Biofuel from fruits

[Saddle Bronc 124]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6224846.stm

Fruit could make 'powerful fuel'

By Matt McGrath

BBC Environment reporter

The sugar found in fruit such as apples and oranges can be converted into a new type of low carbon fuel for cars, US scientists have said.

The fuel, made from fructose, contains far more energy than ethanol, the scientists write in the journal Nature.

Separately, a British report on biofuels says all types of waste products, including plastic bags, can be used to make biodiesel fuel.

Critics of biofuels made from plant crops say they drive up food prices.

In both the European Union and the United States politicians have heartily embraced biofuels as a way of reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and dependency on imported oil.

'Waste' fuel

Critics say that the current biofuels, both diesel made from palm oil and ethanol made from corn, encourage farmers to switch land to fuel production, driving up the price of food in the process.

Now scientists at the University of Wisconsin-Madison say that a simple sugar called fructose can be converted into a fuel that has many advantages over ethanol.

The impact on society we're hoping will be far wider than simply 'we can give you a fuel now with a tenfold reduction in its carbon footprint'

Jeremy Tomkinson

It is called dimethylfuran - it can store 40% more energy than ethanol, does not evaporate as easily and is less volatile.

The scientists say that fructose can be obtained directly from fruits and plants or made from glucose.

But more work needs to be done to assess the environmental impact of this new fuel.

In Britain, researchers say that the technology now exists to create biodiesel not just from palm oil but from a range of materials including wood, weeds and plastic bags.

This process is called biomass to liquid and experts say that within six years up to 30% of Britain's diesel requirements could be met from this source.

Jeremy Tomkinson of the UK's National Non-Food Crops Centre said this next generation of biofuels could meet many needs beyond powering cars.

"The impact on society we're hoping will be far wider than simply 'we can give you a fuel now with a tenfold reduction in its carbon footprint'.

"Imagine now if chemicals that we use in the chemical industry also came from the same feed stock, the aircraft that we fly to New York in also runs on this? There's the big potential," he said.

The biggest drawback to this process is cost.

Setting up new production facilities is estimated to be 10 times higher than for current biofuel refineries.

Note: I noticed the study was done in the US--so why didn't the scientists think of a much cheaper source such as the rather ubiquitous HCFS? I can see it may have the effect of driving up the price of HCFS--which could maybe have the effect of its removal from processed foods (ideal, as it would be a health-friendly move as well).

[KarenCee 3]

Now THAT would be a good use for HFCS!

[GaryC 7]

Biofuels are one of those things that sounds good but in practice will not work in America. We just don't have enough arable land to produce fuel and food at the same time. At the moment we feed most of the world, if we start biofuels on an industrial scale we will no longer be able to export food to the rest of the world resulting in widespread famine. So take your choice, slightly less imported oil and famine or finding something else.

[Jamie76 0]

If we were to use fruit, we would see sky rocketing prices in the grocery store. The same thing is happening with corn prices. We need to get away from these ideas IMO and focus on producing either ethanol or butanol from cellulose.

[GaryC 7]

Biofuels in any form will not work as a substitute for oil. It is just to costly in land and effort to be economically feasible. If we want to get away from oil we need a long term solution and not be wasting our money and time on biofuels. Hydrogen made from water is the only real solution. It would have a zero carbon footprint if we used solar or nuke power to make the hydrogen and it is infinitely renewable.

[almaty 19]

interesting..i did not know this bro sriniv

[Jamie76 0]

Biofuels in any form will not work as a substitute for oil. It is just to costly in land and effort to be economically feasible. If we want to get away from oil we need a long term solution and not be wasting our money and time on biofuels. Hydrogen made from water is the only real solution. It would have a zero carbon footprint if we used solar or nuke power to make the hydrogen and it is infinitely renewable.

I disagree. Using any type of cellulosic material is the key. That means, grass, wood waste, non-reclyable paper products, corn stalks (and not the kernels) etc. These materials would cost zero as you are not planting to make the fuel you are planting to make wood products and food and using a part of the left-overs for the fuel. Take a look at switch grass. This can be harvested over and over again. It grows in soils not exactly the best for grains etc. Cattle can also graze on this grass, so you are providing food for cattle and also are able to harvest an appreciable amount of stock to make fuel.

