RESEARCHERS BOOST PRODUCTION OF BIOFUEL THAT COULD REPLACE GASOLINE (butanol)

Ohio State University ^ | August 19, 2009 | Pam Frost Gorder

[decimon]

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Engineers at Ohio State University have found a way to double the production of the biofuel butanol, which might someday replace gasoline in automobiles.

The process improves on the conventional method for brewing butanol in a bacterial fermentation tank.

Normally, bacteria could only produce a certain amount of butanol -- perhaps 15 grams of the chemical for every liter of water in the tank -- before the tank would become too toxic for the bacteria to survive, explained Shang-Tian Yang, professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering at Ohio State.

Yang and his colleagues developed a mutant strain of the bacterium Clostridium beijerinckii in a bioreactor containing bundles of polyester fibers. In that environment, the mutant bacteria produced up to 30 grams of butanol per liter.

The researchers reported their results at the American Chemical Society meeting Wednesday in Washington, DC.

Right now, butanol is mainly used as a solvent, or in industrial processes that make other chemicals. But experts believe that this form of alcohol holds potential as a biofuel.

Once developed as a fuel, butanol could potentially be used in conventional automobiles in place of gasoline, while producing more energy than another alternative fuel, ethanol.

Yang said that this use of his patented fibrous-bed bioreactor would ultimately save money.

“Today, the recovery and purification of butanol account for about 40 percent of the total production cost,” explained Yang, “Because we are able to create butanol at higher concentrations, we believe we can lower those recovery and purification costs and make biofuel production more economical.”

Currently, a gallon of butanol costs approximately $3.00 -- a little more than the current price for a gallon of gasoline.

The engineers are applying for a patent on the mutant bacterium and the butanol production methodology, and will work with industry to develop the technology.

This research is funded by the Ohio Department of Development.

#

Contact: Shang-Tian Yang, (614) 292-6611; Yang.15@osu.edu Written by Pam Frost Gorder, (614) 292-9475; Gorder.1@osu.edu

[batter]

10% difference would indicate that it would cost about $3.30/gallon. That's still pretty good. I would think mass production would drop that as well. That's assuming the environuts don't find a way to claim the polyester fibers or bioreactors are going to kill every living thing...and assuming government keeps itself out of it...(yeah, right).

Actually, since I brought up government, another thing to consider is the production cost is before any taxes are added. Once you kick taxes in, it is still pretty expensive at the pump.

[decimon]

10% difference would indicate that it would cost about $3.30/gallon.

If this process truly doubles the yield then a pump price of $2.50 should be doable.

[mysterio]

Anything other than nuclear electric / solar / wind / hydrogen is going to generate CO2, so it won't be much different than gasoline in that area. However, it would make a nice transitional fuel while we build infrastructure to provide the support for a larger electric fleet. Hydrogen is my favorite, but it's pretty far off technology wise.

My motivation is getting us energy independent and preventing the need for us to stay intricately involved in foreign affairs to ensure our access to foreign energy. It just seems common sense that a superpower would have a means of providing its own energy. Just makes sense from a national security standpoint.

[SunkenCiv]

Guess they’ve never heard of champagne. ;’) Thanks decimon.

The Bum Rap on Biofuels
American Thinker | 5-13-08 | Herbert Meyer
Posted on 05/14/2008 3:59:06 AM PDT by Renfield
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2015711/posts

Campaign to vilify ethanol revealed
ethanol producer Magazine | May 16, 2008 | By Kris Bevill
Posted on 05/17/2008 9:22:13 AM PDT by Kevin J waldroup
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2017389/posts

[AdmSmith]

They are producing a 3 % butanol blend, but:

streams with 3% butanol and 97% water were sent to the waste disposal ponds at my butanol plant.

http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2007/06/problem-with-biobutanol.html

Thus, this is not economical. Butanol has a solubility of 7.7 % in water, i.e. if the bugs can survive and produce a concentration higher that that, you only take the supernatant without spending money on an expensive distillation. My bet is that it is very difficult.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks AdmSmith!