Hi Kirk >Interesting comments from a biologist friend. Hope he is wrong :( > Kirk
He has a point here: > Then converting agriculture to fuel production, after 60 years of >saying the food supply cannot keep up with demand, is diabolical >subversion of agriculture by the population control mob which wants >another excuse for exterminating 90% of the population. I don't think they're looking for another excuse though, they just keep changing what they call it (they used to call it eugenics, for instance). Actually the growth in the food supply stayed 17% ahead of the population growth over the last 30 years. Or so the figures say, but those are the figures for industrial food production, which isn't actually food, it's commodities, grown for money, not to feed people. The food most people eat still comes mostly from small farms (where they haven't been destroyed by agribiz) and city farms, and that doesn't get counted. Farmers lie anyway to outsiders from the city looking for numbers, if they've got any sense, which they usually have got. Anyway, it's not because of overpopulation nor because of a lack of food that so many people starve (852 million officially, though it's more than that), it's mainly because they've been shoved off the land and out of the economy by industrial agriculture, as heavily promoted and enabled by the Rockefeller Foundation, which also has long been the main nest of the population control mob, what a coincidence (and indeed the Rockefeller Foundation used to call it eugenics). Meanwhile soaring food prices, scarcity and world-wide food riots are not (or not yet) due to pressures on the "food" supply caused by increased biofuels production as so widely alleged, but mainly to soaring petroleum prices. IMHO the question to ask about all the "next-generation" so-called green fuels techniques being touted is whether they fit the Appropriate Technology model - can you do it at village-level? Probably not, it's more likely to be industrial-scale. People do some lab work and file for some patents and make big claims, pretending it's something that actually exists, but usually it's just investment-bait. The problem with the Appropriate Technology model is that it's so difficult for entrepreneurs and investors to make any money out of it, unlike industrial-scale projects. But if it doesn't fit the Appropriate Technology model it's useless. Best Keith >G Novak wrote: > > > Kirk, > > This process for green gasoline is more hoodwinking, about like >the cures for cancer which are in the news three times a week. >Scientists try to justify expensive research that way. Here's why >this procedure and all others are not realistic: > > 1. It costs too much to ship corn refuse or switchgrass to >processing plants no matter how it is processed. The stuff is so >light and bulky that it takes more fuel to ship it 20 miles than it >is worth, while there is not enough produced in a 20 mile radius to >justify the expense of building a plant. > > 2. Biomass is loaded with oxygen and nitrogen containing compounds >which have to be removed before any processing. Removing that stuff >is noncompetitive, and it creates a problem of disposal. > > Then they didn't say what the catalyst was. It is obviously too >expensive, and maybe hazardous, to mention. > > Then converting agriculture to fuel production, after 60 years of >saying the food supply cannot keep up with demand, is diabolical >subversion of agriculture by the population control mob which wants >another excuse for exterminating 90% of the population. > > Gary Novak >www.nov55.com >Science is Broken > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Kirk McLoren > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 11:38 PM > Subject: Fwd: [Biofuel] Catalytic Fast Pyrolysis, turns biomass >into "Green gasoline" > > > > >"Bruno M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Catalytic fast pyrolysis turns plant biomass such as wood and >grasses into "green gasoline" >----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080407102812.htm > > >ScienceDaily (Apr. 8, 2008) ­ Researchers have made a >breakthrough in the development of "green gasoline," a liquid >identical to standard gasoline yet created from sustainable biomass >sources like switchgrass and poplar trees. > >Reporting in the April 7, 2008 issue of Chemistry & Sustainability, >Energy & Materials (ChemSusChem), chemical engineer and National >Science Foundation (NSF) CAREER awardee George Huber of the >University of Massachusetts-Amherst (UMass) and his graduate >students Torren Carlson and Tushar Vispute announced the first >direct conversion of plant cellulose into gasoline components. > >In the same issue, James Dumesic and colleagues from the University >of Wisconsin-Madison announce an integrated process for creating >chemical components of jet fuel using a green gasoline approach. >While Dumesic's group had previously demonstrated the production of >jet-fuel components using separate steps, their current work shows >that the steps can be integrated and run sequentially, without >complex separation and purification processes between reactors. > >While it may be five to 10 years before green gasoline arrives at >the pump or finds its way into a fighter jet, these breakthroughs >have bypassed significant hurdles to bringing green gasoline >biofuels to market. > >"It is likely that the future consumer will not even know that they >are putting biofuels into their car," said Huber. "Biofuels in the >future will most likely be similar in chemical composition to >gasoline and diesel fuel used today. The challenge for chemical >engineers is to efficiently produce liquid fuels from biomass while >fitting into the existing infrastructure today." > >For their new approach, the UMass researchers rapidly heated >cellulose in the presence of solid catalysts, materials that speed >up reactions without sacrificing themselves in the process. They >then rapidly cooled the products to create a liquid that contains >many of the compounds found in gasoline. > >The entire process was completed in under two minutes using >relatively moderate amounts of heat. The compounds that formed in >that single step, like naphthalene and toluene, make up one fourth >of the suite of chemicals found in gasoline. The liquid can be >further treated to form the remaining fuel components or can be used >"as is" for a high octane gasoline blend. > >"Green gasoline is an attractive alternative to bioethanol since it >can be used in existing engines and does not incur the 30 percent >gas mileage penalty of ethanol-based flex fuel," said John >Regalbuto, who directs the Catalysis and Biocatalysis Program at NSF >and supported this research. > >"In theory it requires much less energy to make than ethanol, giving >it a smaller carbon footprint and making it cheaper to produce," >Regalbuto said. "Making it from cellulose sources such as >switchgrass or poplar trees grown as energy crops, or forest or >agricultural residues such as wood chips or corn stover, solves the >lifecycle greenhouse gas problem that has recently surfaced with >corn ethanol and soy biodiesel." > >Beyond academic laboratories, both small businesses and Fortune 500 >petroleum refiners are pursuing green gasoline. Companies are >designing ways to hybridize their existing refineries to enable >petroleum products including fuels, textiles, and plastics to be >made from either crude oil or biomass and the military community has >shown strong interest in making jet fuel and diesel from the same >sources. > >"Huber's new process for the direct conversion of cellulose to >gasoline aromatics is at the leading edge of the new Green >Gasoline' alternate energy paradigm that NSF, along with other >federal agencies, is helping to promote," states Regalbuto. > >Not only is the method a compact way to treat a great deal of >biomass in a short time, Regalbuto emphasized that the process, in >principle, does not require any external energy. "In fact, from the >extra heat that will be released, you can generate electricity in >addition to the biofuel," he said. "There will not be just a small >carbon footprint for the process; by recovering heat and generating >electricity, there won't be any footprint." > >The latest pathways to produce green gasoline, green diesel and >green jet fuel are found in a report sponsored by NSF, the >Department of Energy and the American Chemical Society entitled >"Breaking the Chemical and Engineering Barriers to Lignocellulosic >Biofuels: Next Generation Hydrocarbon Biorefineries" released April >1. In the report, Huber and a host of leaders from academia, >industry and government present a plan for making green gasoline a >practical solution for the impending fuel crisis. > >"We are currently working on understanding the chemistry of this >process and designing new catalysts and reactors for this single >step technique. This fundamental chemical understanding will allow >us to design more efficient processes that will accelerate the >commercialization of green gasoline," Huber said. > >Adapted from materials provided by National Science Foundation. >================================================ _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
