 – Yep you hit the nail on the head. Chemical engineers without the slightest education in ecology, they have much in common with the geneticists who work at monsanto
Northwest Resident on Tue, 4th Feb 2014 3:14 pm
“We are slowly moving all the fertility off the earth and into the oceans and atmosphere as far as I can tell.”
Yep. That is exactly what industry has been doing. A forest ecosystem maintains itself because everything that grows eventually dies and returns to the soil, providing nutrition for the next generation. Animals that live off that ecosystem also die and get recycled back into the soil. What industry has been doing for far too long is scraping “the dead stuff” — and the still living stuff — off the surface of the soil, repeatedly, burning it or chemically altering it, leaving nothing but dust. But at least that ends up being a good place to dump toxic waste, so it isn’t a complete loss I guess (snark).
Davy, Hermann, MO on Tue, 4th Feb 2014 3:59 pm
The Amish and Mennonites in this area are wonderful soil conservationist. I am watching and learning their methods. There is nothing worse for the environment than industrial Ag. I say this because of the vast amount of land in production. Yet, if you desire reform we might be in for some serious food shortages with going on 9 billion people. Which pill do you want to take?
J-Gav on Tue, 4th Feb 2014 5:02 pm
“If this is a breakthrough, then its applications will be local,” said Davy. Precisely my point of view. Any large-scale application would soon discover the limits nature imposes on those who deprive it of we call ‘waste’ but that it needs to maintain soil quality, biodiversity, etc.
Gilles Fecteau on Tue, 4th Feb 2014 6:30 pm
While I agree with the need to maintain soil quality, Isn’t the bio fuel comming from processing the carbon that was absorb by the plant from CO2, not entirely from the soil.
SteveO on Tue, 4th Feb 2014 7:17 pm
“Yet, if you desire reform we might be in for some serious food shortages with going on 9 billion people. Which pill do you want to take?”
I doesn’t matter, the population will drop radically.
When the natural gas for ammonia and the phosphate run out there will be famine. The smart choice was not allow the population to get that large to begin with. Maybe if humanity can make that change over, the surviving humans will have a decent standard of living.
Northwest Resident on Tue, 4th Feb 2014 7:34 pm
SteveO — exactly how I think about it. If I had my choice, we would “cut bait” and get on with the collapse and massive worldwide die off. Why waste what little precious resources we have remaining just to stretch out BAU and the lives of seven billion people who are going to die soon enough anyway? Cruel and cold-hearted thinking, perhaps, but only if you don’t worship nature and mother earth, which I do. There will always be another human — but there is only ONE planet earth!!
Davy, Hermann, MO on Tue, 4th Feb 2014 7:41 pm
SteveO on Tue, 4th Feb 2014 7:17 pm
I doesn’t matter, the population will drop radically.
I agree SteveO but my question is are we ready to bring this on soon by trying to change AG to something that will work but realistically for only 1 to 2 billion people. What will work is going back to 19th century farming practices. Much like the Amish in the US do. Do we let nature run its course following BAU and running out of inputs, destroy soils, destroy climate, and deplete water resources. Nature’s way is likely to take years. We buy some time for ourselves while we ruin the planet. If we make changes to global Ag it will have unintended consequences. Even the act of trying to change things could cause havoc in a supply system increasingly under stress. I read articles how we will have to raise food production by a 1/3 to meet a growing population. 1/3rd more production!!! That is a laugh! It doesn’t matter Big Ag is firmly in control and will be until the system is bankrupt.
GregT on Tue, 4th Feb 2014 8:03 pm
“The Amish and Mennonites in this area are wonderful soil conservationist.”
They had it right all along, as did many of the indigenous peoples worldwide. To think that so many in the ‘industrialized’ world have looked down on all of them. Very sad.
meld on Tue, 4th Feb 2014 9:07 pm
I think we can all agree that “primitive” people had a much better understanding of systems theory than we do now. Mainly because they lived within ecological limits and if they messed up they died.
Off topic but I was thinking the other day a better way of classing the “ages of man” rather than stone age, bronze age,iron age etc. It would be, wood age,charcoal age, coal age, oil age etc.
It is far more interesting looking at the energy sources that moulded mankind rather than the tools in my humble opinion.
GregT on Tue, 4th Feb 2014 9:31 pm
Yes Meld,
Rather than naming the ages by the materials we used to kill each other with, it might have been more appropriate to classify them by the energy sources used to manufacture the materials we used to kill each other with.
Orlov on Tue, 4th Feb 2014 9:37 pm
It’s collapse all the way down, like echoes from a choir.
Northwest Resident on Tue, 4th Feb 2014 9:53 pm
meld — Great point IMO. And superior elaboration on GregT’s part too!
Someday, I hope advanced human civilizations will teach their children about the stages of human development:
Australopithecus
Homo habilis
Homo erectus
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo sapiens
Homo selfdestructivis
Homo muchsmarteris
J-Gav on Wed, 5th Feb 2014 12:30 am
Whoa, Northwest, who’s looking like the optimist here now? Muchsmarteris? Is that Miraculabilis in green queen drag? I appreciate your humor.
Actually, I’m presently collaborating on a paper aimed at changing the way people see the how (and where) we came from as a species – if it works out I’ll give the reference in the Annals of the Royal Society (not joking, we’ve already had one 40-page piece published there, on primate dispersal). Of course, none of that will make any difference when push comes to shove (over what precipice?) but, along with the photography, it keeps me busy for the moment whilst I check out the posibilities of getting a little plot of land in the country. Not easy here in France.
Makati1 on Wed, 5th Feb 2014 1:49 am
At the rate we are going, I don’t see any humans surviving to even think about us or to build a new civilization. It’s not like there is going to be anything left to support life above the level of microbes or virus. Pollution, radiation, heat, super storms, dead soil, etc. is going to take care of most life on earth in the next 100 or so years. Maybe in 500 million years or so, there will again be some life form that is able to understand their existence, but it will not be anything like humans.
Kenz300 on Wed, 5th Feb 2014 5:31 pm
Biofuels can now be made from waste or trash.
Every landfill can now be converted to produce biofuels, energy and recycled raw materials for new products.
This is much better than burying the waste.
Since it is already being collected it provides an inexpensive input to the process.
PrestonSturges on Wed, 5th Feb 2014 5:33 pm
An interesting discussion. Don’t forget, we are talking about “The Carbon Cycle” which we should remember from 5h grade science class.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle
We can use carbon biofuels without destroying the world, but the problem is that there just isn’t enough arable land to make this work on any scale. Take an entire tree and convert it to gasoline and you’ll ony have enough fuel for a week or so of happy motoring.
Davy, Hermann, MO on Thu, 6th Feb 2014 12:58 am
Makati1 on Wed, 5th Feb 2014 1:49 am
At the rate we are going, I don’t see any humans surviving to even think about us or to build a new civilization. It’s not like there is going to be anything left to support life
I watched two documentaries on life after people and one other I forget the name. It is surprising how much the earth heals in 500 years and how cities will disappear into the forest. The real tragedy is the species loss yet, that is natures way of extinction and evolution