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
so what is the energy source to make it?
Although carbon footprint in the production of energy should not be ignored, the real question is the carbon dioxide emissions of burning the fuel.
@IConrad: You really think cutting down trees is a viable option? Carbon footprint can be measured in two ways: 1. amount of new CO2, methane, etc in the atmosphere; 2. reduction in the amount of CO2 that can be reabsorbed from the atmosphere. You can’t cut down trees that absorb CO2 to create a fuel that releases more CO2 into the atmosphere when burned and claim that this is in any way an ecologically sound process.
In the meantime, I’m planning to buy a Honda Civic GX which runs on methane. Then I plan to make my own methane out of food scraps.
A million people in India make methane out of manure and use it for water heaters, cooking, and electrical power.
Google methane digesters.
don
Will it work on coal, we’ve got lots of that stuff!
Unfortunately, this article is so vague as to be useless for real information. There is a bunch of hand-waving and a reference which names a researcher, but no mention of a paper or a publication date. Looking up “Huber GW Amherst” finds the author and a bunch of bio-fuel related stuff, but nothing which is obviously THE source for the article.
This system sounds a lot like gasification followed by Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, which works with practically any feedstock which contains carbon. So far so good, but the combination is only about 50% efficient. Worse, we’d run out of feedstock before we slaked our thirst; our energy consumption from petroleum is a LOT greater than half our possible biological productivity from higher plants.
And no, coal won’t help. The USA is hard-put to mine 30 quadrillion BTU/year of coal, while we use ~40 quadrillion BTU/year of oil. Anyone who thinks we can dig another 80 quads of coal to make 40 quads of gasoline and stuff is not just dreaming, he’s leading us into a nightmare of being over OPECs barrel.
The solution is electric cars and electrified rail. Seriously.
Too bad multi billion dollar oil cartels will now allow this to come to anything. There are many many other forms of fuel but the oil industry has and will kill people that dont sell out to them.
The association with CO2 production is irrelevant at this point anyway. I don’t believe the ability of the earths natural environment to easily sink whatever small amounts of CO2 we produce (compared to Natures BIG CO2 producers) has been fully realized.
This article reminds me in many ways of the “cold fusion” story years ago.
Homebrew Gasoline? Convert your non-food garbage to gas and keep it out of the landfill? If it’s so simple give the world the recipe.
You really think this is anything but the pursuit of grant money?
They won’t publish the recipe, they’re going to angle for a patent, which will be buried.
I like this idea. I like this concept. Now, who out there has the “back-up” to put these people in business? That’s all it takes. Some big millionare tycoon, who you can sell the idea to…and you’ll be good to go!