Given that bioethanol-based gasoline produces up to 90% less carbon dioxide than their crude oil-sourced counterparts, is it possible to refine a cleaner gasoline from crude oil?
By: Ringo Bones
Part of the automotive biofuel “mystique” that some environmentalist admire is the way they produce less carbon dioxide during their combustion process – up to 90% in fact. Unfortunately from an economic standpoint, our current biofuel production methods intended for automotive use still can’t compete price-wise with crude oil sourced automotive fuels. And for one good reason, countless billions has been spent on the global crude oil industry since Edwin L. Drake with the financial backing of New York-based investors of Seneca Oil began drilling for crude oil in Titusville, Pennsylvania back in August 27, 1859.
Even as relatively recently during the height of the OPEC oil embargo of 1973 – 74. Tenured chemists of leading crude oil companies through their technical know how and financial backing managed to extract more gasoline from crude oil than before. Like Rowland Hansford – a tenured chemist of Union Oil – whose patented Unicracking method manages to extract five barrels of high-octane gasoline from four barrels of crude oil. As a natural resource with billions of dollars worth of investments and infrastructure used in extracting it, in terms of price per unit volume, crude oil is for all intents and purposes is only slightly more expensive than bottled water at present.
That's why even if some biofuel pioneers still get their used French fry cooking oil to fuel their biodiesel vehicles practically for free, used cooking oil is actually more expensive price wise in comparison to it's crude oil sourced counterpart on a per volume basis. Although we can’t deny that it will soon run out and before it runs out after we hit “peak oil” it will surely skyrocket in price.
During the 1960’s a chemist from Société Française des Petroles BP in France named Alfred Champagnat had experimented in extracting edible proteins from crude oil. The process was said to be efficient: he managed to extract about half a pound of protein from one pound of crude oil. And the process is several thousand times faster in producing edible proteins than farm animals can produce it from fodder. Though now almost forgotten, can Alfred Champagnat’s process of extracting edible proteins from crude oil be modified for use in extracting automotive fuels from crude oil that mimic biofuels – i.e. one that produces up to 90% less carbon dioxide in automotive use?
Though Alfred Champagnat’s method of extracting edible proteins from crude oil could easily be modified for use in extracting biofuel-like automotive fuels from crude oil if major crude oil companies wanted to. Ultimately, there is a very urgent need to wean our industrialized society away from crude oil and other fossil fuels because for one they are running out. And they are one of the main contributors of greenhouse gases that cause global warming, climate change, and sea level rise among other things. A cleaner crude oil-source automotive fuel that produces way fewer greenhouse gases and other pollutants such as harmful oxides of nitrogen and sulfur would help us in tackling the problem of climate change and global warming. But sooner – rather than later – we should wean our industrial civilization from crude oil and other fossil fuels through greater investment in truly carbon neutral renewable energy sources like solar, wind, and really safe nuclear power like nuclear fusion - which would truly qualify as a real alternative energy in comparison to what we currently have.
Showing posts with label Crude Oil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Crude Oil. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
A World Beyond Crude Oil: The Future Looks Bright?
In the past century, it was public health and species extinction concerns that forced us to change existing incumbent energy generation and transport technologies. But at present, it seems we’re stuck with crude oil. Time to move on?
By: Ringo Bones
When it comes to why Industrialized nations opted from horse and buggies to gasoline powered internal combustion engine vehicles or what folks back then used to call horseless carriages once they became available was somewhat obscured by time. Was it the coolness of acquiring the latest novelty item? Or is it the most famous historically documented problem of late 19th Century New York City. Back then horse manure from the alarmingly high number of horse drawn carriages were not only making the city’s air hard to breathe, but causing a local cholera epidemic as it finds its way into the local groundwater. Thus was born the need for the then fledgling automobile industry and the start of America’s – and the rest of the world’s – love for the automobile. Fast-forward to the 21st Century, the problem now is the automobile / car with it’s crude oil sourced gasoline and diesel is slowly – but surely – destroying our environment for more than 50 years via greenhouse gas emissions.
