Biotumen: Bitumen Reinvented | Hacker News Reader

Biotumen: Bitumen Reinvented

biofabrik.com

67 pointspatall18 comments

So what is it? How is it made?

If it's the same as this biotumen [1], then it's "a fraction extracted from pyrolysis oils", specifically "the lignitic fraction".

I had never heard of fast pyrolysis before, have no idea what pyrolysis oils are, and still don't know what's actually in it!

[1] https://task34.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2...

From what is written in the document linked by you, those "pyrolysis oils" are obtained by heating wood in an oven, where the wood presumably consists of cheap byproducts of wood processing.

The "lignitic fraction" refers there to products of thermal decomposition of the lignin, which is a major constituent of wood.

So this "biotumen" is just some kind of tar a.k.a. pitch. Various kinds of tar or pitch have been produced by heating wood for thousands of years and used for water-proofing boats or vessels for long-term food storage, or for other similar uses.

Recent research has shown that the Neanderthals knew how to make tar from wood at least two hundred thousand years ago and they used it to glue stone blades on wooden handles:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-08106-7

The Neanderthals' slightly earlier technology might invalidate some of the patent claims of this company, which is why they disclose few details about their product.

Sadly, Neanderthals probably do not count as valid inventors under patent law. As they are not typically (?) considered persons, their inventions would be interpreted as natural processes, which in another absurdity can often be discovered and patented.

The german article [1] that lead me to this claims it is made from two components: some naturally occuring resin and a viscous extract from cashew shells. Both obviously not super common but (their claim) possibly up to 5℅ of the global bitumen market.

[1] https://www.wiwo.de/unternehmen/industrie/erdoelfreier-aspha...

Bitumen is created with a fraction of crude oil that is otherwise unused, so as long as we are still using vast quantities of crude oil for things like fuel, there will be an abundance of bitumen. That means this wood-based alternative will be comparatively expensive and no more environmentally sound than bitumen. However, it is good to know that we already have alternatives ready, because we should be reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and don't want to be held back by a requirement for bitumen!

Which precisely seems to be a big motivator for this project: there was a risk that the oil refinery Schwedt that supplies 1/3 of the german market would shut down due to being run on russian oil. So big construction companies looked for a replacment. At least that's their story

The important question that matters is: Is the cost close to competitive vs. Bitumen, or is there any hope of reaching that threshold?

Bitumen is getting more and more expensive, so I guess unless it’s crazy expensive it’s just a matter of time..

We’re using increasingly less gasoline to drive cars a given distance. For EVs it’s essentially zero. So we refine less oil for fuel, which means we’re also getting less bitumen. Not hard to see that using bitumen is completely unsustainable in the long term.

I guess it depends on regulations/carbon credits related to CO2 emissions too

That price differential may be even less if subsidies for fossil fuels are removed.

https://www.budget.senate.gov/chairman/newsroom/press/sen-wh....

As if there is any realistic chance of that.

I get that the subsidies themselves aren't going anywhere, but in evaluating the cost effectiveness of this alternative it should be part of the math in comparing to the previous version.

In the video the CTO is stacking up the pros, like it is safer to handle and the Russians. Usually when that happens, there is a catch.

Nevertheless, I think we are way beyond to compare on price like this and should include the footprint into the cost.

In the video I used closed captioning (English) since I am only fluent in Texas English. I have to say that the CC translation on that was pretty funny. Whatever they used did not produce a meaningful translation. It was impressively disjointed nonsense. It was easier for me to listen closely to his speech to peel out the root words and try to infer the rest.

I am not familiar with conventional bitumen processing or preparation for use on roads but if this process allows creation of an asphalt product that eliminates the need to mine low gravity petroleum resources then it is a great development. Perhaps it eliminates a lot of the incentive to continue mining the tar sands in Canada. Maybe?

> replacing them with natural resources

Just a nit, bitumen is natural already. The man made stuff isn't but it also uses natural resources (oil). Seems a stretch to say its more natural to use wood oils over dinosaur oils.

Better would have been to claim "renewable resources" which dinosaur oil is not, at least not on human timescales.

The wood oils ge “permanently” sequestered instead of decomposing or being burned. So it’s a way of sequestering carbon that can be harvested from cultivated forests.

Note asphalt reaches over 150 F on days of over 100F maybe something else to use other than asphalt?

Concrete is a good road surface in high temperatures, but it is rather rough and so noisy to drive on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com