From the “yes, but does it clog your carburetor?” department comes this claim, which might work in theory, but may or may not be practical on a large scale.
Researchers at KU Leuven’s Centre for Surface Chemistry and Catalysis have successfully converted sawdust into building blocks for gasoline. Using a new chemical process, they were able to convert the cellulose in sawdust into hydrocarbon chains. These hydrocarbons can be used as an additive in gasoline, or as a component in plastics. The researchers reported their findings in the journal Energy & Environmental Science.
Cellulose is the main substance in plant matter and is present in all non-edible plant parts of wood, straw, grass, cotton and old paper. “At the molecular level, cellulose contains strong carbon chains. We sought to conserve these chains, but drop the oxygen bonded to them, which is undesirable in high-grade gasoline. Our researcher Beau Op de Beeck developed a new method to derive these hydrocarbon chains from cellulose,” explains Professor Bert Sels.
“This is a new type of bio-refining, and we currently have a patent pending for it. We have also built a chemical reactor in our lab: we feed sawdust collected from a sawmill into the reactor and add a catalyst – a substance that sets off and speeds the chemical reaction. With the right temperature and pressure, it takes about half a day to convert the cellulose in the wood shavings into saturated hydrocarbon chains, or alkanes,” says Dr. Bert Lagrain.
“Essentially, the method allows us to make a ‘petrochemical’ product using biomass – thus bridging the worlds of bio-economics and petro chemistry,” he adds.
The result is an intermediary product that requires one last simple step to become fully-distilled gasoline, explains Sels. “Our product offers an intermediate solution for as long as our automobiles run on liquid gasoline. It can be used as a green additive – a replacement for a portion of traditionally-refined gasoline.”
But the possible applications go beyond gasoline: “The green hydrocarbon can also be used in the production of ethylene, propylene and benzene – the building blocks for plastic, rubber, insulation foam, nylon, coatings and so forth.”
“From an economic standpoint, cellulose has much potential,” says Sels. “Cellulose is available everywhere; it is essentially plant waste, meaning it does not compete with food crops in the way that first generation energy crops – crops grown for bioethanol, for example – do. It also produces chains of 5 to 6 hydrocarbon atoms – ‘light nafta’ in the technical jargon. We are currently facing shortages in this because it is becoming quite difficult and more expensive to distil these specific hydrocarbon chains from crude oil or shale gas. In time, hydrocarbon derived from cellulose may provide an alternative,” says Sels.
“Our method could be especially useful in Europe, where we have little crude oil and cannot easily produce shale gas,” concluded Sels.
A company called Virent in Madison, Wisconsin, has been doing this (or something like it) for some time now and is working with client companies including Shell Oil and Coca-Cola (for plastic bottles) as well as the U.S. Navy to scale it up to commercial production:
http://www.virent.com/.
From the company’s website:
” Virent is replacing crude oil by creating the chemicals and fuels the world demands through utilization of a wide variety of naturally occurring, renewable resources. Our patented BioForming® technology features catalytic chemistry, which converts plant-based sugars into a full range of hydrocarbon products identical to those made from petroleum, including gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and chemicals for plastics and fibers. Our products are “drop-in” replacements that enable full utilization of today’s existing processing, pipeline, storage and transportation infrastructure. Virent produces its hydrocarbon chemicals and fuels from plant sugars in a few hours, compared to the millions of years required for petroleum.”
A company spokesman has stated that Virent hopes its products will displace between 7 and 9 million barrels of crude oil a year by 2020. I realize that this is a drop in the bucket for the U.S. (we import that much crude in one day). But every little bit helps if we want to be energy self-sufficient someday.
Or, you could replace the heavy crude from Venezuela with heavy crude from Alberta. But BO would rather buy from the folks that hate the US, so that when the shzt hits the fan the US oil supplies will dry up. Instead, use Keystone to blackmail Harper into towing the line on Global Warming.
At some time we need to make food out of oil, because all the normal food are used to make oil.
touche!
I thought Monterey Jack got there first.
and hey… wonder what would happen if you tried the same basic process with coal?
Already patented in the 1920’s: Fisher-Tropsch synthesis. Large scale use by the Germans during WWII and in South Africa (Sasol) in the 1960’s to circumvent the blocking of oil supplies…
SASOL was formed in 1950. They make many things including polyethylene and candle wax and sulphur-free kerosene etc.
