[Digestion] Digestion Digest, Vol 18, Issue 6

[stan simon]

The Typha Latifolia potential yield of 140 ton per acre (Leland Marsh, 
Syracuse University) has enticed some to pursue new uses for this plant. 
Rather than inventing a machine that can dig that mass out of the muck, one 
idea was to leave it in place, spread a tarp over, insert a pipe and 
withdraw methane.

This species is rather ubiquitous in Minnesota, hard to imagine life without 
it.  Many parts are edible, although I have to confess I have never eaten 
any.  Things pulled out of the benthos tend to have an odor.  A little H2S 
goes a long way for appetite suppression.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <digestion-request at listserv.repp.org>
To: <digestion at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 11:00 AM
Subject: Digestion Digest, Vol 18, Issue 6


> Send Digestion mailing list submissions to
> digestion at listserv.repp.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/digestion_listserv.repp.org
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> digestion-request at listserv.repp.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> digestion-owner at listserv.repp.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Digestion digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: cellulosic ethanol process (Duncan Martin)
>   2. Cattails (Duncan Martin)
>   3. Re: A few thoughts on Cattails (Len Walde)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:48:33 -0000
> From: "Duncan Martin" <duncanjmartin at eircom.net>
> Subject: Re: [Digestion] cellulosic ethanol process
> To: <digestion at listserv.repp.org>
> Message-ID: <048101c84269$4266c5d0$a533869f at Dell1>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> Dear all that
>
> Bear in mind that finding a 'magic' organism capable of direct conversion 
> of
> cellulose to ethanol is only 1% of the battle, so let's not get too 
> excited!
>
> Researchers' press releases tended to be based on: (a) a compelling need 
> to
> announce the most trivial advance as a breakthrough and (b) a pretty
> comprehensive ignorance of the realities and economics of process
> engineering.
>
> Cellulose is a "difficult" substrate, resistant to microbial breakdown,
> partly because it is highly insoluble. That is why plants evolved it.
>
> The degradation of cellulose in nature is commonly effected by complex
> consortia of microorganisms -- which often need to include the relatively
> few fungi that can degrade the lignin which cellulose is often wrapped up
> in. Consequently, the decay of cellulosic materials is typically slow --  
> it
> can take years in the case of woody (lignin-rich) materials.
>
> It is therefore likely that the rate of conversion from our magic organism
> will be too low to be of any commercial use.
>
> Another problem is tolerance to product inhibition.  Ethanol is toxic, to
> microorganisms, as it is to us. The yeasts we use in conventional
> fermentation have an unusual natural ability to tolerate high levels of
> ethanol, enhanced by selective breeding in the capable hands of 
> generations
> of brewers, winemakers and distillers.
>
> Consequently, our magic organism might only be capable of generating a 
> very
> dilute solution of alcohol, so that the energy required to distill it to 
> any
> useful concentration as a fuel would be greater. (There was similar
> excitement among researchers some 30 years ago over the prospect of using
> the bacterium Zymonas mobilis to produce ethanol from soluble substrates.
> However, it could not produce high concentrations and, as far as I am 
> aware,
> has never been used in a commercial process.)
>
> While I am writing, could I ask contributors to avoid the use of local 
> names
> for plants etc? (When I read about digesting cat tails, I am tempted to
> suggest digesting the whole cat!) I presume the cattail is a plant.  Is it 
> a
> weed, as its colourful name suggests?  Or a crop? What is it used for?
>
> Duncan J Martin
>
> Centre Councillor
> Republic of Ireland Centre
> Chartered Institution of Wastes Management
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:08:54 -0000
> From: "Duncan Martin" <duncanjmartin at eircom.net>
> Subject: [Digestion] Cattails
> To: <digestion at listserv.repp.org>
> Message-ID: <009501c84322$b9c98540$cb32869f at Dell1>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> Holy Moses!
>
> Thanks to Wikipaedia, I now know that cattails are what the British call
> bulrushes -- probably not the same species as the infant Moses was
> discovered afloat in - but probably the nearest equivalent available to 
> the
> translators of the Bible.
