Biofuel or Biofool

Biofuels are produced from living organisms or from metabolic by-products as organic food or waste products. To be considered a biofuel the fuel must contain over 80 percent renewable materials, originally derived from photosynthesis and therefore often are be referred to as a solar energy source. There are many pros and cons about the use of biofuels. This article explores the various biofuel types and technologies in analysing the positive and negative side effects of its use as a supply for energy.

Replacing billions of barrels of fossil crude with bio fuels made from plants, such as prairie grass, algae or else, to reduce dependence on oil, create thousands of jobs, and reduce emissions in the process that contribute to global warming, is frequently stated in the media. Meanwhile an avalanche of different technologies, fuel types and processes has reached the main stream.

With all the media hoopla about green energy first a word of serious concern: due to the law of supply and demand it means that replacing a significant amount of crude with biofuels would drastically lower the demand for fossil fuel. That, in turn, would cause the price of fossil fuel to drop, making biofuels less competitive and thus financially unattractive. To underline this aspect: as result of the financial crisis the use of gasoline in the second half of 2008 fell by 5% compared with the year before, resulting in a lower average price at the pump of up to 50%, which on its turn has reduced the interest for biofuels. Just imagine what would happen if tens of billions of litres of biofuel were to become available on the market, the world could be awash in cheap fossil oil and gas.

Ethanol, methane, biodiesel, and hydrogen are the most common variants. The different processes and technologies to derive bio fuel are a multiplication of those four. The following types of bio fuel are considered an energy source:

•    Methanol Converted from CO2
•    Ethanol from Cellulosic Biomass
•    Ethanol from Sugar Cane

•    Bio-based Butanol
•    Biomass from Wood Pellets

•    Biodiesel Fuel from Algae
•    Biodiesel from recycled Cooking Oil
•    Biodiesel from Liquid Coal

•    Hydrogen Fuel From Non-food Sources
•    Hydrogen Fuel Produced from Bacteria
•    Hydrogen from Farm Waste

It is said that the wider use of biofuels is a good way of reducing the amount of surplus of CO2 (carbon dioxide) emitted via tailpipes of transport vehicles. The theory is that plants such as sugar cane, maize, oilseed and wheat take up CO2 during growth, thus burning fuel made from those should not affect the content of it in the environment, with the end result that biofuels don’t contribute to global warming.

But theory not always translate into practice, and just as governments have committed themselves to the greater use of biofuels, questions are being raised about how green this form of energy really is. The International Council for Science (ICSU) in Paris a federation of scientific associations from around the world, has issued a report concluding that the production of biofuels has aggravated rather than improved global warming. It concluded that most analyses made have underestimated the importance to global warming of a gas called nitrous oxide (N2O) by a factor of between three and five. The amount of this gas released by farming biofuel crops such as maize and rape probably cancel out by itself any advantage offered by reduced emissions of CO2.

Although N2O is not common in the Earth’s atmosphere, it is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 and it hangs around much longer. The result is that, over the course of a century, its ability to warm the planet is almost 300 times that of an equivalent mass of CO2. Bacteria that live in soil and water make N2O and, these days, their raw material is often the nitrogen-rich fertilizer that modern farming requires. But it is not just biofuels that are to blame. The ICSU report suggests N2O emissions in general are probably more important than had been realized.

The broader issue, therefore, is the extent to which humanity has captured the “nitrogen cycle”, as the passage of that gas into and out of the atmosphere is known, for its own use. What seems certain is that the nitrogen cycle is changing faster and more profoundly than the carbon cycle, which has attracted much more attention. But in the case of biofuels it shows that without proper thought about all greenhouse gases, not just CO2 but also N2O, have to be taken in consideration. It is too easy to rush headlong into expensive methods of improvement that actually make things worse.

Taking heed of this scientific report, it’s conclusion is that from the above types of bio fuel only a few in the end will be really environmental friendly and acceptable. In general all growing or plant originated bio fuels do produce N2O. Actually only a few are valuable for further investigation and development.  Those are most likely recycled cooking oil, algae, and liquid coal, these are in more detail described below.

Algae technology is an economical, eco-friendly process to transform oil into biodiesel fuel. Scientists are quite hopeful that one day the world will become independent of fossil fuels. It is said: That this is the first economical way to produce biodiesel from living organisms particularly algae oil which costs much less than conventional processes because it uses smaller factories, there are no water disposal costs, while the process is considerably faster.

Algae harmonize the sunlight and carbon dioxide quickly into energy. Scientists want to utilize this feature for alternative fuels. And when it comes to greener alternatives to fossil fuel what could be greener than pond scum? Algae are more suitable for biofuel than many others because it can grow anywhere. They can be grown in salty seawater, contaminated water or even in sewage water. Algae tolerates extreme temperature, grow on wasteland. Algae have a very high multiplication factor. It doubles in weight many times over in a single day. Algae produce oil as a by-product of photosynthesis and produce fifteen times more oil per M2 than other plants such as corn or prairie grass.

Transport also may derive power from enzymes. These enzymes are originated from cellulose of woodchips or grass, instead of emitting poisonous gases they will exhale hydrogen. When hydrogen is burned, the only emission it makes is water vapour. The benefit of hydrogen fuel is that when burned, carbon dioxide (CO2) is not produced with little tail pipe pollution.