“In 1997 Sasol Technology Research and Development began research on the selective trimerisation of ethylene to hexane. This led to the development and patenting of 6 trimerisation catalyst systems. A ground-breaking innovation was made in 2002, with the discovery of a tetramerisation catalyst that could make 1-octene in high selectivity. This was considered impossible by international experts in the field. Construction of this first-of-a-kind plant in Lake Charles Louisiana is currently under way. The ready for commissioning date is August 2013”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasol
hell, why bother,
collect enough of it, compress it- http://www.instructables.com/id/Bio-fuel-briquettes-compress-paper-pulp-and-sawdu/
and run steam trains on it.
What’s an economical way to collect and transport sawdust to the chemical plant? I see limited utility for this unless the equipment is not only affordable but also small enough to put on site at locations that generate a large volume of sawdust.
Uh, transport the most compact form – logs. Then chip them right at the fuel plant. Or not.
Doing it is only half the battle, and the easy half at that.
Now it must be done economically.
So? Rumpelstiltskin could spin straw into gold. If they could do that, then they could use the sawdust to make biofuel and not worry about the cost.
As many others have noted, this is a “me too” technique. Interesting change of catalyst, but that doesn’t solve the basic problem. The basic problem is that oil has to be over about $120 / bbl for any of these to work. Rentech had been doing it commercially and making bio derived Diesel for the L.A. airport using garbage as feedstock. Don’t know if that’s still being done. There website looks like they are doing more with making wood products and fertilizer now (they had a neat trick of geting nitrogen fertilizers out of their synfuels system)
http://www.rentechinc.com/
Since at least the 1930s this could be done (carbon source to fuel) via an every growing list of methods from special bacteria to FT processes to pyrolysis to … The problem is always the same:
Oil is too plentiful for prices to stay high (especially with OPEC able to open the spigot any time someone starts to make money).
Carbon sources are typically diffuse and expensive. Often more easily harvested to energy via burning / electrical generation.
So it goes…
Rentech sold its AE business to Chinese, shut it down in the U.S. http://energychinaforum.com/news/78688.shtml
But we ARE running out of oil. By 2035 we should be feeling the pinch pretty bad.
Yes, no matter what, you are doomed to run out of oil in 20 years. We know this to be true because we’ve been running out of oil in 20 years for more than 40 years now.
As usual ferd is right. At the current rate we have already run out of oil.
Ferd, peak oil,is not about running out. It is aboutntheminabilitymto produce more on an annual basis. Fernando, who worked in the imdustry, is correct. You confounded stocks and flows. Several essays in Blowing Smoke expalin why you are off base in comsiderable geophysical detail.
“Our product offers an intermediate solution for as long as our automobiles run on liquid gasoline. It can be used as a green additive – a replacement for a portion of traditionally-refined gasoline.”
————————————————————————————————————–
Well, maybe the days of automobiles running on liquid gasoline are numbered. Toyota has just announced that they will start selling their hydrogen fueled, fuel cell vehicle (called the Mirai) in Japan by the end of the year, and in the U.S. late next year. While I realize there are many people who question the viability of hydrogen as a fuel, the success of the hybrid vehicle has taught me not to bet against Toyota. It will be interesting to see what the market place ultimately says.
I’ve wondered if the nat gas used as the feedstock for hydrogen would be better off being used directly, instead of the multiple conversion steps that a fuel cell requires?
Not to mention the problems with economical, large scale, collision safe fuel storage. Fuel density is also a problem since gaseous hydrogen isn’t really practical and cryogenic fuel tanks in cars and trucks really scares me. The acronym is BLEVE.
Show me the hydrogen mines or wells. Until that day, a “hydrogen car” is just using hydrogen as a battery and the energy source is still some other primary fuel. Nuclear, oil, coal, nat gas, whatever. Inevitably that then means it is more efficient to skip the hydrogen making step and use the primary source directly. For electrical sourced hydrogen, it then becomes the relative efficiency of producing hydrogen as a battery or using the best alternate technology ( Li Ion or whatever). A battery is not an energy source.
Ammonia?
It’s safe to bet against a Toyota built fuel cell powered vehicle. It’s a gimmick because it requires a huge subsidy not even the People’s Republic of California can afford.
old engineer , the success of the hybrid vehicle has taught me not to bet against Toyota.
What real success? From http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1092736_could-u-s-hybrid-car-sales-be-peaking-already–and-if-so-why
Could U.S. Hybrid Car Sales Be Peaking Already–And If So, Why?
Although the number of hybrid offerings offered has almost doubled–from 24 in 2009 to 47 in 2014–U.S. hybrid sales haven’t dramatically increased. They reached 2.4 percent for 2009, peaked at 3.3 percent in 2013, and presently stand at 3.0 percent for this year through March. In fact, hybrid market share actually declined from 2009 to 2010, and then again from 2013 to 2014.”
“Green” hydrocarbon? They’ll never buy it; anything that burns is evil.