>
> (I can see where the name "cat tail" comes from too -- very graphic! Why
> "bull" rush, I wonder? Perhaps from a comparison with the common rush, 
> which
> lacks the massive, phallic, flower/seed head of the bulrush?)
>
> Now, the bulrush MIGHT be a very productive plant AND an ideal substrate 
> for
> conversion to ethanol. The former would be likely in a semi-aquatic
> ecosystem but I have to say I find the latter unlikely, since it is not a
> plant I associate with high concentrations of starch or sugar. (The 
> original
> research mentioned was only vaguely referenced, so I have been unable to
> find it.)
>
> However, let us consider the practicalities. Bulrushes only grow in marshy
> areas and at the edges of rivers and lakes.  Although there are areas in
> which such land is quite extensive, there are no vast expanses of marsh 
> that
> we could turn over to biomass production.  Even if there were, it would be
> difficult to adapt them to modern, mechanised, farming techniques.  I
> suppose we could conceive of a world so desperate for energy that much of
> the temperature zone would be converted into a vast artificial bog farmed 
> by
> an army of peasants -- but I do not think we have reached that stage yet.
>
> I cannot think of any other way in which bulrushes could make a 
> significant
> contribution, even if the plant itself is ideal.  Am I being too 
> sceptical?
>
> I do concede that we must be open to all new ideas -- and to many old ones
> that have been dismissed in the past, perhaps wrongly, perhaps because the
> circumstances were different then.
>
> Duncan J Martin
>
> Centre Councillor
> Republic of Ireland Centre
> Chartered Institution of Wastes Management
>
> ================================
> CONTACT DETAILS
> Duncan J Martin, PhD, CEng, CSci, MIEI, MCIWM, MIChemE
> 24 Townsfield, Cloughjordan, N Tipperary, Ireland
> Mobile: +353 86 8377 906
> Home: +353 505 42087
> Email: duncanjmartin at eircom.net
> ================================
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Duncan Martin" <duncanjmartin at eircom.net>
> To: <digestion at listserv.repp.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 5:48 PM
> Subject: Re: [Digestion] cellulosic ethanol process
>
>
>> Dear all that
>>
>> Bear in mind that finding a 'magic' organism capable of direct conversion
>> of
>> cellulose to ethanol is only 1% of the battle, so let's not get too
>> excited!
>>
>> Researchers' press releases tended to be based on: (a) a compelling need
>> to
>> announce the most trivial advance as a breakthrough and (b) a pretty
>> comprehensive ignorance of the realities and economics of process
>> engineering.
>>
>> Cellulose is a "difficult" substrate, resistant to microbial breakdown,
>> partly because it is highly insoluble. That is why plants evolved it.
>>
>> The degradation of cellulose in nature is commonly effected by complex
>> consortia of microorganisms -- which often need to include the relatively
>> few fungi that can degrade the lignin which cellulose is often wrapped up
>> in. Consequently, the decay of cellulosic materials is typically slow --
>> it
>> can take years in the case of woody (lignin-rich) materials.
>>
>> It is therefore likely that the rate of conversion from our magic 
>> organism
>> will be too low to be of any commercial use.
>>
>> Another problem is tolerance to product inhibition.  Ethanol is toxic, to
>> microorganisms, as it is to us. The yeasts we use in conventional
>> fermentation have an unusual natural ability to tolerate high levels of
>> ethanol, enhanced by selective breeding in the capable hands of
>> generations
>> of brewers, winemakers and distillers.
>>
>> Consequently, our magic organism might only be capable of generating a
>> very
>> dilute solution of alcohol, so that the energy required to distill it to
>> any
>> useful concentration as a fuel would be greater. (There was similar
>> excitement among researchers some 30 years ago over the prospect of using
>> the bacterium Zymonas mobilis to produce ethanol from soluble substrates.
>> However, it could not produce high concentrations and, as far as I am
>> aware,
>> has never been used in a commercial process.)
>>
>> While I am writing, could I ask contributors to avoid the use of local
>> names
>> for plants etc? (When I read about digesting cat tails, I am tempted to
>> suggest digesting the whole cat!) I presume the cattail is a plant.  Is 
>> it
>> a
>> weed, as its colourful name suggests?  Or a crop? What is it used for?
