backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 21 comment(s) - last by Beenthere.. on Oct 10 at 3:32 AM


New research from Louisiana Tech University allows cellulose-digesting enzymes like cellulase, pictured here, to be immobilized, reducing enzyme loss and the cost of enzymatic cellulosic ethanol.  (Source: Oak Ridge National Laboratory)
The outlook for waste-ethanol is looking up

Cellulosic ethanol is an exciting technology which promises to convert the abundant sources of organic waste worldwide (kitchen waste, yard waste, paper industry waste, etc.) into green alternative fuel.  Unlike traditional ethanol, it won't use food crops or raise food prices.  In addition, environmental impact studies have indicated that while traditional ethanol releases more greenhouse gases than burning fossil fuels, cellulosic ethanol could reduce emissions substantially.

Traditionally the creation of cellulosic ethanol follows one of two routes.  The first route is to first plasmify the organic matter, breaking down the cellulose and creating a gassy mix of small hydrocarbons.  This mix is then fed to special bacteria, which produce the ethanol.  Coskata, one leading manufacturer that promises $1/gallon ethanol, is implementing this strategy.

A second route is to feed the cellulose directly to enzymes that break it down, and then ferment the resulting sugars to turn them into ethanol.  However, this process has traditionally been more expensive than the other approach, as the enzymes cost a lot of money, and typically a significant portion are lost during the cellulose degradation.

New research from the Louisiana Tech University could change that.  LTU researchers have developed a way of immobilizing the enzymes, greatly reducing enzyme loss and its corresponding costs.  Details on the new approach are scant other than that it uses "nanotechnology", but it seems likely that it employs some sort of charged particles to affix the non-catalytic domains of enzymes to reactor walls or a porous network, or else uses extracellular matrix proteins to bind the enzymes.

LTU will reveal more details when Professor James Palmer presents his group's work at Louisiana Tech’s Energy Systems Conference on November 5 at the Technology Transfer Center in Shreveport.

The university estimates that a commercial plant would save approximately $32M USD (they did not specify if this was a yearly total or perhaps over the plant's lifetime) and that under the federally established goal to reach 16 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol, the net saving could be $7.5B USD, if the goal was reached.  LTU also notes that they estimate cellulosic ethanol to reduce carbon emissions by 89 percent over traditional fuels.

The Louisiana college is cheering that its state is ideally situated to profit from the burgeoning cellulosic ethanol market.  Writes LTU in the press release, "The innovative research taking place at Louisiana Tech, along with an excellent growing season, a strong pulp/paper industry, and one of the nation’s first cellulosic ethanol demonstration plants, has the state of Louisiana well positioned to become a national contributor in cellulosic ethanol."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

converting waste
By kattanna on 10/9/2009 12:05:55 PM , Rating: 5
processes that convert waste streams into useful products are simply awesome paths to take. that alone is why we should be looking into these techs.




RE: converting waste
By acase on 10/9/2009 12:18:19 PM , Rating: 3
I agree. I generally don't believe this whole "man-made climate crisis", and don't agree with all of the money being poured into useless "green" studies and products, but at least it is prompting the development of useful things like this on occasion.


RE: converting waste
By ImSpartacus on 10/9/2009 1:00:21 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, I don't believe in being "green" just to save the earth, but when it makes financial sense (hybrids, solar power, etc.), it's a good idea.


RE: converting waste
By mdogs444 on 10/9/2009 1:16:00 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
but when it makes financial sense (hybrids, solar power, etc.), it's a good idea.

These items (hybrids, solar, wind, etc) typically do not make financial sense though. Hybrids are always more expensive than their non-hybrid counterparts even when you factor in the mileage increases (with exception to the Prius/Insight since they do not offer non-hybrid tech). Solar and wind take massive amounts of material such as concrete and steel to construct, and their prices are not even close to being on par per kw hr with conventional coal, natural gas, oil, or gasoline.

Hey, I'm all for new technology when its actually financially able to stand on its own two feet without government prop ups like subsidies, taxation, and massive EPA regulation. But right now, they can only be cheaper if you tax the hell out of everything else by manipulating the market via government regulation to price conventional methods out of the average persons reach which is exactly what the climate bills are designed to do.


RE: converting waste
By achintya on 10/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: converting waste
By kattanna on 10/9/2009 3:18:28 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You know that fossil fuels like gas/oil/coal ARE limited. And at the rate we are exploiting them, they won't last very long


there have been people saying that since we first started using oil. and for coal.. LOL im simply at a loss for words to convey just how silly someone thinking we are going to soon run out of coal is.

quote:
Till the earth survives


the planet has "survived" many mass extinctions, and it will endure many more.. we on the other hand.. might not.


RE: converting waste
By Fallen Kell on 10/9/2009 5:58:37 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
LOL im simply at a loss for words to convey just how silly someone thinking we are going to soon run out of coal is.