Before a scientific paper was published in 1885 pertaining to how various products of commercial significance like lubricants and furnace oils could be distilled from crude oil, the whaling industry was busy getting rich by hunting whales to near-extinction for a couple of centuries or more. But as Edwin L. Drake devised a way to efficiently extract crude oil from the ground and making the Seneca Oil Company’s New York investors rich beyond their wildest dreams. The global whale population – then the only source of lubricating oil for machinery and furnace oils for domestic heating - were granted a somewhat uneasy reprieve till this day. And yet, the crude oil industry established by Drake more than a century ago is not only endangering our global environment, but also the political stability – not to mention the social equality - of the regions were it is found. Not to mention a disproportionately large number of young men and women who must suffer and die needlessly just to secure our steady crude oil supply. Given the negative impacts of these technologies to the environment and social stability, why are alternatives not being considered?
Remember what Al Gore said in “The Inconvenient Truth” about political will being an inexhaustible resource? The problem is that the United States, which supposedly everyone around the world expects to lead us out from our “unhealthy” dependence on crude oil, is busy practicing obstructionist politics to maintain the global industry incumbent on crude oil. Even the supposed alternatives like corn-derived ethanol only succeeded because it has political backing by the corn lobby. Even then, corn-derived ethanol puts back more carbon dioxide back into our atmosphere in its production compared to what will be removed by not using crude oil sourced fuels. Cellulosic ethanol technology exist to allow us to extract ethanol from prairie grass, yet it will never see the light of day because it has no Washington lobbyist supporting it. Even the “almost zero emission” hybrid cars with plug in proviso are seen by the Bush Administration as a fringe technology and comparing it to anti-gravity levitation devices instead of viable means of reducing America’s dependence of foreign oil. Given that viable solutions to end the planet’s dependence on crude oil are already tried and tested – albeit on a small scale – since the 1990’s, why the delay?
The reasons for not using transport and electricity generating technologies which doesn’t require crude oil sourced fuels - like renewables - is not on whether these technologies are commercially viable or fiscally feasible but more on political reasons. Given that the Bush Administration’s Neo-Conservatives has developed obstructionist politics down to a science, technologies like a bus that runs on tap water will never see the light of day. Even renewable energy systems that got millions of private equity funds invested in it – like solar photovoltaics and wind turbines don’t receive the political backing that they deserve. It seems like to these politicians, alternative / renewable energy systems are the work of the devil. Plus these Neo-Conservatives “is” the petroleum lobby. Just be thankful that they are not around back in February 1841 when the Amistad case was being argued on the US Supreme Court. Bush’s Neo-Conservatives could have easily make the Transatlantic slave trade last till this day, or create a “Whaling Lobby” on Capitol Hill making everyone living in colder climes use oil blubber to heat their homes. Maybe the 2008 US Presidential Election is high time for Americans concerned for the global environment, political stability, and security exercise their political will to make this a better world.
By: Ringo Bones
When it comes to why Industrialized nations opted from horse and buggies to gasoline powered internal combustion engine vehicles or what folks back then used to call horseless carriages once they became available was somewhat obscured by time. Was it the coolness of acquiring the latest novelty item? Or is it the most famous historically documented problem of late 19th Century New York City. Back then horse manure from the alarmingly high number of horse drawn carriages were not only making the city’s air hard to breathe, but causing a local cholera epidemic as it finds its way into the local groundwater. Thus was born the need for the then fledgling automobile industry and the start of America’s – and the rest of the world’s – love for the automobile. Fast-forward to the 21st Century, the problem now is the automobile / car with it’s crude oil sourced gasoline and diesel is slowly – but surely – destroying our environment for more than 50 years via greenhouse gas emissions.
Before a scientific paper was published in 1885 pertaining to how various products of commercial significance like lubricants and furnace oils could be distilled from crude oil, the whaling industry was busy getting rich by hunting whales to near-extinction for a couple of centuries or more. But as Edwin L. Drake devised a way to efficiently extract crude oil from the ground and making the Seneca Oil Company’s New York investors rich beyond their wildest dreams. The global whale population – then the only source of lubricating oil for machinery and furnace oils for domestic heating - were granted a somewhat uneasy reprieve till this day. And yet, the crude oil industry established by Drake more than a century ago is not only endangering our global environment, but also the political stability – not to mention the social equality - of the regions were it is found. Not to mention a disproportionately large number of young men and women who must suffer and die needlessly just to secure our steady crude oil supply. Given the negative impacts of these technologies to the environment and social stability, why are alternatives not being considered?