Bio-diesel can be made from algae. Depending on the species, there is in some cases over 250 times more oil in algae per acre compared to oil seed crops. Growing algae is pretty easy. Use it to clean up water in a waste water system, dry it down, send it through a press and get the oil which can then be turned in to biodiesel. The "remains" of the algae can be ground up and used as fertilizer or used as a food for livestock.

I don't think that biofuels will completely replace petroleum, but I think they can make a major dent in them. This without sacrificing arable land and forcing increases in food prices.

Hydrogen will have its day, but I don't think we are anywhere close to that point. We don't have a fuel delivery network, we don't have the stations that can put the fuel in the car, and we certainly don't have the vehicles out there. They still don't have an ideal storage system for it.

This is not a problem with bio-fuels, so I think these will be a major bridge between petroleum now and hydrogen in the decades to come.

[Dan J 277]

Biofuels are one of those things that sounds good but in practice will not work in America. We just don't have enough arable land to produce fuel and food at the same time. At the moment we feed most of the world, if we start biofuels on an industrial scale we will no longer be able to export food to the rest of the world resulting in widespread famine. So take your choice, slightly less imported oil and famine or finding something else.

We have for quite awhile over produced and then subsidized ag production so farmers could stay in business. Biofuels increase demand on ag production, and we no longer have to subsidize it.

I really don't think the government should then subsidize biofuels just to make it more competitive to oil based fuels. Let the market determine demand for biofuels. When oil based fuels do increase in price to the point of being more expensive than biofuels, then we should seriously consider wide scale production.

There are questions on if biofuels actually produce positive net energy. But thats another story.

[Dan J 277]

Biofuels in any form will not work as a substitute for oil. It is just to costly in land and effort to be economically feasible. If we want to get away from oil we need a long term solution and not be wasting our money and time on biofuels. Hydrogen made from water is the only real solution. It would have a zero carbon footprint if we used solar or nuke power to make the hydrogen and it is infinitely renewable.

Hydrogen is probably 10-20 years away from widescale use. Biofuels can be produced and made now. Even after hydrogen is introduced, we will still be using biofuels and oil based fuels for quite some time.

[GaryC 7]

I disagree. Using any type of cellulosic material is the key. That means, grass, wood waste, non-reclyable paper products, corn stalks (and not the kernels) etc. These materials would cost zero as you are not planting to make the fuel you are planting to make wood products and food and using a part of the left-overs for the fuel. Take a look at switch grass. This can be harvested over and over again. It grows in soils not exactly the best for grains etc. Cattle can also graze on this grass, so you are providing food for cattle and also are able to harvest an appreciable amount of stock to make fuel.

Bio-diesel can be made from algae. Depending on the species, there is in some cases over 250 times more oil in algae per acre compared to oil seed crops. Growing algae is pretty easy. Use it to clean up water in a waste water system, dry it down, send it through a press and get the oil which can then be turned in to biodiesel. The "remains" of the algae can be ground up and used as fertilizer or used as a food for livestock.

I don't think that biofuels will completely replace petroleum, but I think they can make a major dent in them. This without sacrificing arable land and forcing increases in food prices.

Hydrogen will have its day, but I don't think we are anywhere close to that point. We don't have a fuel delivery network, we don't have the stations that can put the fuel in the car, and we certainly don't have the vehicles out there. They still don't have an ideal storage system for it.

This is not a problem with bio-fuels, so I think these will be a major bridge between petroleum now and hydrogen in the decades to come.

I have to disagree with this. To waste our time and resorces on a "bridge" is counterproductive. Cars can be converted to run on hydrogen very easily. They have storage cells that will store hydrogen right now that work very well, NASA has been using them for a long time. Biofuels will never totaly replace oil, only supplement it. We have the ability right now to convert to hydrogen. Why do it twice? Convert to biofuels and then later convert to hydrogen? It's a waste of money to do that. Leave the farmers to grow food. I say go for the perm fix now and not waste any more time.

