Butanol may be used as a fuel in an internal combustion engine. Because its longer hydrocarbon chain causes it to be fairly non-polar, it is more similar to gasoline than it is to ethanol. Butanol has been demonstrated to work in vehicles designed for use with gasoline without modification. University of California, Berkeley, chemists have engineered bacteria to churn out a gasoline-like biofuel (butanol) at about 10 times the rate of competing microbes, a breakthrough that could soon provide an affordable transportation fuel.
Butanol production breakthrough at University of California
Butanol production breakthrough at University of California
http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/ ... oline.html
-
Carl White
- Posts: 479
- Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 10:44 pm
This sounds better than it really is.
Firstly, it still has to go from the lab to a production process. Many breakthroughs in the lab don't scale up.
Secondly, the bacteria would need a food source. They talk about using sugar beets and other crops. Well, they'd have to use an enormous amount to generate enough to impact the world's fuel consumption, which could only drive food prices high enough to cause hunger and starvation throughout the world (even the U.S.).
Thirdly, the amount of infrastructure needed precludes any significant production for a long time.
Firstly, it still has to go from the lab to a production process. Many breakthroughs in the lab don't scale up.
Secondly, the bacteria would need a food source. They talk about using sugar beets and other crops. Well, they'd have to use an enormous amount to generate enough to impact the world's fuel consumption, which could only drive food prices high enough to cause hunger and starvation throughout the world (even the U.S.).
Thirdly, the amount of infrastructure needed precludes any significant production for a long time.
Let me address your points:
1. This is the most valid. Agreed.
2. Brazil has an excellent model for this, and there is great promise for non-food product use (corn husk, ect). This point is concerning on the food front - however the problems are not ignored by the industry.
3. This outright does not apply to Butanol, and only to ethanol. Butanol is basically the SAME as gasoline. DROP IN for our entire infrastructure, non-corrosive. Everything we do for gasoline now with no modification we can do with butanol - if we can address the other two issues above.
1. This is the most valid. Agreed.
2. Brazil has an excellent model for this, and there is great promise for non-food product use (corn husk, ect). This point is concerning on the food front - however the problems are not ignored by the industry.
3. This outright does not apply to Butanol, and only to ethanol. Butanol is basically the SAME as gasoline. DROP IN for our entire infrastructure, non-corrosive. Everything we do for gasoline now with no modification we can do with butanol - if we can address the other two issues above.
Unfortunately, yes it does unless ALL oil companies are required to include a certain percentage of B'ol in their gasoline.bennmann wrote: 3. This outright does not apply to Butanol,
B'ol has a lower energy content than gasoline. Either, all gasoline will be mixed or the stuff will need to be seperately stored and priced. If the latter happens, then a new infrastructure will be needed.
For a while, until the 10% e'ol in gasoline is replaced with b'ol, there should be little disruption. But beyond that...
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
Many have proposed butanol from algae farms for many years. The new stuff here is a bacteria that harvests 10X as much butanol as other harvest methods. Butanol is NOT a drop-in replacement for gasoline. It has about 10% less energy by volume. Imagine how your car would run if you added 2 gallons of water to a 16 gallon tank, apart from the line freeze issue.
Ethanol has about 35% less energy than gasoline by volume so butanol has some serious advantages, but when you read that a gasoline engine will run on it, that does not mean that engine will not be damaged by it. Fact is, all modern gasoline engines are so highly precised to their fuel type, it's pretty unlikely that the average gasoline engine would run well without damage on butanol. The ethanol cars in Brazil are all made to run on ethanol, not gasoline.
But this is all red herring. There is still lots of gasoline in the ground. The issue is that we'd really like to get away from burning anything, including alcohol. This isn't a solution that climate change peeps, anti-smog peeps, etc. can put their arms around. And yes, no matter how you figure the numbers, if we have to grow algae, or sweetgrass or any other sugar source in order to feed this bacteria to produce butanol, the stuff that comes out will cost far more than what nature has provided in vast quantities for harvest.
