Prikazani su postovi s oznakom Biofuel Production. Prikaži sve postove
Prikazani su postovi s oznakom Biofuel Production. Prikaži sve postove

srijeda, 20. lipnja 2012.

Way to Create Biofuels



Way to Create Biofuels

Is there a new path to biofuels hiding in a handful of dirt? 
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) biologist Steve Singer leads a group that wants to find out. They’re exploring whether a common soil bacterium can be engineered to produce liquid transportation fuels much more efficiently than the ways in which advanced biofuels are made today.

The scientists are working with a bacterium called Ralstonia eutropha. It naturally uses hydrogen as an energy source to convert CO2 into various organic compounds.

The group hopes to capitalize on the bacteria’s capabilities and tweak it to produce advanced biofuels that are drop-in replacements for diesel and jet fuel. The process would be powered only by hydrogen and electricity from renewable sources such as solar or wind.

The goal is a biofuel—or electrofuel, as this new approach is called—that doesn’t require photosynthesis.

Why is this important? Most methods used to produce advanced biofuels, such as from biomass and algae, rely on photosynthesis. But it turns out that photosynthesis isn’t very efficient when it comes to making biofuel. Energy is lost as photons from the sun are converted to stored chemical energy in a plant, which is then converted to a fuel.

“We’re after a more direct way,” says Singer, who holds appointments with Berkeley Lab’s Earth Sciences Division and with the Joint BioEnergy Institute (JBEI), a multi-institutional partnership led by Berkeley Lab.

“We want to bypass photosynthesis by using a microbe that uses hydrogen and electricity to convert CO2 into a fuel,” he adds.

Widespread use of electrofuels would also reduce demands for land, water, and fertilizer that are traditionally required to produce biofuels.

Berkeley Lab’s $3.4 million electrofuel project was funded in 2010 by DOE’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) program, which focuses on “high risk, high payoff concepts—technologies promising genuine transformation in the ways we generate, store and utilize energy.”

That pretty much describes electrofuels. ARPA-E estimates the technology has the potential to be ten times more efficient than current biofuel production methods. But electrofuels are currently confined to lab-scale tests. A lot of obstacles must be overcome before you’ll see it at the pump.

Fortunately, research is underway. The Berkeley Lab project is one of thirteen electrofuel projects sponsored by ARPA-E. And earlier this year, ARPA-E issued a request for information focused on the commercialization of the technology.

Singer’s group includes scientists from Virginia-based Logos Technologies and the University of California at Berkeley. The project’s co-principal investigators are Harry Beller, Swapnil Chhabra, and Nathan Hillson, who are also with Berkeley Lab and JBEI; Chris Chang, a UC Berkeley chemist and a faculty scientist with Berkeley Lab’s Chemical Sciences Division; and Dan MacEachran of Logos Technologies.

The scientists chose to work with R. eutropha because the bacterium is well understood and it’s already used industrially to make bioplastics.

They’re creating engineered strains of the bacterium at JBEI, all aimed at improving its ability to produce hydrocarbons. This work involves re-routing metabolic pathways in the bacteria. It also involves adding pathways from other microorganisms, such as a pathway engineered in Escherichia coli to produce medium-chain methyl ketones, which are naturally occurring compounds that have cetane numbers similar to those of typical diesel fuel.

The group is also pursuing two parallel paths to further boost production.

In the first approach, Logos Technologies is developing a two-liter bioelectrochemical reactor, which is a conventional fermentation vessel fitted with electrodes. The vessel starts with a mixture of bacteria, CO2, and water. Electricity splits the water into oxygen and hydrogen. The bacteria then use energy from the hydrogen to wrest carbon from CO2 and convert it to hydrocarbons, which migrate to the water’s surface. The scientists hope to skim the first batch of biofuel from the bioreactor in about one year.

In the second approach, the scientists want to transform the bacteria into self-reliant, biofuel-making machines. With help from Chris Chang, they’re developing ways to tether electrocatalysts to the bacteria’s surface. These catalysts use electricity to generate hydrogen in the presence of water.

The idea is to give the bacteria the ability to produce much of their own energy source. If the approach works, the only ingredients the bacteria will need to produce biofuel would be CO2, electricity, and water.

The scientists are now developing ways to attach these catalysts to electrodes and to the surface of the bacteria.

“We’re at the proof-of-principle stage in many ways with this research, but the concept has a lot of potential, so we’re eager to see where we can take this,” says Singer.
CCRES
 special thanks to 
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Croatian Center of Renewable Energy Sources (CCRES)

petak, 18. svibnja 2012.

Nor Cal Biodiesel


CCRES promotes Nor Cal Biodiesel
Nor Cal Biodiesel currently offer two models to choose from: the BioPro190 and the larger BioPro380.
BioPro190

BioPro190 General Information and Specifications
  • Dimensions: 21"w x 21"d x 67"h. Overall height adjustable +/- 2”
  • Weight: 325 Lbs. (empty).
  • Capacity: 50 gallons oil yields 50 gallons of finished fuel.
                   10 gallons methanol - yields approx. 10 gallons glycerin.
  • Construction: TIG welded 304 stainless steel body; Powder coated carbon steel covers.
  • Fittings: 304 stainless steel or glass filled polypropylene.
  • Electrical: 110 VAC / 15 Amp Circuit.
  • Controls: AUTO mode controlled by program logic controller;
                   Start button initiates completely automated process;
                   MANUAL mode controlled by switch actuation.
  • Reaction Method: Acid-catalyzed esterification of free fatty acids
                   Then base-catalyzed transesterification of triglycerides;
  • Wash Method: Triple-stage turbulent water wash.
                   1) Mist Spray, 2) Mist & Agitation, 3) Mist & Agitation
  • Batch Time: Reaction Time – approximately 8 hrs;
                   Initial settling - 16 hrs;
                   Water wash – approximately 14 hrs;
                   Drying cycle - Approx 10 hrs:
  • Total Processing Time: Approx. 48 hours start to finish.
Items You Will Need To Get Started:
  • 50 Gallons of new or used filtered vegetable oil or oil derived from animal fats
  • 400 micron, or finer, filter to strain the oil
  • 10 Gallons of methanol (racing fuel)
  • For your safety and convenience, we suggest obtaining a methanol compatible and an oil/grease
    compatible transfer pump
  • 1520 grams (3.41 lbs) Sodium Hydroxide - NaOH or 2350 (5.17 lbs) grams Potassium Hydroxide - KOH
  • 190 mL (6.43 oz) Sulfuric Acid (93% Purity or higher) - Do not use common battery acid
  • 50 Gallons of fresh, standing water
  • 50 Gallon container or receptacle for “water in”
  • 50 Gallon container or receptacle to collect the wash water – or connect directly to a drain.
  • Air tight storage containers for methanol (typically, a 55-gallon drum), catalyst potash, and sulfuric acid
  • Protective gloves, face mask, apron, and safety goggles (included)
  • Transfer hoses, scales, and measuring cups (included)
  • (1) 110-120 volt / 15 amp & (1) 220 volt / 30 amp AC power source 
  BioPro380
BioPro380 General Information and Specifications
  • Dimensions: 64"w x 34"d x 91"h. Overall height adjustable +/- 2”
  • Weight: Approximately 675 Lbs. (empty).
  • Capacity: 100 gallons oil yields up to 100 gallons (380 liters) of finished fuel
  • Batch Sizes: - Capable of processing 50, 75, or 100 gallons of oil feedstock (190, 284, or 380 liters).
  • Construction: TIG welded 304 stainless steel body; Powder coated carbon steel covers.
  • Electrical: 220 VAC / 30 AMP & 110 VAC / 15 Amp Circuit. Dedicated Circuits are preferred but not required.
  • Controls: AUTO mode controlled by program logic controller;
                   Start button initiates the automated process;
                   MANUAL mode controlled by switch actuation.
  • Reaction Method: Acid-catalyzed esterification of free fatty acids
                   Then base-catalyzed transesterification of triglycerides;
  • Method: Triple-stage turbulent water wash.
                   1) Mist Spray, 2) Mist & Agitation, 3) Mist & Agitation
  • Batch Time: Reaction Time – approximately 8 hrs;
                   Initial settling - 16 hrs;
                   Water wash –(total three (3) cycles, approximately14 hrs;
                   Drying cycle - Approx 10 hrs:
  • Total Processing Time: Approx. 48 hours start to finish.
Items You Will Need To Get Started:
  • 100 Gallons of new or used filtered vegetable oil or oil derived from animal fats (triglycerides
  • Minimum 400 micron, or finer, filter to strain the oil
  • 20 Gallons of methanol (racing fuel; 99.99% pure)
  • 3040 grams Lye (Sodium Hydroxide - NaOH) or 4700 grams Caustic Potash (Potassium Hydroxide - KOH)* *Recommended
  • 380 mL Sulfuric Acid (93% Purity or higher) - Not common battery acid
  • 100 Gallons of fresh standing water (can also be connected directly to a pressurized water line)
  • 100 Gallon container for water in (or connect to a clean, pressurized water source)
  • 100 Gallon container for water out (or connect directly to a drain)
  • Air tight storage containers for methanol, lye/caustic potash, and sulfuric acid
  • Protective gloves, face mask, apron, and safety goggles (included)
  • Transfer hoses, scales, and measuring cups (included)
  • For your safety and convenience, we suggest obtaining a methanol transfer and oil/grease transfer pump
  • (1) 110-120 volt / 15 amp & (1) 220 volt / 30 amp AC power source 
 Since it's introduction, the BioPro line of products have steadily found their way into the hands of many an independent souls.
 Click on the links below to read about
CONTACT Nor Cal Biodiesel
Please feel free to contact  Nor Cal Biodiesel for additional information regarding our products or services.
 
