Print 44 comment(s) - last by ebakke.. on Dec 10 at 12:17 PM

Princeton says energy-dense slew of renewable and fossil resources could solve the nation's fuel shortages

Princeton University is injecting itself into the corn ethanol debate, suggesting that the U.S. is moving in a very mistaken direction.  In a new study published as a whitepaper in the AIChE Journal, the team suggests that 130 synthetic fuel plants built across the country could replace "dirty" corn ethanol, cut fuel shortages, and cut carbon emissions by a whopping 50 percent.

I. Synthetic Fuel -- a Corn Ethanol Killer?

The proposed synthetic fuel would be a blend of liquefied coal, liquid natural gas, and non-food crop biofuels.  While that doesn't sound much like crude oil, the researchers say the synthetic fuel blend would actually be much closer chemically to traditional gas than corn ethanol, reducing the likelihood of ECU incompatibility in older vehicles leading to engine damage.

The downside is sticker shock; the team, led by Christodoulos Floudas, a professor of chemical and biological engineering at Princeton, suggests that the total cost of the plan might be $1.1T USD.  Thus the team suggests a slow rollout of synthetic fuels over the next 30 to 40 years.

Floudas Team
Prof. Floudas [center], along with graduate student Josephine Elia and Richard Baliban, who received his Ph.D. from Princeton in 2012. [Image Source: Frank Wojciechowski]

Professor Floudas remarks, "The goal is to produce sufficient fuel and also to cut CO2 emissions, or the equivalent, by 50 percent.  The question was not only can it be done, but also can it be done in an economically attractive way. The answer is affirmative in both cases."

His team estimates that as the price of crude oil continues to creep up in upcoming decades, and as process improvements continue in producing synthetic fuels, that the alternative fuel slew will be cost competitive.

Chemical engineering graduate student Richard Baliban, a lead author on past papers for the team who graduated in 2012, remarks, "Even including the capital costs, synthetic fuels can still be profitable.  As long as crude oil is between $60 and $100 per barrel, these processes are competitive depending on the feedstock."

II. 1920s German High-Temperature Method Repurposed

The basis of the Princeton plan is to use a method dubbed the "Fischer-Tropsch process".  The technique was developed in the 1920s in Germany to turn coal into liquid fuel; it uses heat to liquefy the solid fossil fuel into a liquid resource.  

Complex chemical reactions catalyzed by inexpensive catalysts (nickel or iron) are employed at temperatures of around 1,000 to 1,300 deg. C to convert the solid fossil fuel into a liquid slew of hydrocarbon chains, plus useful leftovers, like waxes.
An example Fischer-Tropsch reactor [Image Source: BioPact/Syntroleum]

The team added a new twist to the process, reinjecting the waste carbon dioxide, fueling more hydrocarbon formation, and cutting emissions.  Heavy metal and sulfur -- typical pollutants in crude oil -- are eliminated during the synthetic fuel production process, making for a cleaner burn.

The team estimates that currently the price of synthetic fuel would be around $83.58 USD in Kansas, one key state targeted for future production.

Prof. Floudas suggest the alternative fuel is the perfect trick for switching the U.S. of volatile, expensive foreign oil sources, commenting, "His is an opportunity to create a new economy.  The amount of petroleum the U.S. imports is very high. What is the price of that? What other resources to do we have? And what can we do about it?"

Sources: AIChE Journal, Princeton University

Comments     Threshold

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

RE: Let's just use oil
By Mint on 12/6/2012 10:14:47 PM , Rating: 2
Why? We could be using that money today for problems we're facing today.
There's more than enough money (and labor) looking for things to do. Banks have $2T in excess reserves, which has pretty much never happened. Deposits are around $10T, earning near zero interest. There's another $11T lent to the gov't at a very low rate because the owners of the debt can't average anything better elsewhere with any certainty.

All profitable problems - even the only slightly profitable ones - ARE being solved today. Synthetic fuels are a very good long term investment. It doesn't even matter if batteries start replacing oil at a fast rate, as the development of India, China, and the third world will have the planet use whatever is produced.

The science is very old. Now that we have cheap natural gas, all we need to find out is whether large scale production can bring the cost down enough. It's an expensive question to provably answer - Shell's Pearl GTL plant in Qatar cost $18B (initially estimated at $5B), and it took ages for it to get built. A couple more pilot plants need to be built and tested for a few years before we can expand this in the US.

RE: Let's just use oil
By ebakke on 12/6/2012 11:40:26 PM , Rating: 1
All profitable problems - even the only slightly profitable ones - ARE being solved today.
Now that's quite a statement. One that you can't even possibly begin to make credibly unless you have a crystal ball.
Synthetic fuels are a very good long term investment.
If this statement and the one before it are true, then this issue will sort itself out. Because it's a very good long term investment, those hoards of cash will be spent bringing this technology to fruition. Princeton should spend its coveted research dollars elsewhere.

RE: Let's just use oil
By Mint on 12/7/2012 3:46:00 PM , Rating: 2
Now that's quite a statement. One that you can't even possibly begin to make credibly unless you have a crystal ball.
Fine, all the expected profitable problems. I just gave you a bunch of proof. You can't have excess reserves and $10T in deposits if there were any selfish investments left (i.e. those that the investor could benefit enough from).

One of the reasons that public research yields commercially viable technologies before companies do is that they won't get all of its benefits for themselves. You need peer-review, sharing of data, collaboration, etc to get the best results, but then the information becomes public. If it was funded by one company, others get most of that info for free, so only the low hanging fruit gets researched by companies.

Risky stuff like this rarely gets started. Even the Pearl GTL project I mentioned was a shared investment between Shell and the state-owned Qatar Petroleum. The payoff is potentially enormous ($4B+ of petroleum products per year), but was still risky enough to need gov't assistance.

RE: Let's just use oil
By ebakke on 12/7/2012 4:45:40 PM , Rating: 2
You can't have excess reserves and $10T in deposits if there were any selfish investments left (i.e. those that the investor could benefit enough from).
Sure you can. That tells us there's a barrier to entry. It tells us something is keeping the money on the sidelines. It does not tell us that profit can't be made. And it doesn't tell us what the barrier is.

It could be fear of regulatory changes. It could be a hope/expectation of future regulatory easing. It could be something totally irrationale and ridiculous. It's millions of reasons for millions of different people. Surely some of those include a belief that profitable problems aren't available, but you can't claim they all are.

"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Yahoo Hacked - Change Your Passwords and Security Info ASAP!
September 23, 2016, 5:45 AM
A is for Apples
September 23, 2016, 5:32 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki