Eric - the link doesn't link. Can you post again, but this time, click on the URL to be sure it connects, 'back', and then 'submit'.

Sorry about the link not working. I tried again, and was not successful. There is no error in the string of characters, I think Excite might be set up to require a sign in procedure, but that is just a guess. If you go to the Excite site, then go to the Science newsite(SCI), you can then read the original article.

I did a bit of googling, because the phrase bio-oil rang a bell from long ago. Looks likes this process really has been around a while, found one company dating to '95, but I'm sure I had read of it preceding that date. OTH, my reading may have been of a grass-roots experiment as opposed to a functioning commercialization.

Of interest is that bio-oil is not comparable with fossil oils, in some ways it's better, in some ways it's not.

Here is a link that might be useful: bio-oil dated to 1995

Thanks for the link to the Canadian company Dynamotive. I am guessing that they are using a similar process to turn sawdust into liquid fuel, but the research done at the University of Idaho is somehow different. I did note that the bio-oil made by Dynamotive contains both oxygen and water, and therefore has a lower energy value than crude oil and its derivatives.

I was reading the other day about a fairly new type of petrol which is 85% regular fossil fuels and 15% methanol. Aparently it's a bit cheaper and somewhat more environmentaly sustainable, but they went on to say that it also averaged about 15-30% less miles per gallon. Considering this, I'm having a hard time seeing the value in it, just to take the lowest figure of 15% less MPG means that it's adding no fuel value to the petrol, while a higher figure suggests that there is a net loss of energy compaired to regular fuel... When you take in to consideration the land, fuel and resources used to make this methanol, the energy returns looks even worse. Unfortunatly, this isn't the only time I've found that methanol based fuels aren't as ideal as they seem on the surface. Both methanol and regular oil are made from plant matter, but the high energy content required to run modern engines seems to only be possible with fossil fuels. The quantity of prehistoric vegitation required to make one liter of petrol is amazing, in fact it is likely to rivial the weight of the car itself! We cannot make bio fuels economically with the same quanitites of plant matter that went in to fossil fuels, it would cost a fortune and the energy required to process and reduce it down to such a small size would probably give a net loss of energy anyway. Unlike nature we don't have millions of years and thousands of tons of soil to compact it with, nor the free heat from the earth itself. There is no apparent way to speed thing up *that* much, nor can we make more energy with less plant matter, the suggestion defys logical physics. I don't believe we will ever be able to turn plants in to fuels comparative to fossil fuels.

Bry - check out a posting on this forum, called "Biowillie". Sorta interesting to see a grass-roots idea go commercial.

Biofuel (*not* fossil) has been in use for over a decade - 12 years ago I gave a friend a kit to convert his old car from fossil to fryer :) and it worked just fine. I have no idea how to "compare" it to fossil fuel, since he (along with most grass-roots users at that time) obtained his supplies from restaurants that would have otherwise thrown away the oil that was no longer of good enough quality for cooking. I do remember him commenting that the mpg wasn't quite as good as gas-station diesel, but the $pg was great!

Brazil has converted most of it motor vehicles to ethanol fuels derived from sugar cane and other wastes. The cost per liter is pretty much the same as would have been the imported fuels.

Biofuels are not competitive in price or performance under the old price ranges for petroleum products without subsidies.