While this may not be of particularly exciting news to many who have experimented with making potato batteries of their own in the past it is somewhat in terms of portable power for locations lacking a solid infrastructure. By connecting LEDs and other modern electric devices, for instance, the organic battery potential of a standard potato can be used to effectively provide light and basic electrical support for many infrastructures throughout both developed and developing countries in order to help ensure that basic needs can be met. Further, by properly boiling a potato to help remove the resistance carried in the potato’s salt-bridge in order to enable electrical conduction to remain at a higher level for a longer period of time even some basic telecommunication equipment can be powered both cheaply and effectively.

In terms of portable power regardless of wherever you may be an effectively utilized potato battery can provide the same amount of power as a common traditional acid-based battery at roughly 2%-20% of the actual cost. This means for greater economical use as well as environmentally friendly products can be consumed worldwide with little impact upon the overall environment.

While it’s true that other tubers such as carrots and radishes can also be used as a source of energy potatoes have proven to be the most effective due to their natural salt-bridge density to aid in electrolysis and conversion of the base matter into energy. The relative abundant nature of potatoes as well as their easy production in a multitude of environments further complements this to help both establish and keep themselves as one of the primary candidates for organic solid-state batteries worldwide both throughout developing and highly developed industrial nations alike.

Debuting in Augsburg, Germany on August 10, 1893, engineer Rudolph Diesel unveiled his first biofuel engine and a mere seven years later received Grand Prix at the Paris World Fair (the highest prize attainable at that time) for his adaptation of his design to a readily usable motor vehicle. At that time the car ran primarily on peanut oil, though a number of different vegetable oils were seen as compatible with the vehicle’s engine designs.

Later on in the 1920’s Rudolph Diesel’s original design was modified to utilize petroleum-based fuel rather than the original vegetable oils due to the fact that petroleum at that time was highly affordable and readily available on the market. This led to the boon of the usage of the Diesel engine in the market and in 1023 the first even diesel truck was seen on the streets.

The viability of utilizing vegetable oils and other natural fuels was never lose to Rudolph Diesel, however. In fact in his 1912 speech about the viability of utilizing biofuels rather than relying purely on petroleum his stated that he foresaw that one day biofuels may come to be as important as – or even more important than – the petroleum and tar-based fuels commonly used at that time despite its then rather seeming insignificance.

Today diesel engines are still the most readily adaptable engine designs, though most still have difficulties in handling the crude biofuels originally used by Diesel’s earlier engines. Instead they tend to work better with the more refined biofuel products that can be attributed to G. Chavanne from the University of Brussels, Belgium in 1937 with his patent of what was referred to as the “transesterification of vegetable oils”. Specifically this referred to the generation of alcohol substances from biomass, including the production of ethanol and methanol, and is generally seen as the foundation upon which modern biofuel production are founded.

Today biofuel production and focus is drawing a large crowd from around the world, and with the even growing concern of depleting petroleum reserves it is only expected to continue to grow in the future as the market shifts away from its once readily available fuel source and back to the original fuel that has provided the backbone for many industries around the world.

Accumulating large quantities of cellulose-rich biomass feedstock is the first stage in the sequence of events that ultimately leads to the fermentation of ethanol for transportation fuel. For industrial use, the source stock is often wood pulp (about 50% of wood is cellulose) or cotton (up to 90% of cotton by mass is cellulose) but increasingly comes from specialized high-biomass energy crops such as corn, cultivated poplar trees and low-maintenance perennial grasses like switch-grass. Researchers are examining the potential of dedicated energy crops, including certain wood and grass species, in order to offset the extent to which rising demand for ethanol may effect crops pricing.
Once crop has been accumulated, it is pre-treated. Pre-treatment involves soaking the feedstock in concentrated enzymes and acids; pre-treatment can also involve heating the stock. This process disengages unwanted polymers, such as hemicellulose and lignin, from the cellulose base prior to hydrolysis. Under current production standards, pre-treatment is the most expensive step in the production process and is open to refinement through research and development efforts.