Remember what Al Gore said in “The Inconvenient Truth” about political will being an inexhaustible resource? The problem is that the United States, which supposedly everyone around the world expects to lead us out from our “unhealthy” dependence on crude oil, is busy practicing obstructionist politics to maintain the global industry incumbent on crude oil. Even the supposed alternatives like corn-derived ethanol only succeeded because it has political backing by the corn lobby. Even then, corn-derived ethanol puts back more carbon dioxide back into our atmosphere in its production compared to what will be removed by not using crude oil sourced fuels. Cellulosic ethanol technology exist to allow us to extract ethanol from prairie grass, yet it will never see the light of day because it has no Washington lobbyist supporting it. Even the “almost zero emission” hybrid cars with plug in proviso are seen by the Bush Administration as a fringe technology and comparing it to anti-gravity levitation devices instead of viable means of reducing America’s dependence of foreign oil. Given that viable solutions to end the planet’s dependence on crude oil are already tried and tested – albeit on a small scale – since the 1990’s, why the delay?
The reasons for not using transport and electricity generating technologies which doesn’t require crude oil sourced fuels - like renewables - is not on whether these technologies are commercially viable or fiscally feasible but more on political reasons. Given that the Bush Administration’s Neo-Conservatives has developed obstructionist politics down to a science, technologies like a bus that runs on tap water will never see the light of day. Even renewable energy systems that got millions of private equity funds invested in it – like solar photovoltaics and wind turbines don’t receive the political backing that they deserve. It seems like to these politicians, alternative / renewable energy systems are the work of the devil. Plus these Neo-Conservatives “is” the petroleum lobby. Just be thankful that they are not around back in February 1841 when the Amistad case was being argued on the US Supreme Court. Bush’s Neo-Conservatives could have easily make the Transatlantic slave trade last till this day, or create a “Whaling Lobby” on Capitol Hill making everyone living in colder climes use oil blubber to heat their homes. Maybe the 2008 US Presidential Election is high time for Americans concerned for the global environment, political stability, and security exercise their political will to make this a better world.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Gasoline from Plastic Wastes: How Soon?
As the security of our global food supply became increasingly threatened by climate change, not to mention our current hastily set-up and ill-conceived bio-fuel industry. Add to that the urgent need to clean up our environment, will fuels from plastic wastes solve this and our present pollution dilemma?
By: Vanessa Uy
Though the concept’s feasibility has been around since plastics were industrially manufactured from crude oil, converting our hydrocarbon-based plastic wastes into hydrocarbon-based fuels like gasoline and diesel never really catch-on for quite a while. The reason for this is mostly – if not the only reason - due to our heavily politicized way of running our current industry and economy. Let’s take a brief history lesson.
Before the establishment of OPEC in 1973, the West has been purchasing oil – mostly from the Gulf States – at one US dollar per barrel. A price that was mandated by the US government since that fateful day back in March 3, 1938, when crude oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia by an American oil company – Standard Oil. The intervening years after the establishment of OPEC, the reason for not scaling up to industrial scale the chemistry lab curiosity of converting disused plastics into gasoline is political – has become a favorite of conspiracy theorists. Do they offend the Oil / Petroleum Lobbyists? Not to mention the gasoline price rollback in the US back in 1995 finally destined disuse plastics sourced gasoline a mere lab curiosity. But is procrastinating the industrial application of this procedure really good for our environment’s long-term future, given our present skyrocketing crude oil prices? Not to mention our ever pressing need to protect our planet and feed our poor and hungry brethren which our present ill-conceived bio-fuel industry had created more problems than it intends to solve?
The latest incarnation of this process is the pet project of General Motors chemist Dr. Candice Wheeler. Called De-Polymerization Thermal Conversion Process, it converts crude oil sourced hydrocarbon polymers which makes up most of our existing plastics back into monomers i.e. hydrocarbon-based fuels. Since these plastics are created by the polymerization of crude oil sourced petrochemicals, logically, this chemical process can also be reversed to turn into hydrocarbon monomers which is very similar chemical structure – make that indistinguishable from - of the hydrocarbon fuels like gasoline and diesel now in current use. Though this latest version of De-Polymerization has the advantage of requiring less heat compared to the ones performed in the past. Which is good for two reasons, number one is less energy means savings in financial terms, number two is less energy means less greenhouse gas generated by the process – which is what is aimed for in the first place.
Though the plastic wastes must be sorted out first according to chemical structure since different kinds of plastics has a slightly different chemical structure. And more importantly, chlorine and other halide containing plastics like polyvinyl chloride or PVC should be processed separately because these plastics released toxic gases similar to that used in chemical warfare like phosgene.
