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.
During WW II “Wood Gas” vehicles were fairly common in various parts of the world.
Due to gas shortages it was found to be fairly easy to burn wood and directly run a carbuerated
vehicle off of the combustion fumes without modifying the mechanics of the engine.
Looks like they are rediscovering the wheel to me.
Chicken poop was a more reliable source during that period. Talk about a methane generator! Strap a barrel of chicken-poop-and-water on the bumper of that Mercedes and you’re “green and mean”.
These vehicles could also use coal. Imagine the outcry! Can I get a “coal conversion” on my Audi?
This is done in Göteborg Sweden in a plant. Gas for transportation. 20 MW plant.
http://gobigas.goteborgenergi.se/En/Start
I saw a syngas plant in 2003 that could do this. What’s the “breakthrough”?
They seem to lack knowledge of basic economics:
– plants compete for land and human agricultural effort, not ‘edibility’.
– Europe doesn’t need to make oil to consume oil. Canada doesn’t grow cotton and bananas, yet we have both in great abundance.
Economics should be madatory.
I have visions of huge expanses of land growing cellulose to painstakingly make what we can easily get out of the ground. Maybe we can all become farmers..
“Maybe we can all become farmers..”
Or back another step to hunter-gatherer.
That should make the Greenies happy, except maybe PITA.
Many people here have commented on the economics of the process outlined by this post. I would like to extend the sentiments of many by pointing out that if subsidies are needed to make a thing doable in the marketplace then you are practicing corporatism (Mussolini’s term for fascism) and not a free-market. But then, the western world has not seen anything close to a laissez-faire free market since the 1800s. (if then)
A lady teacher I know recently had a tiny “fender-bender” accident. She was horrified at the damage and the cost of repair to both cars. She suspected a vast conspiracy to drive up cost and make body-shops rich. I told her that she should look to safety regulations by the federal government to see why cars will crumple like paper tigers at the smallest crash. The government showers you regulations that control your life — and that is the way it is. Should the central government finance this boondoggle, people will denude the land to get enough wood to get in on the action.
Utter madness, in what way is this different from burning Fossil Fuels?
They burn Fossil Fuels to make it and then burn it as well?
Of course they could use RE to make it and then burn it.
Sawdust … why not try stardust?
Greens, who love to scold the rest of us about “sustainability” cannot seem to understand the concept of economic sustainability. When everything is “socialized”, then the numbers don’ matter because the scheme is always paid for with money stolen from somewhere else in the economy. When that plan eventually fails, economic reality (as hard it it is) always returns.
I can turn lead into gold. How much money you got?
Basically, anything that can be turned into carbon monoxide can be then turned into any length hydrocarbon you could want. This is 1920s technology.
The problem is doing so at a cost ($ or BTU, take your pick) that makes sense. This is whatever-the-current-date-is-plus-five-years techonolgy (& has been for the last 90years)
energy density of biomass in terms of land area used to harness solar energy is probably the worst renewable figure there is.
It doesn’t matter how clever you are in turning that biomass into useful stuff, you can’t make energy that isn’t there.
So technically interesting, politically economically and socially, value-free.
please let’s keep in mind 2nd principle of thermodynamics