Biobutanol seems to have several advantages over ethanol. It can be transported through the existing pipelines network because it is non-corrosive. Compared with Ethanol, Biobutanol provides more energy per litre it is less acidic and does not contaminate water. Biobutanol like ethanol can only be used in internal combustion engines mixed with gasoline.

Biomass power has the largest source of renewable energy, which is a vital part within waste management infrastructure. There are many ways to generate electricity from biomass based on thermo-chemical principles, as directly fired or conventional steam approach, co-firing, pyrolysis (chemical decomposition) and gasification. Disposal of organic waste without adequate treatment results in significant environmental pollution, because degradation of waste leads to uncontrolled release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Conventional processes, like aeration, is energy intensive, expensive and generates a significant quantity of biological sludge. In this context, anaerobic digestion offers potential energy savings and is a more stable process for medium and high strength organic sewage. Waste-to-Energy (WTE) plants, based on anaerobic digestion of biomass, are highly efficient in harnessing the untapped renewable energy potential of organic waste by converting the biodegradable fraction of the waste into high calorific gases. Apart from treating the wastewater, the methane produced from the biogas facilities can be recovered, with relative ease, for generating electricity and both industrial and domestic heating.

Ethanol: don't expect refineries to be great fans of ethanol. It is required nowadays because a 10% of it has to be mixed in gasoline fuel to meet with regulations. If more ethanol is blended automakers fear large-scale damage of engine components. Making warranties of most vehicles running on richer ethanol blends obsolete. With the U.S. now consuming 137 billion gallons of gasoline a year, the total market for any kind of ethanol—corn, algae, or cellulosic—hits a hard limit at about 13 billion gallons. Going beyond that requires a whole new infrastructure, from car fuel networks to gas pumps.

That's one of the reasons for growing interest in newer, non-ethanol biofuels. Oil companies really don't want to invest a lot in ethanol infrastructure. They are more interested in butanol, under development by DuPont and BP, or other hydrocarbons more similar to gasoline those fuels are compatible with existing refineries, pipelines, and vehicles. A great disadvantage is: That large quantities of fertilizers and water that are needed to produce biomass.

Biodiesel is made from vegetable oil or animal fat reacted with methanol or ethanol and a catalyst, yielding biodiesel and glycerine as a by-product. It can be used in any diesel engine without modifications: Diesel engines run better and last longer with biodiesel. And it can easily be made from obsolete used cooking oil. 100% of Biodiesel may be used in diesel engines without any additive it is a much cleaner fuel than conventional fossil-fuel petroleum diesel.
Used cooking oil converter kit are on the market for private or small operational use, that after the oil is used for cooking, is converted into diesel oil that without further treatment can be used in any diesel engine driven car. Te advantages of diesel fuel over all other fuel types are summarized as follow:

•    Biodiesel burns up to 75% cleaner than petroleum diesel fuel.
•    Biodiesel reduces unburned hydrocarbons (93% less); carbon monoxide (50% less) and       particulate matter (30% less) in exhaust fumes, as well as cancer-causing PAH Polycyclic       Aromatic Hydrocarbon (80% less) and nitrated PAH compounds (90% less).
•    Biodiesel contains no sulphur, consequently not its emission.
•    Biodiesel is plant-based and its use doesn’t add extra CO2
•    Biodiesel extends engine’s life as better lubricant than petro-diesel - 1% biodiesel added       to petro-diesel will increase lubrication by 65%.
•    Biodiesel can be mixed with petro-diesel in any proportion, with no need for a mixing           additive.
•    Biodiesel has a higher cetane number (Cetane number or CN is a measurement of the           combustion quality of diesel fuel during compression ignition) because of its oxygen               content. The higher the cetane number, the more efficient the fuel -- the engine starts               more easily, runs better and burns cleaner.
•    Biodiesel can be used in any diesel engine without modification.

Finally we still have plenty of ‘cheap’ accessible coal disposals around the world, why not making use of that, as was done in WWII in Germany and later in South Africa when it was boycotted as result of their Apartheid Policy by the rest of the world.

Coal-to-liquid Technologies do exist since the 1920s, however only recently new developments have made its conversion process more efficient and economical. For years it was simply too expensive compared to pumping oil out of the ground. This process require a great deal of heat, heat derived from coal combustion. This process is referred to as Indirect Liquefaction. A major disadvantage of the technique is that the amount of coal used for heat in the coal-to-liquid process is greater than the amount converted to fuel. As a result, this process produces large amounts of CO2, ash, fly ash, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides - N2O, not to mention the enormous waste of coal. The making of hydrogen for the process forms the bulk of pollutants produced from direct liquefaction, but the creation of these pollutants can be largely avoided by separating the hydrogen with heat generated from a new generation of super-safe nuclear reactors. Electrical power production from nuclear energy does not produce any CO2 or N2O emissions. With this type of energy clean diesel fuel can efficiently be extracted from coal.

Diesel Fuel is the best Transportation Fuel and cleaner than electricity generated from coal fired plants. Diesel has effectively twice the specific energy of Ethanol and 10 times that of Hydrogen. It is very environmental friendly.

Per unit of energy delivered, coal is about 20% of the cost of oil, but contains one-third more carbon. If coal can be liquefied by nuclear energy there will be no or much less pollution, once biodiesel fuel is derived from coal.

Concluding biofuels are not that attractive as mainstream media do suggest, new and better alternatives as the liquefying of coal, use of algae and recycling of used oils to generate biodiesel are better options for application and further exploration in becoming independent from fossil oils, while those factually in a positive way are contributing to the environment as well.