Like hydrocarbon based bio-fuels, gasoline and / or diesel that’s derived from our plastic waste is a very attractive proposition and it’s not just about reducing our volume of solid waste that we generate. Gasoline and diesel that’s made from plastic wastes can mesh seamlessly with the industrial and economic incumbency (i.e. gasoline and diesel powered vehicles were here first, unjust starvation and global warming – though a product of our societal and political follies - came in later) with the existing technology already in use. Motor vehicle manufacturers are less likely to spend billions just to make their vehicles run on some newfangled environmentally friendly fuel whose supposed manufacturer can’t produce enough to meet demand. So that is the reason why gasoline and diesel compatible food crop derived bio-fuels are being widely mass-produced in a hurry because existing cars can run on them.
But there is a food crisis right now that demands a quick solution. To ease the demand on food, and of our conscience, we should derive our hydrocarbon fuels from sources other than food crops which the rest of our brethren needs. By deriving our fuels from a source that’s not being needed as food and also a source that if left unused threatens our planet. Then it’s the closest to a magic bullet solution to our problems yet.
By: Vanessa Uy
Though the concept’s feasibility has been around since plastics were industrially manufactured from crude oil, converting our hydrocarbon-based plastic wastes into hydrocarbon-based fuels like gasoline and diesel never really catch-on for quite a while. The reason for this is mostly – if not the only reason - due to our heavily politicized way of running our current industry and economy. Let’s take a brief history lesson.
Before the establishment of OPEC in 1973, the West has been purchasing oil – mostly from the Gulf States – at one US dollar per barrel. A price that was mandated by the US government since that fateful day back in March 3, 1938, when crude oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia by an American oil company – Standard Oil. The intervening years after the establishment of OPEC, the reason for not scaling up to industrial scale the chemistry lab curiosity of converting disused plastics into gasoline is political – has become a favorite of conspiracy theorists. Do they offend the Oil / Petroleum Lobbyists? Not to mention the gasoline price rollback in the US back in 1995 finally destined disuse plastics sourced gasoline a mere lab curiosity. But is procrastinating the industrial application of this procedure really good for our environment’s long-term future, given our present skyrocketing crude oil prices? Not to mention our ever pressing need to protect our planet and feed our poor and hungry brethren which our present ill-conceived bio-fuel industry had created more problems than it intends to solve?
The latest incarnation of this process is the pet project of General Motors chemist Dr. Candice Wheeler. Called De-Polymerization Thermal Conversion Process, it converts crude oil sourced hydrocarbon polymers which makes up most of our existing plastics back into monomers i.e. hydrocarbon-based fuels. Since these plastics are created by the polymerization of crude oil sourced petrochemicals, logically, this chemical process can also be reversed to turn into hydrocarbon monomers which is very similar chemical structure – make that indistinguishable from - of the hydrocarbon fuels like gasoline and diesel now in current use. Though this latest version of De-Polymerization has the advantage of requiring less heat compared to the ones performed in the past. Which is good for two reasons, number one is less energy means savings in financial terms, number two is less energy means less greenhouse gas generated by the process – which is what is aimed for in the first place.
Though the plastic wastes must be sorted out first according to chemical structure since different kinds of plastics has a slightly different chemical structure. And more importantly, chlorine and other halide containing plastics like polyvinyl chloride or PVC should be processed separately because these plastics released toxic gases similar to that used in chemical warfare like phosgene.
Like hydrocarbon based bio-fuels, gasoline and / or diesel that’s derived from our plastic waste is a very attractive proposition and it’s not just about reducing our volume of solid waste that we generate. Gasoline and diesel that’s made from plastic wastes can mesh seamlessly with the industrial and economic incumbency (i.e. gasoline and diesel powered vehicles were here first, unjust starvation and global warming – though a product of our societal and political follies - came in later) with the existing technology already in use. Motor vehicle manufacturers are less likely to spend billions just to make their vehicles run on some newfangled environmentally friendly fuel whose supposed manufacturer can’t produce enough to meet demand. So that is the reason why gasoline and diesel compatible food crop derived bio-fuels are being widely mass-produced in a hurry because existing cars can run on them.
But there is a food crisis right now that demands a quick solution. To ease the demand on food, and of our conscience, we should derive our hydrocarbon fuels from sources other than food crops which the rest of our brethren needs. By deriving our fuels from a source that’s not being needed as food and also a source that if left unused threatens our planet. Then it’s the closest to a magic bullet solution to our problems yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