And it doesn’t even have to burn. Making heat is wicked. So forget plutonium or thorium. Haven’t you heard? “Thermal pollution” is the new CO2. I kid you not.
Think of it as job security for WUWT.
“Thermal pollution” is the new CO2.”
Good catch! Remember a couple years ago, a guy published an energy-used budget which matched up nicely with ‘warming’.
And who’s to say it’s not true. Efficiency is king when you get down to it. Why I’m going LED lighting.
‘Thermal pollution’, or waste heat. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. No getting around it. We will just have to reduce the number of people doing work. Oh, that is the objective, verdad?
We will just have to reduce the number of people doing work.
============================
the government has already solved this problem.
. . .it can be used as a green additive – a replacement for a portion of traditionally-refined gasoline.”
Genuflecting to the gods of AGW. This isn’t any more green than using gasoline from oil.
My neighbors to the south, in the Carolinas, have been turning sawdust into turpentine for centuries. Also pitch and tar – hence the name ‘Tarheels’. The basic process – anaerobic pyrolysis – has also been used to recover flammable hydrocarbon liquids from tires. Nothing novel here…
There simply isn’t enough sawdust worldwide for this to supply a significant amount of fuel. They would have to use whole trees.
I bet Brazil is wishing they had all those rainforest trees they bulldozed to clear land for corn sourced ethanol production… oops.
Thinking much the same thing. England deforested itself to provide fuel for a population far less than it is today. Which drove them to use coal. (Oh, the horror!)
Well, not just for fuel. The oak forests were cleared to make ships to defend against Spain, then when they had regrown again for the Napoleonic wars. The trees have only just matured again, so England is at last ready for another war.
Like they are doing in the UK,
US trees burnt in UK power stations, Even Friends of the earth don`t like it.
https://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/felled-fuel-46611.pdf
“Cellulose is available everywhere; it is essentially plant waste, meaning it does not compete with food crops in the way that first generation energy crops – crops grown for bioethanol, for example – do.”
Yes it will compete with food crops, there is only so much land on which crops can be economically grown. If this BioFuel becomes more economic because of things like government meddling with subsidies then food crops will suffer.
Grow corn, send the ears to the mills for food and the stalks to the reactor for hydrocarbons. Likewise for just about every other grain. The only problem then is where are we going to get the organic waste materials to plow back into the field as soil conditioner?
“The only problem then is where are we going to get the organic waste materials to plow back into the field as soil conditioner?”
Got it covered, we”ll use fertilizer, with ammonia made from natural gas…
It doesnt matter; we know the issue is not the environment but is population control.
They’ve admitted enough times.
If this is real, it will never happen. Same as fusion.
The Father of the “evil” Koch brothers developed a method to convert PEAT into petroleum, 65 years ago. He found NO MARKET in the USA (plenty of crude oil). He went to Europe and in post WWII, with various systems “fractured” he found a market. Made millions. Returned to the USA in the mid ’50s. Began buyin refineries. Died a BILLIONAIRE, which his (evil, of course) sons inherited. So does this puff piece excite me? No, BS (Barabara Striesand) in any form, shape or stage of the processes, is still B.S.
Wood gasification is old technology and can be used to power gasoline fuelled vehicles. There are many device plans available via the interwweb if you wish to make one.
Lots of innovations along these lines have been reported in recent years. The difficulties have been in economically scaling up production. It looks now like a long slog will be required to get a commercially viable product. It’s probably worth doing, but don’t hold your breath.
You can make methanol from sawdust just by heating it in a closed container. Methanol can drive an engine which has been modified to burn it.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_alcohol
Kior has been scaling up the thermal cracking of wood chips to make a bio oil as a industrial scale process, and is in bankrupcy. Wood to oil is not easy. One of their big cost problems for Kior was managing thier wood yard.
Catalytic cracking of celulose might work in the end, but if all they have is lab results, it means little.
So similar to shipping tonnes of forest from Texas to the UK to burn it in a coal powered station.
Carburettor? You old fashioned thing.
Does it clog your common rail injection system?
Oopss.. there goes the world’s forests !!!
It’s good chemistry.
It’s lousy economics.
If someone finds a use for this technique that has a practical purpose and that can’t be achieved more cheaply by other means, well, I’ll be surprised.
But if I was them I’d patent away. Just in case…
This is probably some variation of the Fischer-Tropsh process. There are already several companies pursuing this. Rentech is one I’ve been following, they built a pilot plant in Louisiana. They shut it down last year and I haven’t heard anything else since.
Sasol does the same thing with natural gas and should make a killing with the cheap NG prices in the US.