Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

BREAKTHROUGH Promises $1.50 Per Gallon Synthetic Gasoline With NO CARBON EMISSIONS

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
Segami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 01:04 AM
Original message
BREAKTHROUGH Promises $1.50 Per Gallon Synthetic Gasoline With NO CARBON EMISSIONS
<>


UK-based Cella Energy has developed a synthetic fuel that could lead to US$1.50 per gallon gasoline. Apart from promising a future transportation fuel with a stable price regardless of oil prices, the fuel is hydrogen based and produces no carbon emissions when burned. The technology is based on complex hydrides, and has been developed over a four year top secret program at the prestigious Rutherford Appleton Laboratory near Oxford. Early indications are that the fuel can be used in existing internal combustion engined vehicles without engine modification.


<http://www.cellaenergy.com/>


According to Stephen Voller CEO at Cella Energy, the technology was developed using advanced materials science, taking high energy materials and encapsulating them using a nanostructuring technique called coaxial electrospraying.

We have developed new micro-beads that can be used in an existing gasoline or petrol vehicle to replace oil-based fuels, said Voller. Early indications are that the micro-beads can be used in existing vehicles without engine modification.

The materials are hydrogen-based, and so when used produce no carbon emissions at the point of use, in a similar way to electric vehicles, said Voller.

The technology has been developed over a four-year top secret programme at the prestigious Rutherford Appleton Laboratory near Oxford, UK.

The development team is led by Professor Stephen Bennington in collaboration with scientists from University College London and Oxford University.

Professor Bennington, Chief Scientific Officer at Cella Energy said, our technology is based on materials called complex hydrides that contain hydrogen. When encapsulated using our unique patented process, they are safer to handle than regular gasoline.



<http://www.gizmag.com/breakthrough-promises-150-per-gallon-synthetic-gasoline-with-no-carbon-emissions/17687/>



.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 01:05 AM
Response to Original message
1. raise your hand if you believe the oil corporations are gonna go for this lol nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. I was just thinking I hope the "secret recipe" is sequestered in a safe place. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
naaman fletcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 01:05 AM
Response to Original message
2. phew...
we went almost a whole week without a new breakthrough technology that is going to solve our energy problems and save the environment. I was getting worried there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Broderick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #2
19. LMAO!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MattBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #2
60. But it's got lots of scientificky sounding words
and a geeky guy holding something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 01:12 AM
Response to Original message
4. What do you guys think?
If it's viable, they should be able to get backing to produce this. I just hope they don't sell it to the oil companies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinrobot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Curious about how micon-sized capsules would flow
The substance they created is not technically a fluid, but a bunch of very tiny spheres containing hydrogen (think of a bucket full of BBs, only much smaller)

Would these tiny capsules be able to flow though an automobile fuel system without problems arising? Time will tell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 01:43 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Well, that makes sense. I'd love to see this turn out to really be a success. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
n2doc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #5
37. Should be just fine.
These are in the colloidal size range, which means that they never settle out. And all fuel filters have much larger mesh sizes.

I am dubious about the "no carbon emission" part, anything that requires energy to make will likely have a carbon footprint, even if it is only in the transport or equipment manufacturing state. The energy has to come from somewhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestate10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #37
63. Agree on the carbon footprint. I also want to see energy balance calculations. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MedicalAdmin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #5
50. No carbon emissions? So what is it emitting in C's place?
If it's in an IC engine then aobut 70% of it is being shoved out the tailpipe. So what is being shoved out the tailpipe?

Is this exchanging one problem for another.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. Its a hydrogen fuel right? So the exhaust is essentially water or water vapor..
That part is not new... its the technique they using to create the fuel and form created is novel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinrobot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #52
55. Hydrogen is technically energy transport, not a fuel.
You don't pull hydrogen out of the ground, you have to make it by using energy to knock hydrogen atoms off of various molecules.

The energy used to extract the hydrogen is recovered when it is burned, but what you get back will always be less than the energy it took to extract the hydrogen in the first place. That energy has to come from somewhere (fossil fuels, sun, wind, etc)

So hydrogen simply transports the energy used to make it to the device where it is burned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #55
57. Technically perhaps but practically its still a fuel.
The fact that it may take more energy to extract hydrogen than what you get when you burn it is not a show stopper. We have no shortage of "energy" per se. The problem is a shortage of a practical fuel for vehicles. If we replace a significant percent of gasoline/diesel with hydrogen fuel made with power from solar or wind or hydro or even nuclear then that is a tremendous step forward.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestate10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #57
69. I agree with your observation.
If the hydrogen can be made using non fossil fuel based energy, the societal benefits may outweigh all else. But the scientists have to release more information about what is in their colloids besides hydrogen before I buy in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestate10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #55
66. Excellent observations. I want to see their energy balance calculations.
Edited on Thu Jan-27-11 04:52 PM by bluestate10
I am confident that the balances will be negative. But the energy balance calculation being negative is not bad per se, as long as other fossil fuel related costs are included in the calculation. I am more concerned about the elements that make up the backbone of the hydrogen rich, colloidal chains. While the scientists are jacked, they could be setting up to release poisons into the atmosphere that will kill much faster than carbon based emissions, with the exception being Carbon Monoxide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #55
68. Energy source for eletrolysis need not be carbon-based - could be photoelectric.
There would be some carbon expenditure in processing and transport of the material, of course, but it may be miniscule compared to refined petroleum products, like gasoline.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestate10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #52
65. The question is what elements make up the non-carbon backbone.
Elements like Lithium, Cadmium, Calcium and Sodium can be very dangerous if released into the atmosphere in near elemental form as small particles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #65
67. Here is more on the composite material...
"Our current composite material uses ammonia borane NH3BH3 as the hydride and polystyrene as the polymer nano-scaffold. Ammonia borane in its normal state releases 12wt% of hydrogen at temperatures between 110C and 150C, but with very slow kinetics. In our materials the accessible hydrogen content is reduced to 6wt% but the temperature of operation is reduced so that it starts releasing hydrogen below 80C and the kinetics are an order of magnitude faster. Although ideal for our proof-of-concept work and potentially useful for the initial demonstrator projects it is not currently a viable commercial material: it is expensive to make and cannot be easily re-hydrided or chemically recycled.

Cella is now working on other hydride materials, these have slightly lower hydrogen contents but it is possible to cycle them into the hydride phase many hundreds of times and we are encapsulating these in hydrogen permeable high-temperature polymers based on polyimide."

http://www.cellaenergy.com/index.php?page=technology

It sounds like they are proposing a recylable material.. the "ash" would be stored on board and offloaded when you get a fill up. So technically there shouldnt be anything released into the atmosphere other than water vapor. But who knows how it actually pan out in the real world. These guys are a long way from anything that is ready for prime time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestate10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #67
73. Thanks for the info. I can think of several ways for managing the ash.
But all would require replacement of cars gas tanks. A more practical, but potentially more technically challenging method would have automobiles being refueled in hydrogen filling stations where molecular hydrogen is forced into a matrix that contains the ash and which stays permanently inside of a car's "gas tank".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestate10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #50
64. Look like they start with non carbon containing molecules, then enrich them with hydrogen,
Edited on Thu Jan-27-11 04:41 PM by bluestate10
then trap the hydrogen. One issue is the toxicity of the element(s) that form the backbone of the colloid. Typically, most elements that form non-carbon containing molecules have high levels of human and animal toxicity when in elemental form.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leeroysphitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #50
75. Who cares? It's free energy. Were all gonna get rich! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestate10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #5
62. Hydrogen richness likely means that it is either gaseous or a light fluid. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestate10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
61. Energy balance calculations need to be made.
One issue with many scientists is that they fail to perform such calculations. If the costs of producing the hydrogen rich molecules is $0.01 more than a gallon can be sold for, the material is a non starter unless related costs are taken into account, such as the cost of carbon fuel induced respiratory diseases, environmental abatement costs, et al.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
immoderate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 01:40 AM
Response to Original message
6. Well, I won't hold my breath.
I question that the process, if viable, can deliver so cheap. It takes energy to produce hydrogen. then its encapsulated in little beads(!)

One of the problems with working with hydrogen, is it's hard to contain. Their claims are expansive at least.

Well, we've been waiting on the Air Car for twenty years.

--imm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dogmudgeon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 01:42 AM
Response to Original message
7. " ... our unique patented proce$$ ... "
It won't be a dollar fifty a gallon. It will be slightly cheaper than gasoline. That is, IF it can be produced by the millions of liters.

--d!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maine_Nurse Donating Member (688 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 02:26 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. After the oil companies lobby for the import tax...
and the states and fed add alternate fuels taxes and "green" taxes, I'd guess $6.00 per gallon at the pump.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewMoonTherian Donating Member (512 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #7
17. But if the other claims are true...
that it's renewable, produces fewer emissions, and won't wildly fluctuate(or steadily climb) like petrochemicals, it's more than worth a price slightly lower than the current price of gasoline.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #17
29. Green should be cheaper rather than more expensive than dirty since dirty passes along costs to the
rest of us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewMoonTherian Donating Member (512 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-11 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #29
79. I'm not sure what you mean.
Any commodity that takes effort and resources to produce must pass along costs to the consumer. Otherwise there'd be no profit and no incentive to keep producing it. Are you referring to the collateral costs caused by environmental damage?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 01:51 AM
Original message
Time for another production of Mamet's "The Water Engine"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 01:51 AM
Response to Original message
9. Dupe
Edited on Thu Jan-27-11 01:51 AM by villager
One production at a time should suffice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrick t. cakes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 01:58 AM
Response to Original message
10. Stephen Voller...
dead man walking.

:sarcasm:

(or is it?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sakabatou Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 02:19 AM
Response to Original message
11. If this works, I wonder how long till Big Oil tries to kill it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeunderdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #11
45. or kill him.
Accidents do happen, you know.

I put nothing past the people who are part of the Establishment. God help you if you mess with the power structure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
entanglement Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 02:27 AM
Response to Original message
13. This is a new hydrogen transport and storage mechanism, not a primary energy breakthrough
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xithras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 03:49 AM
Response to Original message
14. While hydrides could be used as a fuel source, it doesn't address the biggest problem with Hydrogen.
This fuel is manufactured from hydrogen, and therefore will suffer from the same problem as all of the other hydrogen solutions proposed to date: There is very little free hydrogen on Earth, and no liquid hydrogen. In order to make hydrogen, you have to crack it from another molecule, which requires an external energy source.

The production volumes required to manufacture enough of this stuff to replace gasoline would be astronomical (roughly 800 million gallons a day in the U.S. alone) and would make solar power impractical. Every hydride plant would need a nuclear or coal plant alongside it just to provide enough energy to make the raw materials. There goes your environmental friendliness and sustainability!

Hydrogen is not the answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #14
22. Is that what dirigibles needed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestate10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #22
70. It is possible to make small quantities of molecular hydrogen via reaction of chemicals.
Given the time in human history, that is likely how hydrogen for dirigibles was made. On a cubic foot bases, the hydrogen required to float a dirigible is minuscule when compared to the amount required to run motor vehicles in a city, state or country. The poster was pointing out that releasing hydrogen in molecular form take a large amount of energy, further breaking it into atom form and controlling how it interacts with elements or molecules that are near it takes even more energy. On it face, unless organisms can be harnessed which produces pure hydrogen as a by product, some type of fossil or nuclear fuel will be required to produce the energy required to produce a liter of the fluid that the scientists described.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #70
72. Ah. Just great, huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestate10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #72
74. I left out solar and wind energy.
Electricity can be made from those sources and the electricity used to create high energy arcs which would provide enough energy to cleave hydrogen from several molecules that contain hydrogen. Only molecule that keeps crossing my mind as I write is methane. Although methane is carbon based, it's yield of hydrogen is potentially twice as large as the yield from water. And methane is produced by natural decomposition of plants and organic waste. In addition, the residual carbon from methane decomposition can be used to build carbon fiber, which can be used for all manner of products, including automobile and truck bodies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 04:48 AM
Response to Original message
15. back in the 70's they said nuclear power would practically eliminate your electricity bill
we see how far that's gotten.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #15
23. And that is relevant to the topic how?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MedicalAdmin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #23
51. It ain't - he's just having a Reagan moment.
You know, to get practiced up for Reagapallooza.


"well .... in the seventies while doing a series of reports on alternative energy sources, an opportunistic reporter Kimberly Wells witnesses an accident at a nuclear power plant. Wells is determined to publicise the incident but soon finds herself entangled in a sinister conspiracy to keep the full impact of the incident a secret. And we all know where that got us..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #51
59. Well, gee, look at you bein' all snarky
and not knowing what you're talking about. Get on with your bad self. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MedicalAdmin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-11 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #59
83. So I did the Raygun impression well?
I started out with the "well...." followed by a long pause while I struggled to remember who the hell I was and why I was wearing depends and then went into an anecdote lifted right out of one of my B movies because I couldn't think of anything else to say. I hope I also caught the nuance of snark and derision in the right mix. It ain't easy being Raygun.

Which is pretty much what Reagan did for his entire 8 years of driving the country into a ditch.



Are you ready for the fauning to start when his centenial rolls around. I can almost see the drool running off the desks at Faux already. Here's my quote to spread around on that day.

"Ronald Reagan proved that debt doesn't matter." - Dick Cheney.



Have a wonderful liberal day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Qutzupalotl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #23
56. The pricing estimate.
I'd like to see how they came up with the $1.50/gallon figure. That seems premature at best.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #23
58. It's talking about reducing energy costs
and I'm saying it won't reduce costs at all, it will simply be absorbed as profit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaker bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:35 AM
Response to Original message
16. My son was involved with this research
It was part of how he earned his PhD. The beads are not pumped through the fuel system, just the hydrogen. The beads he created during his research would hold the equivalent of amount of hydrogen volume for volume as a 10,000 psi pressure tank, at room temperature in an open beaker. The gas is absorbed on the massive surface area of the microscopic beads, which are hollow and porous. The gas is released by warming the beads. At the end of the cycle, the beads are replaced and recharged, at a filling station. They are less toxic and less volatile than gasoline and can be pumped into and out of a gas tank like a fluid. Some minor modifications to the fuel system and they would work in current vehicle designs.

Currently, he has moved on and is doing research on a form of nuclear fusion that consumes radioactive waste from nuke plants for fuel.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #16
24. Thank you for this information!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
renate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #16
26. seriously? How incredibly cool for him!
Thanks so much for this firsthand (well, secondhand, I guess) report. It sounds like your son has played a part in some incredibly important research--he'll be in the history books someday! Congratulations to him!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #16
44. Thanks - you report it better than 'gizmag' does
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #16
54. Hope he is successful with his new research on using nuke waste for fuel..
that would be helpful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaker bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-11 07:35 AM
Response to Reply #54
80. The concept has already been proven
The research work he is doing is pointed at making it happen at a commercially viable scale. His work is on critical components for a large scale reactor. The cool bit is that the nuke waste is reduced to less harmful elements with much lower radioactivity and shorter half lives, largely solving the storage problem. I told him that if they pull this off and he gets a Nobel, I will fly to Stockholm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-11 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #80
82. Sounds great. Hope it all works out.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestate10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #16
71. Thank you for the information.
It sheds more light on the technology involved. It also allays some of my concerns about the form of the hydrogen containing backbone. I can envision what type of modifications would be needed to the parts of a car like the gas tank and fuel pump. What your information does not do is shed light on the cost of releasing the hydrogen that is absorbed into the matrix for later release. But it seems that your son may be a step ahead. If his research on generating energy from used nuclear waste bears fruit, that energy can be used to create hydrogen, solving to environmental problems at once.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaker bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-11 07:44 AM
Response to Reply #71
81. My son is a materials scientist
his work at the time was to elaborate on work developing a space efficient low pressure hydrogen storage system. He is working now on developing optical components for a production lazer driven fusion reactor, among other things. The entire fuel cycle requires the work of many teams.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 10:30 AM
Response to Original message
18. Our precious automobiles! They're saved!
Um, nope.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
20. How much carbon is released making the fuel? (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
21. THIS? Would be a bigger game-changer than any current war. Recommend Post #16 before you snark.
Edited on Thu Jan-27-11 11:31 AM by WinkyDink
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Broderick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
25. My Aunt
told me that if there were a legitimate cure for cancer it would be shut down, and I guess I could put this in the same realm. Big corporations with media and government in their pocket would never let it see daylight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
27. You know this guy will disappear... !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 11:34 AM
Response to Original message
28. "a future transportation fuel with a stable price"

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
30. Why does the word Ponzi keep flashing in my mind?
100 MPG carburetors, fuel catalysts, magnets on your fuel line.........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
31. So where do these "complex hydrides" come from?
What is the source of their " high energy materials"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #31
34. Start with a basic Hydride: H2O, break it down into Hydrogen and Oxygen...
then you take the Hydrogen and store it in the beads.