[Dan J 277]

I disagree. Using any type of cellulosic material is the key. That means, grass, wood waste, non-reclyable paper products, corn stalks (and not the kernels) etc. These materials would cost zero as you are not planting to make the fuel you are planting to make wood products and food and using a part of the left-overs for the fuel. Take a look at switch grass. This can be harvested over and over again. It grows in soils not exactly the best for grains etc. Cattle can also graze on this grass, so you are providing food for cattle and also are able to harvest an appreciable amount of stock to make fuel.

Bio-diesel can be made from algae. Depending on the species, there is in some cases over 250 times more oil in algae per acre compared to oil seed crops. Growing algae is pretty easy. Use it to clean up water in a waste water system, dry it down, send it through a press and get the oil which can then be turned in to biodiesel. The "remains" of the algae can be ground up and used as fertilizer or used as a food for livestock.

I don't think that biofuels will completely replace petroleum, but I think they can make a major dent in them. This without sacrificing arable land and forcing increases in food prices.

Hydrogen will have its day, but I don't think we are anywhere close to that point. We don't have a fuel delivery network, we don't have the stations that can put the fuel in the car, and we certainly don't have the vehicles out there. They still don't have an ideal storage system for it.

This is not a problem with bio-fuels, so I think these will be a major bridge between petroleum now and hydrogen in the decades to come.

I have to disagree with this. To waste our time and resorces on a "bridge" is counterproductive. Cars can be converted to run on hydrogen very easily. They have storage cells that will store hydrogen right now that work very well, NASA has been using them for a long time. Biofuels will never totaly replace oil, only supplement it. We have the ability right now to convert to hydrogen. Why do it twice? Convert to biofuels and then later convert to hydrogen? It's a waste of money to do that. Leave the farmers to grow food. I say go for the perm fix now and not waste any more time.

Work is being done on hydrogen. But the market conditions are not right yet for its adoption. Oil and bio fuel prices are still relatively cheap. When that changes the market will move more towards hydrogen. Then only way to force that to happen now is with government legislation, and that would mean defeating the powerful oil company lobbies.

[Jamie76 0]

How are you going to subsidize the transition from petroleum to hydrogen? Do you know how much that would cost? The price of the few cars out there now on loan are well over a million dollars each. How long is it going to take before an average family can afford one? It's going to cost 10s of billions, if not 100s just to put in the infrastructure to deliver the hydrogen to the consumer.

We would need to use wind power, solar power and nuclear power to produce the hygrogen. The cost of putting up more wind farms just for producing hydrogen? The cost of setting up solar farms to produce hydrogen? It still takes over 10 years to get a nuclear power plant built.

So in the mean time, we should remain slaves to petroleum?

[Dan J 277]

How are you going to subsidize the transition from petroleum to hydrogen? Do you know how much that would cost? The price of the few cars out there now on loan are well over a million dollars each. How long is it going to take before an average family can afford one? It's going to cost 10s of billions, if not 100s just to put in the infrastructure to deliver the hydrogen to the consumer.

We would need to use wind power, solar power and nuclear power to produce the hygrogen. The cost of putting up more wind farms just for producing hydrogen? The cost of setting up solar farms to produce hydrogen? It still takes over 10 years to get a nuclear power plant built.

So in the mean time, we should remain slaves to petroleum?

Platinum is used as a catalyst in reverse electrolysis, which costs somewhere over $1000 per ounce. Not to mention, if we have 100 million cars needing platinum, can we even get enough of it?

[GaryC 7]

There is also something that everyone forgets. To produce the plant to make biofuel requires energy. To turn the plant into biofuel also requires energy. The net gain in energy gets reduced by those two factors. It just does not make sense. There is not enough net gain to make it worthwhile.

[GaryC 7]

Platinum is used as a catalyst in reverse electrolysis, which costs somewhere over $1000 per ounce. Not to mention, if we have 100 million cars needing platinum, can we even get enough of it?

You don't need all that! Cars can be made to run on pure hydrogen. The hydrogen can be made by good old electrolysis. No platinum is needed in any of the steps.