Harmon Seaver posted: [...]
VW presents new synthetic fuel strategy
[...]
To a large extent, this biomass consists of carbon and hydrogen. In the first step of the SunFuel process, these major constituents of biomass are converted into synthesis gas (H2, CO, CO2). This is then transformed into hydrocarbons in a synthesis reactor and processed as required to produce the "designer" fuel.
SunFuel is an extremely high-grade fuel, free from sulphur and aromatics. As biomass binds carbon dioxide during growth, the process is neutral with regard to carbon dioxide production. A variety of different types of biomass can be used for the synthesis of the new fuel.
In other words a cleaned-up version of the old Town Gas that provided the original streetlighting for industrial cities in the C19 and used to be made in the vast gasworks dotted around all over the place until piped natural methane took over in the 1960s. There's no news here (except for VW's stupid choice of brand name). We've always known we could replace petroleum and coal by agricultural production, because oil and coal were themselves introduced as replacements for the vegetable oils, whale oils, tallows, alcohols and charcoals that people used to burn before the oil industry got big in the 1870s-1890s. The reason we use mineral oils from the ground is that they are *cheaper*. If the price of a barrel of crude oil rises above somewhere between 30 and 60 dollars (depending on who you believe), then coal and oilshale become cheaper & we can switch to that. If the price of mineral fuels rises above somewhere between 50 and 100 dollars per equivalent of a barrel of oil, then using liquid fuel derived from agriculture becomes cheaper. The only ways will will be using such fuels on a large scale in rich countries in the near future is one of: - we "run out of oil" a lot more spectacularly than looks likely now - or world regresses to impoverished autarkies with little trade between them so industrialised countries with no oil have to make their own (cf. South Africa in 1970s, or Germany during world wars) - or governments tax oil so much that bio fuel is cheaper (in UK right now industrial alcohol is cheaper than petrol because of tax - but ordinary citizens aren't allowed to buy it in any quantity, and what we can buy is also taxed) - or global warming looks so bad that people are prepared to accept an increase in their costs in order to avoid burning fossil fuel (and are prepared to use legal or government or military constraints to prevent others burning it as well) Which do you prefer? Ken Brown Of course it always was cheaper to use agricultural product as solid fuel, if you were near the farm and if you had an application that can handle it. Which is why, for example, sugar refineries in poor tropical countries get their heat from burning waste from the cane. And there are a few green-minded small-scale projects that burn coppiced wood they grow themselves. But the distribution and handling complexity of moving millions of tons of solid waste around make that too expensive for large scale use. Same as the poultry farm my sister lives on can save money by burning methane given off from duck shit. But not many of us share our homes with a quarter of a million ducks.