Green Gasoline? Scientists Produce $1/Gallon Gasoline From Non-Food Plant Material
Researchers at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst have made a potentially ground-breaking discovery in the production of biofuels from sustainable, non-food sources.
By heating cellulosic plant material to between 750 and 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit in the presence of a catalyst, then quickly cooling it, the team of graduate students led by associate professor George W. Huber was able to produce a mixture of hydrocarbons identical to gasoline in less than two minutes. The conversion is a relatively simple, one-step process that could create biogasoline for as little as $1 per gallon.
“We’ve proven this method on a small scale in the lab,” Huber said. “But we need to make further improvements and prove it on a large scale before it’s going to be economically viable.”
This process could provide a less-energy intensive alternative to standard ethanol production—the fuel which, like it or not, the US is currently banking on to carry it into the foreseeable future (don’t believe this? see my last post).
Of course, that depends on whether or not the process makes it out of the lab. Huber says that could take up to 10 years, but the research has already generated $400,000 in funds from the National Science Foundation, and $30,000 from the UMass Office of Commercial Ventures and Intellectual Property. If the breakthrough lives up to its hype, it could be on the receiving end of a lot more.
John Regalbuto, director of the Catalysis and Biocatalysis Program at the National Science Foundation, said:
“In theory, (the UMass biofuel) requires much less energy to make than ethanol, giving it a smaller carbon footprint and making it cheaper to produce,” Regalbuto said.
“In fact, from the extra heat that will be released, you can generate electricity in addition to the biofuel. There will not be just a small carbon footprint for the process. By recovering heat and generating electricity, there won’t be any footprint.”
I won’t be holding my breath for this one, but it could offer another fuel to the growing list of sustainable, petroleum-free alternatives we may depend on in the next few decades.
It may also legitimate the name of this blog.
Posts Related to Green Gasoline:
- Coskata’s $1/gallon Cellulosic Ethanol, Made From Trash
- Scania’s Ethanol Diesel-Engine, Runs On Biodiesel Too
- Biodiesel Mythbuster 2.0: Twenty-Two Biodiesel Myths Dispelled
- Shell, Virent to Develop Second-Generation BioGasoline
- Farmers Invest In Diesel-Producing Trees
- 2015: 30% of US Corn Harvest Will Be Gasoline
- GMO Corn-Stover Eats Itself, Makes Ethanol Processing A Breeze
Source: The Republican (Apr. 09, 08): $1 per gallon biofuel touted
Photo Credit: University of Wisconsin-Madison
Well, it sounds promising, I guess. But the statement “By recovering heat and generating electricity, there won’t be any footprint” is irresponsible and makes me question the story a bit.
It will take energy to produce whatever feedstock they use for one thing. And there will obviously be an energy loss in even the tightest process.
Unfortunately this isn’t a breakthrough because the production of oil is really much less than one dollar a gallon. It is the retail price that is inflated.
In order for this to become viable it must first take less energy to create the fuel then is put into it (not taking into account of course the growing and transportation of the material). So long as it requires more electrical and heat energy to produce then is output it will never be adapted because of the huge losses that would add up.
Rob —
No, sir — you’re actually incorrect. The feedstock material would be lignocellulose; wood chips, etcetera. These can be grown wholly without energy investment. (Trees, for example). They can be collected via machines powered by… gasoline derived from this process. The “footprint” statement, however, was referring to the conversion process itself.
It is very important, when commenting on a topic, that you fully comprehend the statements made within it. In this case; the thermocatalytic chemical conversion process would be “carbon footprint free” because the energy generated in one process could be used to power the next.
we should produce it and charge 3 dollars a gallon and make back some of the massive debt we have attained over the years, and make the dollar worth more again.
If it can be produced cheaply in a small lab then it can be done even more economically in a larger facility… lets hope the corporate greed & political will (if not wisdom) is there.
As for me, the comment of “there won’t be any footprint” is moot. The point is that there will be a tiny footprint in comparison when it comes to production. There will still be a footprint however when this fuel is burned.
Tho that won’t matter much when it comes to the real world, you can be sure the eco-terrorists… er, politicians & global warming band wagons will do their spin to wring more in taxes out of us & generate a whole new economy based on fear of the natural patterns of world climate. That’s what will drive the price of this fuel up more than anything else I’ll bet.
I totally agree Rob. Saying that there would be no footprint at all is a brazen lie. There will always be some sort of waste or loss no matter what the manufacturing process
That “no footprint” statement irks me a bit too. I think they meant it would produce no larger a footprint than just generating electricity. I believe the concept of entropy sort of puts the kibosh on even that.
On the other hand, if all it takes is heat, it could conceivably be run on solar pretty easily. Even smaller footprint, and you could still do something with the waste heat.
“a mixture of hydrocarbons identical to gasoline” - I can’t imagine it would be identical, though it might be superior. I’m guessing there’s no benzene, for example.
Who’s going to do the labor to make the fuel? Where will the infrastructure come from — i.e. how will the resources be extracted to build it?
Will the poor be able to afford vehicles to burn it?