Bio-mass gas for $.25/gal

[Red Flag 1]

Gents:

On Memorial Day my wife heard an interview on FOX- Talk radio. The interview was done by Mary Walter. The topic was compelling, so we did some diging. A Mr J. C. Bell of Tifton,Ga has come up with a way to produce a substitute for gasoline using geneticaly modified and cloned bacteria , kind unknown, added to what sounds like compost. Final cost to consumer around $.25/ gallon is claimed.

The Tifton Gazette
http://www.tiftongazette.com/opinion...126213442.html will take you to a short article published first on 15 MAR 08, and again on 28 MAY 08.

Has anyone heard of this Mr. J. C. Bell or know anything about his "product"?
Or anything about the technology/biology he might be using?

Thanks!

RF 1

[BryanK]

"Worse than traitors in arms are the men who pretend loyalty to the flag, feast and fatten on the misfortunes of the Nation while patriotic blood is crimsoning the plains of the South and their countrymen moldering the dust."
- Abraham Lincoln
The oil companies and the people that profit from it (i.e., several government officials) would never let that happen.

[Red Flag 1]

Thanks BryanK.

Looking for a considered view/opinion on this.

My take is that this is compost only until proved otherwise.

RF 1

[clapdoc]

We are making biodiesel from used cooking oil for .80 cents per gallon.
I really like thumbing my nose at the oil companies every time we make a gallon.




clapdoc sends.








w

[Red Flag 1]

Friend of mine in De. would sometimes use cooking oil in his old GM diesel. Thing smelled like popcorn when he would fire it up.

[nmap]

Interesting development, Red Flag!

As you point out, the article seems directed more at recycled material than otherwise.

There are two problems to consider. The first is the overall balance of energy, or EROEI (Energy returned on energy invested). The second is scalability.

EROEI is tricky. To do it right, it's necessary to determine and calculate all the energy inputs, as well as the costs, from a given process. So a gallon of ethanol does contain energy, but the various inputs cost more energy, rendering ethanol a bad choice. (This according to one study at Princeton. In all fairness, other studies suggest a small positive energy return for ethanol; the results are still in dispute.) So, if the process produces hydrocarbons, that's great - but we need a positive EROEI. We need to account for the energy (not monetary!) costs of gathering the material, processing it, then refining the output to gasoline or diesel.

Scalability is the other issue. How much can we convert? The world needs about 30 billion barrels per year, and the U.S. uses about 1/4 th of that total. So a million barrels per year would make the inventor wealthy, but would have little impact on the energy problem. That's the problem with cooking oil; it works well for some, but isn't scalable to the large numbers needed.

Thermal depolymerization enjoyed similar publicity previously. It converted just about anything to crude oil. Unfortunately, the above factors seem to have worked against it and the idea hasn't produced much energy. It appears to be more of a waste disposal mechanism than an energy solution, although there are still some proponents.

[Alchemist]

Great points by nmap. I would add that, while interesting, the article is pretty vague. What gas, exactly? The wording is vague as to whether we're talking gas, as in the form of matter, or gas as in short for gasoline. Which hydrocarbon? Does the inventor mean that a layer of liquid hydrocarbon separates out of a water-based stew?

Or does he mean, literally, gaseous hydrocarbons (i.e. methane, ethane, ethylene, etc.)? And if so, how were these detected, identified, quantified? Also, are we talking about a price per gallon of liquid, or of gaseous matter? A gallon of methane gas, the simplest hydrocarbon, weighs about one two-hundredth of a pound; you'll get a pretty good flash if you light it on fire, but it won't propel your car very far. For comparison, octane in the standard, liquid, state weighs six pounds per gallon.

None of this is to be dismissive. Anyone who finds bacteria that can efficiently digest compost and produce hydrocarbons is onto something promising. But until we see a lot more specifics--and most importantly, until the work is reproduced by someone impartial (it's amazing what you can convince yourself you've found when you desperately want one outcome), I'd file this as one of many potentially important advances that may someday give us a better source of fuel; not as the one advance that will solve all our problems, if only the oil companies don't find a way to quash it.

[Red Flag 1]

nmap, alchemist,

Thank you gents; great insight and knowledge!

The article is vague no doubt. Mr. Bell is vague for good reason, reporter missed the point or both.

If I recall correctly, one gallon of ethanol production requires three gallons of conventional fuel , minimum. Ethanol also reduced mpg about 10-15% if I recall correctly.

I'll dig about a little more. If indeed he has "the" product, changes in investments would soon follow. If totally convinced, some upfront direct investment would be profitable in the long run.

Thanks again!

RF 1

[hunteran]

Corn-ethanol is a huge scam. When you look at the big picture it is MUCH dirtier than normal gasoline and its also one of the reasons that food prices have gone up so much recently. The National Geographic magazine had a great article on bio-fuels (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/20.../biofuels-text) and explained many of the different avenues of approaching biofuels. I thought that the neatest biofuel idea was the one that uses algae. It is briefly mentioned in the NatGeo article but I read a longer and more in-depth article on it somewhere else (I would post a link but I can't remember where I read it). Basically they bubble the emissions from a coal-fueled power plant through bags containing algae. These algae can substantially increase their biomass in a matter of hours and in the process they soak up many of the emissions from the burning coal. The other article mentioned that they are currently very close to developing a pretty easy way to process the algae into some sort of biofuel. Corn isn't the way to go, this algae thing is.

Just my 2 (uneducated) cents...

[wanabe1026]

Originally Posted by Red Flag 1

nmap, alchemist,

If I recall correctly, one gallon of ethanol production requires three gallons of conventional fuel , minimum. Ethanol also reduced mpg about 10-15% if I recall correctly.

RF 1

You are correct that ethanol doesn't produce the same amount of energy output as conventional gasoline. However, most car companies claim that the drop in mpg is due to the cars not being properly tuned for ethanol. I'm not sure if thats 100% true or not. I'm pretty sure Indy cars run on ethanol though, and they have no problem with it.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by wanabe1026

You are correct that ethanol doesn't produce the same amount of energy output as conventional gasoline. However, most car companies claim that the drop in mpg is due to the cars not being properly tuned for ethanol. I'm not sure if thats 100% true or not. I'm pretty sure Indy cars run on ethanol though, and they have no problem with it.

It isn't true.

Ethanol has less energy per gallon than gasoline.

Therefore, it cannot do as much work, and lowers the MPG.

TR

[Red Flag 1]

1026

Indy cars have been built to use ethanol only, have been for years now. Their engines are not trying to use gasoline at the same time. One of the risks with these ethanol only engines is fire. Ethanol burns clear with no visable flames. When one of these catch fire, generally the only one who knows it is the driver!!

Thanks TR! Still digging about on this. Not much to find so far.

RF 1

[Alchemist]

Red Flag 1:

If you're still digging, and still interested, here are some numbers behind The Reaper's point:

Heats of combustion for fuels

[Jargon alert!] Pretend for the moment that gasoline is just octane (not literally true, but close enough to make the point). Weight for weight, ethanol contains about 63% of the potential energy that gasoline does. Whereas octane is a hydrocarbon, you can think of ethanol as a hydrocarbon that's already been partly burned, with the energy given off before you had the chance to collect any of it.

Ethanol is denser than octane, so in a volume-for-volume comparison it does a little better, about 71% of the potential energy of octane.

On its own terms ethanol is a fine fuel, and if we had underground lakes of it ready to be extracted and burned, we'd accept the lower mpg with little complaint. But since it has to be made, we get into the other objection, about the energy you invest in making it.

Putting three times as much energy into it as you get out sounds high to me, but even optimistic estimates suggest that with a national-level infrastructure you could break even, but not by much. That's given current crops and technologies, which would need to improve for ethanol to be an attractive competitor to gasoline on that national level.

[Red Flag 1]

Alchemist,

NIST Chemistry WebBook should keep me busy for a bit!

Ethanol solution always looked like a poor, knee jerk response. Plug in electrical power for autos just means non nuclear/ hydro power plants just have to burn more fuel to provide the electrical power for the cars; a non answer. It seems hybrid is the current "on the road" answer in the very short term. Hydrogen cell looks good, unsure if the infrastructure can be developed.

Your thoughts?

Thanks!

RF 1

[nmap]

Unfortunately, the lower energy level of ethanol isn't the real problem. Rather, the issue is EROEI - Energy Returned On Energy Invested.

At least one study out of Berkely by Pimentel and Patzek, and published in a peer reviewed journal points out:

Energy outputs from ethanol produced using corn, switchgrass, and wood biomass were each less than the respective fossil energy inputs. The same was true for producing biodiesel using soybeans and sunflower, however, the energy cost for producing soybean biodiesel was only slightly negative compared with ethanol production. Findings in terms of energy outputs compared with the energy inputs were: • Ethanol production using corn grain required 29% more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel produced. • Ethanol production using switchgrass required 50% more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel produced. • Ethanol production using wood biomass required 57% more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel produced. • Biodiesel production using soybean required 27% more fossil energy than the biodiesel fuel produced (Note, the energy yield from soy oil per hectare is far lower than the ethanol yield from corn). • Biodiesel production using sunflower required 118% more fossil energy than the biodiesel fuel produced.

Bottom line, it costs more oil to produce biofuels than the energy we get out. Suppose we went to a machine, put in a dollar, and got out 95 cents. We're getting money out - but it's a net loss every time. (I attached the complete paper, if you're interested)

On a more positive note, a recent analysis out of MIT suggests that switchgrass and other approaches may have a positive return; so corn ethanol might be a necessary precursor to future refinements.

Here's a LINK