>>
>> Duncan J Martin
>>
>> Centre Councillor
>> Republic of Ireland Centre
>> Chartered Institution of Wastes Management
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Digestion mailing list
>> Digestion at listserv.repp.org
>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/digestion_listserv.repp.org
>> Beginner's Guide to Biogas
>> http://www.adelaide.edu.au/biogas/
>> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.4/1189 - Release Date:
>> 18/12/2007 21:40
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 08:40:49 -0800
> From: "Len Walde" <sigma at ix.netcom.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digestion] A few thoughts on Cattails
> To: "Duncan Martin" <duncanjmartin at eircom.net>,
> <digestion at listserv.repp.org>
> Message-ID: <02e001c84327$143ebaa0$6401a8c0 at Len>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> Duncan:
>
> I think you are looking at the wrong end of the plant.  Our Native 
> Americans
> ( Indians) harvested the roots for their high starch content, for food.
> Many still do I am told.  You might want to search "Google" et al,  from
> this perspective, for more information.  Propagation is best by root
> division. The "tails" dry into a light fluffy pillow-stuffing like 
> material.
>
> I have spent some "Gray Matter" designing a hydroponic propagation system,
> some time ago which has some promise as an Ethanol substrate producer, but
> it is low on my "to-do" list right now.
>
> That is about the limit of my knowledge of the plant --- I am sure others
> can provide more.
>
> Best wishes and Merry Xmas.
>
> Len Walde, P.E.
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Duncan Martin" <duncanjmartin at eircom.net>
> To: <digestion at listserv.repp.org>
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:08 AM
> Subject: [Digestion] Cattails
>
>
>> Holy Moses!
>>
>> Thanks to Wikipaedia, I now know that cattails are what the British call
>> bulrushes -- probably not the same species as the infant Moses was
>> discovered afloat in - but probably the nearest equivalent available to
>> the
>> translators of the Bible.
>>
>> (I can see where the name "cat tail" comes from too -- very graphic! Why
>> "bull" rush, I wonder? Perhaps from a comparison with the common rush,
>> which
>> lacks the massive, phallic, flower/seed head of the bulrush?)
>>
>> Now, the bulrush MIGHT be a very productive plant AND an ideal substrate
>> for
>> conversion to ethanol. The former would be likely in a semi-aquatic
>> ecosystem but I have to say I find the latter unlikely, since it is not a
>> plant I associate with high concentrations of starch or sugar. (The
>> original
>> research mentioned was only vaguely referenced, so I have been unable to
>> find it.)
>>
>> However, let us consider the practicalities. Bulrushes only grow in 
>> marshy
>> areas and at the edges of rivers and lakes.  Although there are areas in
>> which such land is quite extensive, there are no vast expanses of marsh
>> that
>> we could turn over to biomass production.  Even if there were, it would 
>> be
>> difficult to adapt them to modern, mechanised, farming techniques.  I
>> suppose we could conceive of a world so desperate for energy that much of
>> the temperature zone would be converted into a vast artificial bog farmed
>> by
>> an army of peasants -- but I do not think we have reached that stage yet.
>>
>> I cannot think of any other way in which bulrushes could make a
>> significant
>> contribution, even if the plant itself is ideal.  Am I being too
>> sceptical?
>>
>> I do concede that we must be open to all new ideas -- and to many old 
>> ones
>> that have been dismissed in the past, perhaps wrongly, perhaps because 
>> the
>> circumstances were different then.
>>
>> Duncan J Martin
>>
>> Centre Councillor
>> Republic of Ireland Centre
>> Chartered Institution of Wastes Management
>>
>> ================================
>> CONTACT DETAILS
>> Duncan J Martin, PhD, CEng, CSci, MIEI, MCIWM, MIChemE
>> 24 Townsfield, Cloughjordan, N Tipperary, Ireland
>> Mobile: +353 86 8377 906
>> Home: +353 505 42087
>> Email: duncanjmartin at eircom.net
>> ================================
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> CUT ---------------------------------------------- 
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Digestion mailing list
> Digestion at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/digestion_listserv.repp.org
>
> End of Digestion Digest, Vol 18, Issue 6
> ****************************************
>