Removing lignin cheaply to make cheaper biofuel

This should be one step closer to making cheap economically viable biofuels from cheap biomass (such as grass ) closer to reality by economically separating out the lignin in the biomass that would otherwise normally gets in the way of turning the biomass into biofuel;

http://phys.org/news/2014-01-simple-technique-biofuel-production.html

Originally posted by humy
This should be one step closer to making cheap economically viable biofuels from cheap biomass (such as grass ) closer to reality by economically separating out the lignin in the biomass that would otherwise normally gets in the way of turning the biomass into biofuel;

http://phys.org/news/2014-01-simple-technique-biofuel-production.html

It's funny, all these competing technologies, wonder which one will win? H2? Methane? Electric? For transport.

Don't know which will become dominant...
But I suspect a combination of all of the above for different applications.

Originally posted by sonhouse
It's funny, all these competing technologies, wonder which one will win? H2? Methane? Electric? For transport.

I am not sure about the medium run but in the VERY long run; electric for everything except aircraft. And magnesium-sulfur batteries would be the battery of choice for virtually all electric vehicles despite the fact that there is currently virtually no research into magnesium-sulfur batteries.

VERY long term nuclear is probably the answer.

Solid state aneutronic fusion is showing promise for battery like power applications
if you are looking really long distance into the future.

On site direct power generation will always beat energy storage and transmission
for efficiency.

Originally posted by googlefudge
VERY long term nuclear is probably the answer.

Solid state aneutronic fusion is showing promise for battery like power applications
if you are looking really long distance into the future.

On site direct power generation will always beat energy storage and transmission
for efficiency.

VERY long term nuclear is probably the answer.

I don't know why you would think that. Why not solar and wind (among other renewables ) combined with a supergrid and off-the-grid storage to completely compensate for solar and wind being fickle?

On site direct power generation will always beat energy storage and transmission for efficiency.

how did you conclude this?
If you are still talking nuclear here, wouldn’t it be rather inconvenient if not impractical to, say, have a car powered directly by its own nuclear reactor?

Originally posted by humy
If you are still talking nuclear here, wouldn’t it be rather inconvenient if not impractical to, say, have a car powered directly by its own nuclear reactor?

A big worry there would be terrorists opening new junkyards.

Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
A big worry there would be terrorists opening new junkyards.

Yikes! Any psychopathic moron in the world will be able to make a nuke from junk!