 Nor Cal Biodiesel also welcome any comments or suggestions regarding  products, web site and overall experience regarding your initial interaction with Nor Cal Biodiesel.
General Inquiries and Sales Information info@norcalbio.com
Projects, Business Development or Specific Requests danny@norcalbio.com
Nor Cal Biodiese web site : http://norcalbio.com/index.html
For any additional information, please contact 
Danny Lesa, telephone 707-766-9782 
CROATIAN CENTER of RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES
 (CCRES)

utorak, 3. svibnja 2011.

CCRES promotes BIOFUELS


CROATIAN CENTER of RENEWABLE ENERGY

promotes

Biofuels


From the earliest days of internal-combustion engines, technological visionaries dreamed that engines would run on fuel made from plants. Experiments conducted in the 19th century showed that it was possible, and both Henry Ford and Rudolf Diesel supported the notion. Interest has waxed and waned for decades. These days, it is running high once again, and the fuels have acquired a modern moniker: biofuels.

While the geopolitical and environmental risks of oil dependency may be obvious today, it was not always so. In the early days of motorized transport, fuels derived from plants lost out to fuels refined from crude oil, which could be obtained cheaply in many parts of the world just by poking holes in the ground. Not only were gasoline and diesel the cheapest fuels for many decades, but they are about as energy-dense as liquids can be, which makes them superb choices for carrying vehicles long distances. Replacing them will not be easy, and the struggle to do so has produced some of the most intense controversies of modern society.

In the search for replacements, biofuels have attained the greatest political momentum, in part because they promise lucrative new markets for farm products. In the United States, Congress had adopted extensive mandates and subsidies to get a biofuels industry off the ground, and other countries have also adopted renewable-fuel policies.

But first-generation biofuels -- chiefly, ethanol made from corn or sugar cane, or biodiesel made from vegetable oil -- have provoked intense backlash. In principle, biofuels offer a huge advantage over fossil fuels. The source plants absorb carbon dioxide from the air as they are growing, and consequently, the carbon dioxide that is released when biofuels are burned does not represent a net addition of that greenhouse gas to the atmosphere. In practice, some fossil fuels, especially natural gas, are consumed in refining today's biofuels, one source of controversy about them.

In addition, an ever larger portion of the world’s crops is being diverted for biofuels, as developed countries pass laws mandating greater use of nonfossil fuels and as emerging powerhouses like China seek new sources of energy. But with food prices rising sharply in early 2011, many experts began to call on countries to scale back their headlong rush into green fuel development, arguing that the combination of ambitious biofuel targets and mediocre harvests of some crucial crops is contributing to high prices, hunger and political instability.

Many scientists believe second-generation biofuels made from plant wastes, or from crops specially grown for the purpose on land not suitable for food production, offer greater promise than the biofuels being produced today. But the technology to make these newer fuels is in its infancy and the claims of its advocates have yet to be proved.

Ethanol

There has been heated debate about whether carbon emissions from ethanol production and use are lower than those from oil and whether the 33 percent of the U.S. corn crop diverted to ethanol drives up the price of food. Local effects of ethanol production, however, including water pollution and consumption, have received less scrutiny.