It isn't silly when it is the truth. Yes, there is a lot of coal, especially in the USA (we have coal like the middle east has oil). We currently have approx 275 billion tons of accessible and recoverable coal reserves. Worldwide, the figure is estimated to be 920 billion tons. At current consumption level the world reserves of coal would be exhausted in 155 years. HOWEVER (notice capitals), coal consumption is growing at an exponential rate. China alone is building 2 coal power plants a WEEK! At a conservative 5% world-wide growth rate (very conservative given that China is growing at about 10% and India at about 8% a year), that 155 years is down to 45 years! In other words IN OUR LIFETIME!


RE: converting waste
By Etsp on 10/10/2009 2:44:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
accessible and recoverable
That definition is relative to the current market price of oil and coal. If it isn't profitable to dig it up and process it, then it doesn't count as "accessible and recoverable."

Prices go up, suddenly there are more "accessible and recoverable" reserves. Technology takes a leap forward, and it's cheaper to dig for oil and coal, suddenly there are more "accessible and recoverable" reserves.

Now, that's not even the whole story. Why would a company invest in finding new sources of oil and coal, when what they already know about will last 100+ years?

Truth is, they don't put too much emphasis on it. They won't either, until prices go up, and reserve levels drop.


RE: converting waste
By Gurthang on 10/9/2009 3:34:51 PM , Rating: 3
While I agree that forcing "green" tech on people when it is not really "green" is stupid. (Corn ethonol *cough*) I do however support short term subsities/credits/loans for new technologies in order help develop a desireable market. But yes those things need to go after a few years.

Another reason I don't mind some of the subsities is that it is cheap to use many of the really crappy fuel sources (coal) but until all plants are required to be "clean" I would rather prop up clean alternatives until the two are equal on emissions. And I don't mean on a CO2 basis, I am talking about the heavy metals, sulphur, etc.

As to hybrids it depends on your useage and the hybrid design. But really they are just a stepping stone to full electric.


RE: converting waste
By superPC on 10/9/2009 9:43:22 PM , Rating: 1
Wind can make financial sense look at this for example: this can be build cheaply. no need for concrete or steel just polymer for the blimp and a long cable. look for yourself http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6ZFcKnP2AM


RE: converting waste
By randomposter on 10/9/2009 4:40:54 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I don't believe in being "green" just to save the earth,

Okay, but you're aware that our financial system is built on top of something called "the earth" right?


RE: converting waste
By Jeffk464 on 10/10/2009 12:58:23 AM , Rating: 2
Nope you have to listen to Rush to find out why its a bad idea.


By phazers on 10/9/2009 12:19:48 PM , Rating: 2
IIRC, DT has had a buttload of nano-this, nano-that wondrous stuff being developed. For instance, a couple years ago there were some article on using nano-rods in batteries to increase their capacity 10x.

How about some investigative reporting here and update us all on this stuff?




By theflux on 10/9/2009 12:39:17 PM , Rating: 2
Odds are they can all be covered in a single article. That article will explain that only some of the products are still under development. The others failed to produce their magic in the real world vs the lab, or were too expensive, or both.


By randomly on 10/9/2009 1:33:45 PM , Rating: 3
The silicon nanowire 10x capacity increase for lithium batteries was bogus reporting from the start.

1)The silicon nanowires stored 10x the lithium of a comparable carbon anode only on the very first charge cycle. After that it was 8x. This is still pretty good... BUT

2) This only improves the storage capacity of the battery Anode, not the Cathode which is the bottleneck in current lithium batteries. The current Anode materials such as graphite already have several times the capacity of the Cathode materials. Shrinking the Anode does nothing to shrink the Cathode. The end result is that if the silicon nanowire technology is fully developed it will only improve the energy density of Lithium cells by about 30% at best, not 10x.

Even though all this information was available when it was originally announced, the press chose to spin the story in a very deceptive way to sensationalize it. The Press are not interested in giving readers accurate information, they are interested in profits from readership and so deceptive writing is the norm, not the exception.

Almost without exception any new discovery is announced in a sensational manner, whether it actually deserves the excitement or not. Most of these 'exciting' new discoveries never live up to the hype because the hype was intentionally made up in the first place.


Sweet
By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 10/9/2009 12:09:40 PM , Rating: 2
I think ethanol is the only alternative energy that has the chance to replace petroleum. The others sound cool but are impractical in the short term (the next 10-20 years).




RE: Sweet
By randomposter on 10/9/2009 1:14:08 PM , Rating: 2
What makes you say biodiesel isn't feasible in the short term? As things currently stand, a wider range of plant sources with favourable energy density input/output profiles have been identified for biodiesel than for ethanol.


VaporTech
By Kakao on 10/9/2009 12:36:40 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Details on the new approach are scant other than that it uses "nanotechnology"

So it means this is just wishful thinking.




RE: VaporTech
By mdogs444 on 10/9/2009 1:17:42 PM , Rating: 1
Yup. Sounds like more "hope and change" to me.


Great
By NullSubroutine on 10/9/2009 6:01:50 PM , Rating: 2
Technology that requires us to make more waste!




Ethanol is simply a lie
By Beenthere on 10/10/2009 3:32:23 AM , Rating: 1
Ethanol for automotive use is nothing but a lie for the gullible sheep to believe in. American's are so technically challenged it's really sad. Try educating yourself instead of listening to all the hype.




"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007














botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki