Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Carbon-neutral Hydrogen on the Horizon

November 21, 2007   |   25 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
"This process produces 288 percent more energy in hydrogen than the electrical energy that is added to the process."

-- Bruce E. Logan, Kappe Professor of Environmental Engineering, Penn State
25 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 25
November 21, 2007
It better take less hydrogen energy than you put in because frankly you are NOT electrocuting water.

This is just a glorified methane digester and reformer with a 74% conversion efficiency.

There is no breakthrough here.
Comment
2 of 25
November 21, 2007
Our Microbe Helpers

Microbes working with little jolts of juice,
Low voltage helps them rev up to produce,
Miniature factories today gets the hydrogen on the way,
And should help our growing fossil need reduce.

Little microbes chomping and digesting wood,
In the stomach of a termite its understood,
But we take this natural trend, give it volts to now ascend,
To producing hydrogen at a level that's good.

adrianakau2aol.com
Comment
3 of 25
November 21, 2007
If it really shows promise, it will be bought and put away on the shelf and just fade away from the public view over time. If someone "pushes" to keep it in the limelight, there will be usual excuses like, oh, it just was not cost effective or practical, etc.., etc..
Comment
4 of 25
November 22, 2007
Roy, I think it means that there is more embodied energy in the constitutional parts than there is in the useful energy that is created. But this is the case for all energy conversion devices. The combustion engine is only 17% efficient. Fuel cells are about 55% (not including the energy needed to produce the hydrogen), and so forth. There's a loss of energy, but that's the price you pay to have it in a useable form.
Comment
5 of 25
November 22, 2007
The report itself states: "At an applied voltage of 0.6 V, the overall energy efficiency of the process was 288% based soley on electricity applied, and 82% when the heat of combustion of acetic acid was included in the energy balance . . . ." If the process requires burning of acetic acid to make the hydrogen, and that lowers the energy balance to below 100%, doesn't that mean that it takes more energy to make the hydrogen this way than is derived from it? (This is not meant to be a criticism, just a semi-ignorant question.)
Comment
6 of 25
November 22, 2007
This sounds very promising. I'm amazed by the negativity shown here. I guess a lot of people are rightfully disgusted by the money being thrown at hydrogen development at the expense of other more promising approaches.
Comment
7 of 25
November 23, 2007
Professor Logan responded to my email question on this subject as follows:

When you make an energy calculation, you do it either on the basis of Gibbs Free energy, which takes into account entropy and enthalpy, or in the case of fuels we often just use heat of combustion (enthalpy, or delta H). Thus, nothing is being combusted, we just tried to make the basis of the calculation clear in that we used combustion energies not free energies.

We input food for the bacteria (substrate, or in this case acetic acid) and we boost the voltage to be higher than the bacteria produce (from 0.3 to >0.5 V). This allows spontaneous evolution of hydrogen at the cathode.

In water electrolysis, water is split into oxygen at the anode, and then hydrogen is evolved at the cathode. It takes 1.8 V. Here, the bacteria electrolyze the organic matter, PRODUCE a voltage, and then we boost it to make possible hydrogen evolution at the cathode.

[end of email from Prof. Logan]
Comment
8 of 25
November 23, 2007
Paul:

Thanks for the response. I am still somewhat confused as another part of the PNAS report seemed to account for the loss of efficiency of the fuel cell that was using the hydrogen. That part states: "Using gas produced by the process in a hydrogen fuel cell with an assumed energy conversion efficiency of 50% would lower overall energy efficiency at an applied voltage of 0.6 V from 288% to [symbol] = 144%. When evaluated on the basis of both the voltage added and the heat of combustion of the acetate added, the overall efficiencies ranged from [formula] = 62-86%."
Comment
9 of 25
November 24, 2007
What really gets me is that this is really just processing biomass, and cranking out hydrogen from it.

Which begs the question, where's all this biomass going to come from?

<a href="http://greyfalcon.net/biolimits.png">http://greyfalcon.net/biolimits.png</a>
^ Assuming SugarCane/PalmOil type yields.
Comment
10 of 25
November 25, 2007
I think it's very interesting.
Prof Logan has to find a less expensive electrode.
Then there's the compression costs...(hydrogen raises the vapor pressure of LNG).
And the storage costs.
And the new pipe linings on the N.G. lines.
And the waste recycle system... etc.

I don't mean to be discouraging because it's always like this at the start.
Comment
11 of 25
November 26, 2007
Brent,
FYI,
The Carnot, Otto, and Diesel cycles have a maximum theoretical thermodynamic efficiency of about 34%.
Couple that with a power train, road friction, air resistance, driving habits, etc, and your around 25% at maximum theoretical thermodynamic and mechanical efficiency. Getting 17% efficiency is about 70% of ideal.
So, it's not that bad for combustion.

Using combustion as a primary mover IS the problem.
Battery/electric/recharge systems begin at 50% efficiency, and can go as high as 85% efficient, (real world).
Comment
12 of 25
November 26, 2007
Now bear in mind that I am merely a self-educated man from Kansas, but I think everyone is missing something.

I do not understand what everyone is squabbling about. Plain and simply, with the ultimately TOTALLY inefficient burn of a gasoline or diesel fed internal combustion engine, around 17% or so, why is everyone on this perfectionist trip about efficiency? Doesn't ANY increase mean we're getting more bang for our buck? Or, as it were, for our efforts?

Why does everyone deplore this method or that method, based solely on the fact that they might have a lower efficiency rating?

Shouldn't we all take responsibility for OURSELVES and change the little stuff first, like our own vehicles, before any of these large changes are going to be fully implementable?

