Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Skidmark 2012-11-08 00:28||
#2 Energy content vs. costs? Unintended consequences such as diversion of food to fuel? There is a twofer, you can get both fuel and cordite.
Posted by JohnQC 2012-11-08 08:57||
#3 it will never work unless BIG OIL gets their cut
Posted by 746 2012-11-08 11:47||
#4 As a general rule I disfavor putting food into my gas tank because at the end of the day eating is more important than driving.
Posted by Iblis 2012-11-08 12:03||
#5 the scientists said the process would drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation
Nice! Instead of oxidizing long chain hydrocarbons, a process that produces CO2, we can oxidize long chain hydrocarbons instead. Genius!
Posted by SteveS 2012-11-08 12:07||
#6 If there's no conversion costs involved, no capital costs, 100% efficiency, 1 pound of sugar into one pound of diesel... it's about 2.69 per gallon.
That's with a lot of "make an ass out of u + me" assumptions.
Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2012-11-08 12:09||
#7 The wife worked for a company in South San Francisco that produced diesel and gas from E.Coli fermentation of sugars. She and 50% of her company got laid off 3 weeks ago. I say good riddance, there is no future in making automobile fuel out of food. She is currently interviewing in a much more sustainable market and I, for one, think it will be a good move for her. Cellulosic conversion will be the future of biofuels, not sugars.
Posted by bigjim-CA 2012-11-08 12:43||
#8 Finally, something to do with the leftover Halloween candy......
Posted by Uncle Phester 2012-11-08 12:44||
#9 A long-abandoned fermentation process once used to turn starch into explosives
The origin of the deadly Irish Potato Bomb.
Posted by Shipman 2012-11-08 16:09||