Bio Fuel?

[Xyphos]

So, I drive semi-trucks for a living and tinker with things in my garage as a hobby.
recently, I've seen trucks running on bio-diesel made from soy, and grown right here in the USA.

I thought, "neat! what else can we make?"

so, I ask, what can we use to make bio-fuel for Jet-A and Rocket Fuels, and how? I may want to test them in the future.

[SargeRho]

We can produce Methane and Hydrogen, and also Oxygen, in bioreactors. Some types of algae produce a black sludge that can be used as a crude oil replacement/supplement, and basically dumped right into a refinery alongside regular crude. In principle, anything you can make from Oil, you can make from algae.

Edited September 25, 2016 by SargeRho

[magnemoe]

You can make methane from composing waste however this is mostly used for power and heating. 
One interesting thing is making methanol from wood waste as its lots of it.
Most fun MacDonald uses their old frying fat on their trucks. 
 

[DDE]

Any hydrocarbon fuel can be synthesized from basic organics with enough effort. For instance, the Soviets managed to cook up Syntin, 1-Methyl-1,2-dicyclopropylcyclopropane, as a drop-in superior alternative to RG-1/RP-1.

So no, I don't think there is going to be any trouble producing rocket biofuel when and if we want it.

 

[magnemoe]

24 minutes ago, DDE said:

Any hydrocarbon fuel can be synthesized from basic organics with enough effort. For instance, the Soviets managed to cook up Syntin, 1-Methyl-1,2-dicyclopropylcyclopropane, as a drop-in superior alternative to RG-1/RP-1.

So no, I don't think there is going to be any trouble producing rocket biofuel when and if we want it.

 

No, main issue with biofuel is price and in many cases not very environmental friendly.
Important for cars because the large amounts and price sensitivity
None of this matter for rocket launches. 

[Tex_NL]

Of course we CAN do it. If we wanted to we could even do it clean and environmentally friendly. But we won't because it is way too expensive.

If you throw enough money, time and technology at it it CAN be done. Just don't expect to get any of your time and money back.

[Elthy]

Afaik the biggest problem with biofuels is the needed space for growing the plant matter. We allready are struggeling to feed 7 billion humans, also powering their cars from biofuel will be realy hard.

[Green Baron]

That is one problem, monocropping (canola fields) in northern germany already lead to duststorms on motorways (and crashes). Rainforest is cut down and moors are dried, areas for food production reduced because of subsidies. Many see the damage to nature by biofuel as much greater than any possible benefit.

Also biofuel is more aggressive than mineral fuel to seals and lines. A slightly higher risk for engine failure is not a problem for a car, but surely for anything flying. So engines would have to to be adapted to use biofuel. I think airlines are about to adapt to biofuel.

Biofuel for rockets ... ISP would suffer, i read the energy density of biofuel is not as high as mineral fuel ... needs confirmation.

 

[Scotius]

1 hour ago, Elthy said:

Afaik the biggest problem with biofuels is the needed space for growing the plant matter. We allready are struggeling to feed 7 billion humans, also powering their cars from biofuel will be realy hard.

Nope. We actually have overproduction of food. Europe would be able to feed entire world - heck, Romanian plain in Southern Europe is so fertile, it could feed entire population of Europe if it was turned into fields whole. In fact, governments are paying farmers to produce LESS that they comfortably could. Actual problem is distribution - no one is willing to pay for transport of products to poor areas of the world.

[Green Baron]

10 minutes ago, Scotius said:

Nope. We actually have overproduction of food. Europe would be able to feed entire world - heck, Romanian plain in Southern Europe is so fertile, it could feed entire population of Europe if it was turned into fields whole. In fact, governments are paying farmers to produce LESS that they comfortably could. Actual problem is distribution - no one is willing to pay for transport of products to poor areas of the world.

In theory, yes, there is overproduction of some foods, those that are subsidized or subject to political control. Bananas on La Palma, butter and milk in germany (and elsewhere) are destroyed to keep prices high and people employed.

But in practice too many people in the world starve and the problem is getting bigger when food production has to compete with (highly subsidized) fuel production.

 

[DerekL1963]

8 hours ago, DDE said:

Any hydrocarbon fuel can be synthesized from basic organics with enough effort.

You don't even need the basic organics...  you could start with the base elements.  The problem is, the further you get from the complete molecule the higher the cost in energy.

[kerbiloid]

5 hours ago, Scotius said:

We actually have overproduction of food.

A hivemind of algae suggests: while the soil health allows.

6 hours ago, Green Baron said:

Biofuel for rockets

V-2 used a one.

[magnemoe]

6 hours ago, Green Baron said:

In theory, yes, there is overproduction of some foods, those that are subsidized or subject to political control. Bananas on La Palma, butter and milk in germany (and elsewhere) are destroyed to keep prices high and people employed.

But in practice too many people in the world starve and the problem is getting bigger when food production has to compete with (highly subsidized) fuel production.

Note that biofuel from crops makes an strategic food reserve too. You want overproduction in case of an bad year and you don't know how much you will harvest then you sow. 
Much the same with feeding animals with corn or grain however that strategy is far older. 
Employment is probably more important in practical politic. 
On the other hand, many poor countries relies on cheap food who is dumped on the world marked, this might fail if food prices rise.

[Xyphos]

8 hours ago, Elthy said:

struggeling to feed 7 billion humans

the first step in warfare is to cut off the food and water supply.
the demand is artificial, as the food industry often over-produces and it all goes to waste.
but, I came here to discuss science, not politics.

Edited September 25, 2016 by Xyphos

[SargeRho]

9 hours ago, Elthy said:

Afaik the biggest problem with biofuels is the needed space for growing the plant matter. We allready are struggeling to feed 7 billion humans, also powering their cars from biofuel will be realy hard.

You can use algae, which don't require much space at all. And we're producing enough food for 13-15 billion people, it's a problem of distribution, not production.

[Diche Bach]

When will they figure out how to efficiently and effectively use coal!? We've got more of that stuff than all the other power sources put together and it STILL is too dirty? Come on engineers/entrepreneurs!? They can algae into gasoline and you guys cannot figure out how to competitite turn coal into clean burning coal else gasoline!?

[Sereneti]

Technically:
Once you have The Carbon/Hydrocarbon you go through the whole petroleum-three.

the Question is not, if we can. - The answer is a simple "Technically yes."
the question is simple: should we? :

The downsides of the mass use of biofuell are big:
Increasing prices for food. - not in the "first world" countries.
in the third world countries.

Monocultures, destroy the "black earth" and make a dessert .

----

 

[todofwar]

I never saw the point to biofuels or biopetroleum. For things like pharmaceuticals where you need miligrams per dose, maybe a few tons total demand, that's one thing. But on scale? That's something else. I think finding efficient catalysts is the way to go. Use nature for inspiration, but do your best to beat it. Biological systems are like fine craftsmen. Insanely good at what they do, but not so great on volume. 

Edited September 26, 2016 by todofwar

[Elthy]

4 hours ago, Diche Bach said:

When will they figure out how to efficiently and effectively use coal!? We've got more of that stuff than all the other power sources put together and it STILL is too dirty? Come on engineers/entrepreneurs!? They can algae into gasoline and you guys cannot figure out how to competitite turn coal into clean burning coal else gasoline!?

You can convert coal into fuels, but that doesnt solve the problem. The point of biofuels is to avoid releasing futher carbon into the atmosphere by using those which are allready there.

[Sereneti]

1 hour ago, Elthy said:

You can convert coal into fuels, but that doesnt solve the problem. The point of biofuels is to avoid releasing futher carbon into the atmosphere by using those which are allready there.

Yes.

But in this way, Syntetic fuels  are way better than biofuelss.

We only need a way to create a large ammount of Electric energy.

Like a fusion reaktor, Sahara-Projekt, ore similar things...

[lajoswinkler]

6 hours ago, Diche Bach said:

When will they figure out how to efficiently and effectively use coal!? We've got more of that stuff than all the other power sources put together and it STILL is too dirty? Come on engineers/entrepreneurs!? They can algae into gasoline and you guys cannot figure out how to competitite turn coal into clean burning coal else gasoline!?

We already have the means for it, but eh...

[kerbiloid]

Both coal and biocarbon are the volcanic CO₂ excess evacuated from the atmosphere and stored in non-volatile form.

Producing biofuel or burning coal you just restore the neutralized and buried CO₂ back into the atmosphere, overriding the existing balance between oceanic and atmospheric CO₂.

So, in both cases (biofuel and coal) you should catch the CO₂ exhaust and convert it into non-volatile form.
And this requires a lot of energy from an external source (at least as much as you get from the C oxidizing).

So, both ways are air killing, just one (coal) - faster, another (biofuel) - slower, but also killing the soil.

Only St. Nuke, only hardcore.

Edited September 26, 2016 by kerbiloid

[peadar1987]

Biofuel crops lock up carbon while they are still alive. Sure, they release it when they are burned, but that doesn't really matter. Giant algal farms, for example, would increase the amount of biomass on earth. When you burn the fuels, they're only ever going to be able to release the amount of CO₂ that growing them had already sequestered.

[Kryten]

Fuel from coal-≥liquid process has been used in rockets, specially the German Wasserfall anti-air missile.

[kerbiloid]

All Germany technics used Fischer-Tropsch liquid fuel from coal.

(Except that ones which preferred alcohol)

Edited September 26, 2016 by kerbiloid