C'mon people, we're all smart here! Pull your collective heads out, and put them together, and let's stop this fighting about efficiency and let's actually DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!!!!!!
Comment
13 of 25
November 26, 2007
extra to the above text; with ''organic stuff'' i mean; anything like grude oil, benzine or even sunflower oil.
Comment
14 of 25
November 26, 2007
i think blending hydrogene with natural gaz for a period of time could be a good alternative. the tech in cars is already there. as a rule of thumb i think, in this time with several new technigues on the horizon its important to blend old and new for some time. embrace the hybrid thought for about 10 years and then take adventage of new revolutionairy tech. what about the ''geet-reactor'' for instance. a slightly different way of looking at the combustion tech, using (theoretically) 80 % water and 20 % organic stuff, mixed as a fuel. exhaust is near clean. works perfectly in my car, but riding on dutch roads with this system makes me a criminal, according to the law in holland... our government loves to earn money on petrol, that is. and water is still cheap.
Comment
15 of 25
November 28, 2007
David, you missed my point. By making the compressed air or liquified air at home you can put the waste heat to work which greatly improves overall efficiency as compared to the combustion engine where the waste heat is not recoverable because it goes out through the radiator and tailpipe. But it does all go back to the primary source of energy. For fossil fuels it is difficult to beat onboard fuel combustion when considering "well-to-wheel" or "mine-to-wheel" efficiency. For "green" fuels, since we can't yet put sun, wind or hydro in our fuel tanks, we have to convert it to something we can store onboard, i.e. electrochemical batteries or compressed gas. I don't like biofuels because that defeats the sun's natural process of carbon sequestration.
Comment
16 of 25
November 28, 2007
I think that we're missing a main point here - that's the lousy efficiency of the internal combustion engine! Seventeen or 25%, that's lousy. What we really need is a more efficient engine. Electric companies are now using combined-cycle engines that use natural gas jets to create energy (Otto Cycle) and Then use the exhaust heat to create steam (Rnkine Cycle). That could work in cars, planes, etc. There are also other engine designs in the works (Wicks , Scuderi, etc.). We need to work both sides of the energy street.
Comment
17 of 25
November 28, 2007
<b>==I like the air pressure car myself. Made in France.==</b>
I'm not that impressed.
It's still less efficient than electric cars.
Consider that if you are running an electric compressor, that the air tank acts as a "battery".
So far the only air car's I've seen are featherweights, and they get pretty bad performance even with that.
<a href="http://www.efcf.com/reports/E14.pdf">http://www.efcf.com/reports/E14.pdf</a>


<b>==liquid nitrogen car which has the potential to go further than the compressed air version : cryogenic liquids==</b>

Yeah but that makes the whole process a LOT dirtier. Takes a lot of energy to push something to -423&deg;F (i.e. 20&deg;K)
<a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,448648,00.html">http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,448648,00.html</a>
Comment
18 of 25
November 28, 2007
And "Waste biomass" is comprised entirely of:
A) Things that would end up in a landfill
B) Things that would end up as raw sewage
Everything else is not "waste".

<A href="http://venturebeat.com/2006/11/05/why-cellulosic-ethanol-will-not-save-us">http://venturebeat.com/2006/11/05/why-cellulosic-ethanol-will-not-save-us</a>
<A href="http://greyfalcon.net/peaksoil">http://greyfalcon.net/peaksoil</a>
Comment
19 of 25
November 28, 2007
Why to be panicked!! An efficiency improvement is always welcome, provided it is sustainable. Not to play with "worthy biomass", but with only "waste biomass"
Comment
20 of 25
November 28, 2007
Hi people,
dont you know about the food crisies because of the bio fuels. Germany did this exercise 10 years ago and is now paying the price for this....if you grow biofeuls you will be punished with higher tax...let us not waste the time with the idea of "growing" fuels and let us fix our eyes on sun, water, air. The rest is stockmarket ideas to raise the share prices. Look whats happening in Brasil....cuting all rain forest to produce environmental friendly fuels...what a joke....
Comment
21 of 25
November 28, 2007
Dominic, I agree with you. The University of North Texas, Professor Ordonez has worked on a liquid nitrogen car which has the potential to go further than the compressed air version. A person could run a stirling heat pump in their home, use the waste heat for hot water and comfort heating, and liquify the air for automotive "fuel". The only hurdle is getting the general public comfortable with handling cryogenic fluids.
Comment
22 of 25
November 28, 2007
I like the air pressure car myself. Made in France.
Comment
23 of 25
November 30, 2007
I am impressed, since I read your article based on an improved electrolysis with bacteria, called electrohydrogenesis.

I really see a great future for your research: the new biotechnology working together with the old electrochemistry.

With your contribution it will be possible in the future to obtain "C Neutral" hydrogen for many applications that will substitute the consumption of petroleum and coal, which produce enormous quantities of dioxide carbon, the main greenhouse effect gas. That contamination causes the environment to deteriorate and increases the global warming through the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide and other pollutants

In turn, the electricity that will be obtained from renewable sources like hydroelectric, geothermal, eolic and solar will be increased with electrohydrogenesis by a factor of 288% to produce hydrogen fuel for vehicles... and taking better advantage of waste materials.

Excellent energy and economic conversion!
Comment
24 of 25
November 30, 2007
The point I extracted is that the system claims to turn untreated cellulose into 0.3 volt electricity ( ignore the extra to make it split water) . isn't this plus electric hybrids an end run around cellulosic ethanol fueled cars
Comment
25 of 25
December 3, 2007
I believe that the biggest impact for our future is the "Hydrogen Economy".

All other renewable forms of energy will bridge the gap, and will increasingly make the Hydrogen the most economical and envirnomently the greatest fuel of choice.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Advertise With Us

AltaTerra Research SolPowerPeople, Inc. North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners Solar Energy International (SEI) Trojan Battery Company Schiller AltEnergyStocks
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters