Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Power United States Technology

US Offers $30M For High-Risk Biofuel Research 183

coondoggie writes "This one sounds a bit like really wishful thinking. The US Department of Energy today announced $30 million for research projects that would develop advanced biofuels that could replace gasoline or diesel without requiring special upgrades or changes to the vehicle or fueling infrastructure. The $30 million would be spent over the next four years to support as many as five 'traditionally high-risk biofuels projects,' such as converting biomass into biofuels and bioproducts to be eventually used for hydrocarbon fuels and chemicals."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Offers $30M For High-Risk Biofuel Research

Comments Filter:
  • Re:High Risk? (Score:5, Informative)

    by ducomputergeek ( 595742 ) on Wednesday December 15, 2010 @06:11PM (#34567074)

    High risk or what used to be called "basic research". These are project that may work or provide useful insight for down the road. Chances are they may not lead to some kind of "success" in the commercial world. When companies fund research and development it usually evaluates projects based on the likely hood they'll be able to produce something that is commercially viable and they can break even or profit from the work. We really haven't seen a lot of basic research labs where companies throw money into R&D and see what happens. That's the way it used to work back in the day with places like Bell Labs and even Xerox. Today this is usually done at research universities.

  • Re:$30m/5 years? (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 15, 2010 @06:12PM (#34567078)
    > personal reactors

    from http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html

    Q. Are we ever likely to have nuclear powered cars?

    Alas, no, if present nuclear physics is all there is to say about the possibility. A nuclear reactor engine that would provide the right amount of energy for a car could be built and would run fine and would require refuelling only every 5 or 10 years. The only problem is that it would kill the driver, the passengers, and perhaps bystanders. Nuclear reactors, as described above, produce neutrons, which are very penetrating particles and give people radiation sickness if the exposure is substantial. (All our bodies are penetrated all the time by small numbers of neutrons.) Power reactors have several feet of concrete shielding between the active part of the reactor and the operators. A big enough vehicle like an aircraft carrier or a big submarine can afford the shielding. In the 1950s some thought that nuclear aircraft were feasible. Maybe they were, but the projects were abandoned.
  • by bruno.fatia ( 989391 ) on Wednesday December 15, 2010 @06:35PM (#34567408)
    That's not really true. Ethanol-only vehicles have been discontinued and now the flex fuel vehicles are the most usual.
    You can read more at wikipedia [wikipedia.org] it's pretty complete.

Without life, Biology itself would be impossible.

Working...