Encouraged by legislative measures, including notably the 2007 Energy Security and Independence Act, which mandated the use of 36 billion gallons, or 136 billion liters, of biofuels annually by 2022, the U.S. ethanol industry has boomed in the last few years. There are now at least 200 ethanol plants in at least 27 states, almost all using corn as a feedstock.

Nearly all the gasoline sold in the United States today is mixed with 10 percent ethanol, known as E10. Because ethanol provides about two-thirds the energy content of oil per unit, that 10 percent volumetric replacement equals about a 6 to 7 percent gasoline displacement, minus fossil fuel inputs for growing and processing.

The industry is on track to produce 12.5 billion gallons this year and is therefore nearing market saturation to supply E10, as the United States consumes about 138 billion gallons of oil annually. In March 2009, Growth Energy petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to grant a waiver to allow gasoline to be blended with 15 percent ethanol. Because the fuel can corrode conventional car engines at higher percentages, the agency is running tests. A final ruling has been pushed to the fall of 2010.

Corn farming is the biggest source of pollution associated with ethanol production. Corn requires vastly more fertilizer and pesticides than soybeans or other potential biofuel feedstocks, such as perennial grasses, according to a 2007 report from the National Academy of Sciences.

Fertilizer and pesticide runoffs from the U.S. Corn Belt are key contributors to “dead zones” in the Gulf of Mexico and along the Atlantic Coast. A 2008 study by independent researchers, published in the academy’s Proceedings journal, calculated that increasing corn production to meet the 2007 renewable fuels target would add to nitrogen pollution in the Gulf of Mexico by 10 to 34 percent.

Water use for ethanol also concerns scientists, particularly in light of a 2003 U.S. Government Accountability Office report that found that water managers in at least 36 states expect shortages by 2013.

Modern plants use about three gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. The National Academy of Sciences report estimated that a plant producing 100 million gallons a year uses as much water as a town of 5,000 people.

Reflecting environmental concerns over the expansion of biofuel crops, the 2007 energy bill called for 20 billion gallons of biofuel to be made from “advanced” feedstocks, such as cellulosic ethanol or algae, which are believed to have a lighter environmental footprint.

But there are no commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol or algae plants operating in the United States, mainly because they are not yet competitive on costs. U.S.D.A. projections show corn as the primary feedstock for U.S. ethanol production through 2020.


Biomass

Biomass power — a $1 billion industry in the United States, according to the Biomass Power Association, a trade group based in Maine — has long been considered both renewable and carbon-neutral on its most basic level.

Dozens of biomass power plants, which typically burn plant or tree matter to generate electricity, are already in operation in a variety of states, like California, Michigan and Maine. In most cases, those plants have qualified for some form of renewable energy tax incentives or other benefits, as states used them to diversify their power portfolios.

But a long-simmering debate in Massachusetts questioning the environmental benefits of biomass has culminated in new rules that will limit what sorts of projects will qualify for renewable energy incentives there. If other states — or even Congress, which is writing energy legislation of its own — follow suit, it could have wide implications for biomass developers, as well as for states trying to meet renewable energy production targets.

Ian A. Bowles, the Massachusetts secretary for energy and environmental affairs, has called for new regulations that would impose stricter standards for biomass projects seeking to qualify for state incentives. The state also plans to develop careful carbon accounting rules for biomass power, and to throw its greatest support behind plants that produce both heat and power, which are considered more efficient than ones that generate only power.

The proposed changes in Massachusetts come after a study commissioned by the state suggested that careful regulation was needed to prevent biomass development from having a negative effect on New England forests, and on the climate generally.

Industry representatives warned that the new rules could hinder efforts to meet renewable energy goals, and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions over all. But environmentalists welcomed the move, saying it would protect forests and foster responsible development of electricity generated with biomass materials. Many environmental groups say that the benefits of biomass power — and all forms of energy derived from organic sources, including biofuels — are realized only in carefully controlled circumstances. The cycle of carbon emission and absorption also unfolds over long periods of time that need to be carefully monitored.

By providing incentives without strict rules governing which materials are burned and how they are harvested, governments risk creating a rapacious industry that could gobble up whole forests, critics warn. That could ultimately increase the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere — one of the problems that renewable energies are supposed to address.More info at http://solarserdar.blogspot.com.

CROATIAN CENTER of RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES ( CCRES )