People need to keep in mind that the reason we use gasoline is not only that it's so convenient and energy dense. We use it because it's cheap. We have given up hunting whales for their blubber, used to provide oil to light homes, because petroleum was cheaper. If we want a viable alternative to gasoline, it needs to be because it's cheaper still. Butanol does not come close to this, no matter what bacteria is used to produce it.
Ethanol has about 35% less energy than gasoline by volume so butanol has some serious advantages, but when you read that a gasoline engine will run on it, that does not mean that engine will not be damaged by it. Fact is, all modern gasoline engines are so highly precised to their fuel type, it's pretty unlikely that the average gasoline engine would run well without damage on butanol. The ethanol cars in Brazil are all made to run on ethanol, not gasoline.
But this is all red herring. There is still lots of gasoline in the ground. The issue is that we'd really like to get away from burning anything, including alcohol. This isn't a solution that climate change peeps, anti-smog peeps, etc. can put their arms around. And yes, no matter how you figure the numbers, if we have to grow algae, or sweetgrass or any other sugar source in order to feed this bacteria to produce butanol, the stuff that comes out will cost far more than what nature has provided in vast quantities for harvest.
People need to keep in mind that the reason we use gasoline is not only that it's so convenient and energy dense. We use it because it's cheap. We have given up hunting whales for their blubber, used to provide oil to light homes, because petroleum was cheaper. If we want a viable alternative to gasoline, it needs to be because it's cheaper still. Butanol does not come close to this, no matter what bacteria is used to produce it.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
I was basing point 3 on the gentleman who drove 10,000 miles in an unmodified engine on butanol:
http://bioenergy.illinois.edu/pdf/Mr%20 ... 20page.pdf
In the case that there is NO EFFECTIVE DIFFERENCE between gas and butanol, one just advertises the product as butanol/gasoline and just charge whatever the products you ordered collectively gives you an adequate profit. Am I taking crazy pills?
http://bioenergy.illinois.edu/pdf/Mr%20 ... 20page.pdf
In the case that there is NO EFFECTIVE DIFFERENCE between gas and butanol, one just advertises the product as butanol/gasoline and just charge whatever the products you ordered collectively gives you an adequate profit. Am I taking crazy pills?
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
I'm sure people can fabricate whatever numbers they like to support their position, but common sense says just look at the situation. In the case of petroleum, you have a resource that is gathered and processed. It's fabulously inexpensive. In the case of ethanol, you have to grow the sugar source--probably algae but also possibly sweetgrass and even corn. Algae is the most efficient but it has a higher initial investment because you need to install tanks and pumps whereas sweetgrass grows like a weed in the field.
Point is, all of this is much more expensive than essentially picking up what nature has provided with millions years long processes. The only benefit ethanol or butanol have is they are renewable. This is the issue. Many simple thinkers value renewable resources far above harvested resources because well. . .they're renewable! This is how kids are taught to think in college these days, despite the math says that for anything other than a permanent solution, harvested resources are generally more economical.
And really, this is a problem spread across much of academia, NASA, etc.--they don't think about dollars. They lack the common sense of the man who has to earn a living in business.
Eventually, we need a permanent solution to our energy needs, but until a disruptive technology comes along that is safer, quicker, more convenient and more economical than what we have, we need to be extremely hesitant to switch over our multi-trillion dollar transportation infrastructure to something that is not nearly as economical as what we have.
I personally, would rather hold out for better batteries, super-caps E-Cats, or whatever solution like these is in our future, than start harvesting billions of acres to make butanol fuel that costs twice what petroleum does. IMHO, we need to press (and invest research dollars) for real solutions instead of settling for half-way solutions that happen to be available now.
Point is, all of this is much more expensive than essentially picking up what nature has provided with millions years long processes. The only benefit ethanol or butanol have is they are renewable. This is the issue. Many simple thinkers value renewable resources far above harvested resources because well. . .they're renewable! This is how kids are taught to think in college these days, despite the math says that for anything other than a permanent solution, harvested resources are generally more economical.