Next, the pre-treated base undergoes hydrolysis. The goal of the hydrolysis step is to reduce the cellulose in to its component sugars. The hydrolysis can be performed in two ways: chemically using acids, or enzymatically. Enzymatic hydrolysis is a process similar to that which occurs in the stomachs of ruminant animals. Further enzyme treatment with cellulase enzymes breaks down the cellulose in to double glucose molecules, called cellobiose. Cellobiose is then reduced to single glucose by contact with a second type of cellulase enzyme.
Chemical hydrolysis is the traditional means of breaking down cellulose in to free sugars prior to fermentation. The cellulose is exposed to acids under heat and pressure. When exposed to water the reaction results in free sugars. A significant disadvantage in this process is that the harshness of the hydrolysis results in the production of toxic by products which can be carried through to hinder fermentation.

The final stage in the process is microbial fermentation. Microbes ferment the sugars to ethanol. Baker’s yeast has always been the favoured agent in fermenting ethanol from sugars. Recent advances have led to other micro-organisms, such as Escherina coli, which have been engineered to increase fermentation rates. Fermentation yields a mix of ethanol, water, microbes and some residues. The resultant ethanol is purified through distillation.

As global demand for ethanol rises, increased research and development efforts will be brought to bear on all stages of the ethanol production process.

Despite these benefits, there are circumstances when manufactured bio-diesel requires enhancement through additives. Typically, B100 is susceptible to water haze, low-temperature flow problems and issues arising from oxidation. These can all impact the efficiency of the fuel. During periods of cold weather, biodiesel (like petro-diesel) clouds as small crystal of wax form. This wax can create engine system clogging. As the temperate drops even further, biodiesel begins to colloid becoming gel-like. Eventually, it refuses to flow altogether – clearly a problem! Biodiesel made from recycled oils and fat clog more readily at low temperatures. In order to improve the fluidity of biodiesel at low temperature it becomes necessary to introduce an additive. A quick and easy way to improve fluidity is to blend with petro-diesel. Although petro-diesel also suffers a similar outcome at very low temperature, it can resist the cold better than biodiesel and is easily winterized with standard additives or as standard. Introducing 20-30% petro-diesel should free up flow issues with biodiesel, although the environmental benefits are lost.

Alternatively, and perhaps preferable, one can choose from one of the numerous specific biodiesel anti-gelling agents available. Wintron XC30 and Wintron XC40 are typical cold flow additives that help winterize biodiesel. Operability of biodiesel is also heavily dependent on oxidation. As soon as it is produced, biodiesel begins to degrade as it comes in to contact with oxygen in the atmosphere. Water in storage or transit media in addition to the degree of care taken to preserve biodiesel can also further accelerate degradation. The residues created when biodiesel reacts with oxygen can impair engine performance and in untreated instances can lead to corrosion damage, gumming and plugging. A range of antioxidant additives is available to reduce the effects of oxidation and keep biodiesel fuels fresh and fully operable.
Exposure to air, and water in storage units of engine systems can lead to another degradation vector, namely microbes. Once introduced, micro organisms will rapidly take root and soon break down biodiesel. Anti-microbial additives (biocides) will eliminate microbe infestation and prevent recurrence. These additives dissolve the contaminants which are then burnt off via the engines regular combustion cycle leaving no discernible trace.

Further additives commonly available for biodiesel engines include: fuel catalysts which can reduce emissions, improve fuel economy and aid combustion, and fuel booster additives which increase the fuel cetane number (reducing the fuel’s ignition delay.)

The manifest benefits of using biodiesel fuel are many, however its intrinsic characteristics make it susceptible to natural degradation. Petro-diesel is not immune to degradation, but it does degrade at a slower rate. As it is derived from organic matter such as animals fats and vegetable oils, biodiesel will undergo oxidation when exposed to air. This degradation markedly influences its usefulness as a fuel and can lead to sediments which in turn may clog or impact the efficiency of an engine. Precautions to prevent or arrest the degradation need to be taken when storing biodiesel. Studies indicate that degradation of biodiesel exposed to air occurs far slower at temperatures between 4 and 20 degrees Celsius, and it can degrade at rates up to 40% quicker at higher temperatures.
Equally, care must be taken to ensure the fuel is stored in a container that will not facilitate degradation. Contact with metals such as copper, zinc, lead, tin and bronze will increase the rate of degradation through metal catalysed oxidation. Materials used to store petro-diesel will suffice to safely store biodiesel.

Similarly, biodiesel must be kept away from agents that might accelerate degradation. For this reason, biodiesel must be isolated from water to prevent degradation by hydrolysis. Moisture from air contact can be sufficient to contaminate the fuel. The fuel will dissolve water to a certain limit but further moisture will become “free water” and will be available to contaminate further fuel to pass through the storage vessel, or may rust the vessel or its associate parts. Free water may also encourage microbial growth. Like petro-diesel, biodiesel can degrade due to biological infestation and growth. Microbes may be introduced to the biodiesel via air contact. If certain conditions are present, namely the existence of nitrogen and water, microbes will continue to grow in the biodiesel and eventually cause it to breakdown. Ensuring minimal air and water contact will reduce microbial degradation. Anti-microbial additives are available and treatment with the appropriate classification of biocide will prevent microbial build-up.

Finally, studies have also shown that prolonged exposure to light can degrade biodiesel. Biodiesel exposed to 6 hours of light daily will have degraded 50% more after four weeks than biodiesel not exposed to light. Since the impact of most of the causes of biodiesel degradation increase directly with time, it is very important to store this type of fuel correctly and follow ASTM guidelines for shelf life. Currently, industry recommendations are to use biodiesel within six months of manufacture.

Certain by-products of ethanol combustion have been linked to particular forms of cancer. The concentration of so-called aldehydes produced during ethanol combustion increases in proportion to ethanol concentration. Greater fuel efficiency is achieved through burning higher volumes of ethanol, so a very real challenge exists in gaining the greatest efficiency without compromising public health. At the moment, aldehyde emissions can be controlled using catalytic converters for fuel concentrations of about 30% ethanol. For the end user, the driver, converting to ethanol as a primary fuel source presents several problems. Not all gas stations offer ethanol, so depending on location, it might mean an individual driving an ethanol burning vehicles must drive extra mileage to fuel the vehicle. Although these circumstances are set to change as ethanol use continues to increase, for many it makes a mockery of the notion that switching to ethanol will reduce their pollution footprint. Also, current ethanol burning engines are not as efficient as their gasoline burning counterparts, so relying solely on ethanol will require more visits to the gas station for the same mileage. When ethanol is made available more widely, certain aspects of safety need to be introduced and adhered to. A few times per year, we see a gas stations blown sky high due to carelessness from forecourt users or freak accidents like fume ignition through static. Ethanol is far richer in octane content, and therefore a good deal more flammable, than standard gasoline. Handling ethanol requires increased awareness and safety standards.

Other chemical properties of ethanol warrant increased public safety and also present engineers certain challenges in implementing its safe and efficient use in standard vehicles. Ethanol is highly corrosive, and over time id capable of dissolving just about anything with which it comes in to contact. In order to preserve the efficiency and integrity of car engines and supporting parts, it remains imperative to maintain a very clean fuel system. Ethanol will quickly dissolve most impurities entering the fuel system, introducing them to, and ultimately contaminating, the car engine system. This will impact engine efficiency and life. Similarly, ethanol can absorb water, which can dramatically reduce its fuel efficiency. For those wishing to convert their current vehicle to burn ethanol blended above E10 (10% ethanol, 90% gasoline) then there are non-trivial costs involved. Although currently in the $1000 range, these costs may drop as demand increases. Though many future ethanol users will drive cars manufactured to burn ethanol.

This emission difficulty is compounded even further by the fact that in order to generate biomass for biofuel production plant life must generally be destroyed for the extraction of the nutrients necessary. This means that not only are carbon dioxide molecules released into the atmosphere during the burning process but the cleansing source to remove the carbon dioxide and generate oxygen is also eliminated. While it is true that this can generally be offset by selective biofuel production and rotations in order to create a carbon neutral environment this also depends on the specific crop used and the processing done after the biomass harvesting in order to generate a cleaner burn for the fuel (generally requiring additional energy and fuel to process the biomass into an end product).

Biofuels have had a long-standing battle for usage in many markets due to their questionable eco-friendliness for a number of years, and the recent data released by the European Commission is likely to fuel support in opposition of biofuel development in many areas. Those opposing widespread biofuel usage further find support on the fact that biofuel production can and has had a significant impact upon the food industry, causing many staple food products in many areas to skyrocket in price over the past few years as biofuel demands struggle to be met in many locations and producers find selling their food stock to fuel companies much more profitable than selling directly into the foodstuff sector.

Other concerns over emissions issues related to biofuels lie heavily in transportation costs associated with fuel transportation due to the fact that many areas in heavily industrialized zones such as Europe lack the production area necessary for a highly sustainable biofuel sector unlike many fertile lands in South America. The additional emissions caused in the necessary transport process to meet local needs simply adds to the overall negative impact biofuels have, thus putting additional pressure on those supporting biofuel usage globally as an effective alternative fuel source to conventional fuels.

While it’s true that crude vegetable oil collected from fast food restaurants must first be filtered in order to remove any impurities and debris that may be present in it after the cooking process this can easily be done at home through a basic filtration system to store both clean oil for usage in engines as well as pre-processed oil collected from local restaurants. The result is a readily available home fuel station that can be used either individually or distributed amongst a local community for use.

Unfortunately the sheer volume of demand for fuels means that this source of energy is not possible for all motorists to use and not all cars can easily process vegetable oil instead of refined petroleum. Still, with minor conversions to an existing diesel engine (especially older engines or those designed for higher-demanding power output) vehicles may be able to use pure vegetable oil for power without even needing ethanol additives such as that found in most biodiesel blends. This can help reduce the overall demand for petroleum based fuels as well as solve an ongoing issue of proper waste handling for old vegetable oil generated from restaurants in many areas.

The reactor works by cleaning gases produced by the gasification of waste products to remove excess molecules and aid in the formation of liquids or other fuel products, such as a diesel-like product that can be burned in standard diesel engines and produce roughly 10 times fewer pollutants than conventional petroleum based diesel. The electrically charged clouds working within the reactor (the same technology used in plasma televisions) allow for reactions to take place at significantly lower temperatures than are found normally and this significantly increase fuel production capabilities.

The primary factors that are seen as the benefits of such a reactor are cost, versatility and efficiency. Because all of the parts necessary to build the reactor are relatively inexpensive compared to other high-tech devices a basic reactor can be built for roughly $10,000 and the fuel products it can produce from various waste material can be harvested relatively easily and then used almost immediately in most conventional engines or mixed with other fuels to improve the base fuel’s efficiency. The reactor also allows for many of the waste products of other biofuel production such as glycerol from corn ethanol production to be easily converted into fuel as well – a process that would normally be costly to consider otherwise.

While the GlidArc reactor may not be considered a truly “green” energy source due to the fact its fuel products still have some carbon emissions all fuel generated from the reactor burns significantly cleaner than pure fuels being combusted on their own. Though this is not a perfect solution to carbon emissions the cleaner energy is still a major step forward in the need for both clean and renewable fuel sources to supplement our current energy needs throughout the world.

The news of this development comes from researchers at the University of Cincinnati where local researchers have been working on the project for a number of years now. The choice for focusing on a non-living foam rather than some other form of bio-solar conversion method lies in the fact that such a product could easily and effectively be used in any number of environments – even those where living materials could normally not function such as high-carbon coal exhaust pipes – and be able to continuously produce the highest energy to material ratio possible without sacrificing any energy to sustain biological growth. Further the foam is able to convert carbon dioxide without needing any soil for sustainability, meaning it will have no impact upon the food production cycles of farms, and the highly porous nature of foam will help ensure the greatest surface-to-volume conversion capabilities possible.

Due to the relatively new nature of the development significant further measures must be done to improve the production and utilization process before the foam can be considered commercially viable. Researchers are also hoping to offer a number of possible enzyme byproducts such as sugar, oils or other consumable material from the foam’s CO2 generation process before they release the foam for general use which will take additional research time, however the foam could most likely be used commercially in industries in as little as a few years time.