Diversified Energy Corporation's success in producing gasoline - not alcohol - from biomass, ought to remind us that the reason why alcohols (methanol and ethanol, also butanol) have been proposed as alternative fuels for spark-ignited engines is because they're readily producible from domestic raw materials, rather than petroleum from places like Saudi Arabia.

So we need to ask ourselves: if DEC's process works out, should we stick with gasoline as the standard fuel for spark-ignited engines, or do alcohols offer advantages as fuels besides producibility from biomass?

I think there are merits to ethanol besides not having to be imported from the middle east. For example, a high-ethanol content fuel has an antiknock (octane) rating high enough that you don't have to compromise spark timing for no other reason than avoidance of preignition or detonation. The high heat of evaporation provides an intercooling effect for turbo- or mechanically supercharged engines.

Also, it is well known that despite poor miles-per-gallon (or, kilometers per liter) caused by lower energy content, methanol and ethanol are popular as racing fuel because an engine develops more power with such fuels than it can with gasoline.

Regarding Diesel engines: DEC's process is of interest in that it produces the same kind of hydrocarbons one finds with conventional Diesel fuel, rather than the fatty acid methyl esters characteristic of "BioDiesel". So we need to ask, is there merit in using fatty acid methyl esters besides producibility from biomass? Again, I think so. They offer good lubricity, which is important in Diesel fuel injectors.

All in all, I think that with all the developments in biomass-based fuels we have seen in the last few years such as DEC's process, the biofuels industry has a secure future.

There are many processes to make liquid fuel, so we can add this to the list. What is lacking is finding the right feedstock in the amounts that we need, even if we significantly increase efficiency.

I suspect there is a Lipids Limit which has a percentage relationship to the Photosynthetic Limit cited by some commentators. That is, a practical limit to the amount of energy per year that can be harvested from triglycerides. Oilseeds and algae ponds are limited by acreage and the production of animal fat is a tradeoff with crop growing. I doubt then whether it is physically possible to grow both enough food and to keep 800 million cars and trucks on the road. Lipids based fuel should therefore remain a minor niche and the effort should go into cellulosic fuels and alternative transport.

I'm not yet buying the 90% mass conversion number. That doesn't tell us what the energy inputs are for boiling, processing, etc. We're not looking for a process with corn ethanol EROIE.

@ Cervus,
Believe me holding ones breath is not a good idea, neither is digging ones heels till everyone else gives up.
Plenty of doubters re algae, little constructive thinking.
Supporting evidence as to the high yeilds acheivable from this group are abundant and have a long history.
There are likeways well known pollution remediation qualities attributable to algaes,wich are very efficient plants.
We suffer from algae blooms when temperature and low water flows combine with any trace of fertilizer combine these blue green algae are highly toxic and as in saltwater toxic blooms one of the problems is the rapid growth.
The point is that when the bloom fails it is because nutrient is exhausted, or temp fails.
You sate that there needs be a reliable supply in sufficient quantity, But can't accept that all the necessary conditions are met on a permanent basis wherever humans or livestock and other troublesome polluters exist.
I dont know why these simple realities are routinely given so little attention.
Many of the critical comments put up distractive reasons wich are easily dismissed and demonstrate a lack of imagination that I find to be towards spoiling.

The good news is that figures, like those from gr above continually acheive air and from the perspective of beleivers are very credible.
The implementation of these important figures seem to me very simple, although some proponents seem to be going a more complex stand alone route.
The simple, large scale method of production will require integration with existing plant, will be very usefull in water remediation and purification have low energy inputs and be low cost, long term and sutinable.
I recomend to anyone to research the concept and then add comment.

There is lots of talk of hydrogen, EV, CNG and many other methods, but we still have more than 100 million gasoline cars out there in the U.S. and probably will for some time. 1 million hybrids is less than 1% of the fleet and 5% ethanol is just what it says. We could use synthetic gasoline for the real problems now.

Hi,
You have a wonderful concept.
In the artical as should be done the pros and cons are listed.
By education I'm a mathematician with a minor ub Cghemistry and phyhsics. I have eighteen years in Analtical Chemistry and five years in the Chemistry of Semicondutors. I have twenty two years in doing computer support for scientist and engineers, Also, I have a heavy weight computer capabled of doing processing of large amounts of data.
I'm also disabled and can't have home much.

I would like to participate in the search for the right algae or repeat experiments you do for verification.

I have the space and the time. If I could get a firm comitment I would be happy to go the Small Business Administration to get fund to build a lab, stock it, and do the required work.

Would you be interested in helping?

Respectfully,
rickey williams