And really, this is a problem spread across much of academia, NASA, etc.--they don't think about dollars. They lack the common sense of the man who has to earn a living in business.
Eventually, we need a permanent solution to our energy needs, but until a disruptive technology comes along that is safer, quicker, more convenient and more economical than what we have, we need to be extremely hesitant to switch over our multi-trillion dollar transportation infrastructure to something that is not nearly as economical as what we have.
I personally, would rather hold out for better batteries, super-caps E-Cats, or whatever solution like these is in our future, than start harvesting billions of acres to make butanol fuel that costs twice what petroleum does. IMHO, we need to press (and invest research dollars) for real solutions instead of settling for half-way solutions that happen to be available now.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
I am the opposite. Short of portable nuclear solutions, I find biofuels to have the potential to be more advanced and have more potential than capacitors and batteries of the future.GIThruster wrote:I personally, would rather hold out for better batteries, super-caps E-Cats, or whatever solution like these is in our future, than start harvesting billions of acres to make butanol fuel that costs twice what petroleum does. IMHO, we need to press (and invest research dollars) for real solutions instead of settling for half-way solutions that happen to be available now.
But I totally respect your opinion and think there is ample room for both of us to have opposing views.
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
It's been almost 20 years since I looked at this issue in detail. If memory serves, while its true almost any biomass could be used, it is specifically sugars that are converted to alcohols (methanol, ethanol, butanol) so you need a biomass with high sugar content--algae, sweetgrass, corn, etc. Corn costs too much for a commercial process. Sweetgrass is probably still the first choice for people proposing an alcohol based fuel. The difference here with this news, is the bacteria used to convert the sugars to butanol is 10X as efficient as past processes, which then makes butanol a serious competitor with ethanol. And just admitting, this is a significant breakthrough if you're willing to settle for burning stuff to get around--butanol has a 50% higher energy density that ethanol.
That doesn't mean we should spend money on it.
I've been having a similar discussion for months with a friend in CA who is fed up with the horrific smog issue they have. He wants to believe burning natural gas will solve the issue, but he doesn't understand that by burning natural gas you still produce smog--just in smaller quantities which will eventually lead to the same problem. (This recognition of how semi-answes don't provide real answers is why GM held out for an electric rather than hybrid solution for so long. If everyone in the country had switched over to hybrids overnight, back when GM ran their EV1 experiment, this would only have set back the real troubles by six years--hardy worth the cost of building and buying hybrids. They're not a real solution.)
There are too may people on the planet using cars, and whom will be using cars in the next two decades, for us to be burning anything and expect to be able to breathe the air too. Forget climate change--too unresolved. Think about what it would be like for vast swaths of North America to be covered in smog. That's what we're looking at if we don't find a clean energy solution. Anyone who lives in a smog zone where the air is routinely listed as "unhealthy", or in places like the I5 corridor in southern Oregon which during the winter sits under a cloud of wood smoke used to heat the houses, knows that we need a clean solution. Butanol ain't it.
That doesn't mean we should spend money on it.
I've been having a similar discussion for months with a friend in CA who is fed up with the horrific smog issue they have. He wants to believe burning natural gas will solve the issue, but he doesn't understand that by burning natural gas you still produce smog--just in smaller quantities which will eventually lead to the same problem. (This recognition of how semi-answes don't provide real answers is why GM held out for an electric rather than hybrid solution for so long. If everyone in the country had switched over to hybrids overnight, back when GM ran their EV1 experiment, this would only have set back the real troubles by six years--hardy worth the cost of building and buying hybrids. They're not a real solution.)
There are too may people on the planet using cars, and whom will be using cars in the next two decades, for us to be burning anything and expect to be able to breathe the air too. Forget climate change--too unresolved. Think about what it would be like for vast swaths of North America to be covered in smog. That's what we're looking at if we don't find a clean energy solution. Anyone who lives in a smog zone where the air is routinely listed as "unhealthy", or in places like the I5 corridor in southern Oregon which during the winter sits under a cloud of wood smoke used to heat the houses, knows that we need a clean solution. Butanol ain't it.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
You forget one very important detail about GROWING fuel - CARBON in, carbon out.GIThruster wrote: Think about what it would be like for vast swaths of North America to be covered in smog. That's what we're looking at if we don't find a clean energy solution.
It's a carbon neutral process. No "smog". Biofuels eat carbon and convert it before putting it back in the air, but the point is they get the carbon from the air to begin with - or from coal power plants as a stepping stone until we are 100% pulling carbon from the atmosphere only.
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
That's true but trivially so. Biomass gets its carbon from the air, but by absorbing CO2, not particulates. It's the particulates that make the air unhealthy, not the CO2.
Your observation is a great one to make if one is arguing for bio-fuels based upon climate change needs, since growing algae or sweet grass sequesters carbon from CO2, but I'm not going to make that argument. I think there are too many troubles with that science to call it science. OTOH, there's no doubt that particulates produce smog and that air is unhealthy. So whether you believe in climate change or not, there are very positive reasons to adopt a clean energy solution.
And not for nothin' but, anyone who ever sat in traffic behind a commercial vehicle that was belching black guck into the air , already nows what they need to about burning stuff for transport--it's just not the best solution possible.
Your observation is a great one to make if one is arguing for bio-fuels based upon climate change needs, since growing algae or sweet grass sequesters carbon from CO2, but I'm not going to make that argument. I think there are too many troubles with that science to call it science. OTOH, there's no doubt that particulates produce smog and that air is unhealthy. So whether you believe in climate change or not, there are very positive reasons to adopt a clean energy solution.
And not for nothin' but, anyone who ever sat in traffic behind a commercial vehicle that was belching black guck into the air , already nows what they need to about burning stuff for transport--it's just not the best solution possible.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
Nonsense, modern cars have computer controled ignition that allows them adjust to most fuels (as long as you dont put diesel in a gasoline car or the other way round).Fact is, all modern gasoline engines are so highly precised to their fuel type, it's pretty unlikely that the average gasoline engine would run well without damage on butanol. The ethanol cars in Brazil are all made to run on ethanol, not gasoline.
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
I've noticed before that Skippy has a habit of commenting on subjects he knows nothing about.
I have a backpacking stove that runs on all sorts of fuels and it doesn't include a computer, but it also doesn't include any moving parts. The FACT of the matter is, that modern gasoline engines cannot burn ethanol without huge modifications, which is why there are special engines developed for ethanol. Since butanol has a higher energy density than ethanol, one expects the modifications would be more limited, but you cannot just dump butanol into a gasoline engine any more than you can dump 2-3 gallons of water into your fuel tank and expect the engine to run properly.
If you don't believe me--and you should since I started working in an auto shop 41 years ago--go dump some water into your car and tell us what the computer makes of it.
I have a backpacking stove that runs on all sorts of fuels and it doesn't include a computer, but it also doesn't include any moving parts. The FACT of the matter is, that modern gasoline engines cannot burn ethanol without huge modifications, which is why there are special engines developed for ethanol. Since butanol has a higher energy density than ethanol, one expects the modifications would be more limited, but you cannot just dump butanol into a gasoline engine any more than you can dump 2-3 gallons of water into your fuel tank and expect the engine to run properly.
If you don't believe me--and you should since I started working in an auto shop 41 years ago--go dump some water into your car and tell us what the computer makes of it.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
Strawman!If you don't believe me--and you should since I started working in an auto shop 41 years ago--go dump some water into your car and tell us what the computer makes of it.
I have never claimed that car engines will run on water! What I did was to dispute your claim that modern car engines are so highly precised to their fuel typen, when in fact the opposite is true. 25 years ago, you would have real problems getting your car to start if you fueled it with "regular" instead of "super". Nowadays it does not matter, because the computer controlling the ignition will adjust it on the fly to match the octane number of the fuel. Heck even my almost 20 year old car can do that already.
Do you agree with that, or not?