This is a storage technique, not a new fuel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #34
36. It takes alot energy to split H2O..
Where does that energy come from?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. That's my point, sorry for not being clear
So, there's nothing new here other than a novel method of storing Hydrogen. It still takes energy to make the fuel, quite a bit of energy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. You were clear.. I just didnt read your whole post..
thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #34
38. If you just look at it as a better way to store and utillize hydrogen then yes that makes sense..
Edited on Thu Jan-27-11 12:49 PM by DCBob
buts it not really an alternative to fossil fuels because its probably going to take fossil fuels to make the hydrogen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. Usually done with electricity
Ali Baba...New lamps for Old.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. Yeah, and electricity is mostly coal produced at the moment.
Its an interesting concept and could be significant for the future but not really the magic bullet to solve our fossil fuel problems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MedicalAdmin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #31
53. They come from the complex hidrides islands.
It's free, it's cheap, and they have good beer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrides
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
32. How much energy is used, how much pollution released, in making this fuel?
If this process uses more energy or produces more pollution in the process, then this isn't a net gain, it's a net loss.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. Yeah, that's the big question.. the article is absent critical details like that..
probably for a reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 11:56 AM
Response to Original message
35. Here more detail on the production process..
"Our current composite material uses ammonia borane NH3BH3 as the hydride and polystyrene as the polymer nano-scaffold. Ammonia borane in its normal state releases 12wt% of hydrogen at temperatures between 110C and 150C, but with very slow kinetics. In our materials the accessible hydrogen content is reduced to 6wt% but the temperature of operation is reduced so that it starts releasing hydrogen below 80C and the kinetics are an order of magnitude faster. Although ideal for our proof-of-concept work and potentially useful for the initial demonstrator projects it is not currently a viable commercial material: it is expensive to make and cannot be easily re-hydrided or chemically recycled."

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/01/uk-cella-energy-develops-hydrogen-based.html

The source material and production costs may be the weak link in this concept.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #35
46. "cannot be easily re-hydrided or chemically recycled" seems the big problem, to me
Expensive materials are that much of a problem if you can reuse them, and never have to dispose of them.

It makes me wonder where they came up with the "$1.50 per gallon" figure, if they don't have a repeatable cycle for 'hydriding' yet. That sounds like wishful thinking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
charlie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. Yeah, sounds like sensational science "journalism" again
However, if a realistic price point can be determined, we can probably expect it'll be cheaper, since it can be subsidized with money our countries would ordinarily spend dicking around in the mideast.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #46
49. The article did mention they are working on other hydride materials that can be recycled..
"Cella is now working on other hydride materials, these have slightly lower hydrogen contents but it is possible to cycle them into the hydride phase many hundreds of times and we are encapsulating these in hydrogen permeable high-temperature polymers based on polyimide."

It is curious how they came up with the $1.50 figure... probably some very optimistic calculations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EstimatedProphet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 12:22 PM
Response to Original message
43. Look for this to be on the market in 50 years
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jkid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 12:30 PM
Response to Original message
47. While it may be good news for the environment. It will still result in traffic gridlock...
Due to the fact that more people will be buying cars since they will now that it's not environmental harmful anymore. We still need a balanced transport system in the US.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thesush Donating Member (10 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 10:21 PM
Response to Original message
76. .
"when used produce no carbon emissions at the point of use"

so, acquisition of materials, production, and transportation surely do produce
carbon emissions. i guess the question is "how much?" if (strong if) it's more
efficient than normal gasoline in some way though...it's still good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kablooie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 10:52 PM
Response to Original message
77. If it's real it will be locked away behind lawsuits for decades.
Edited on Thu Jan-27-11 10:52 PM by Kablooie
The big oil companies would never let it out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 10:56 PM
Response to Original message
78. K&R
- When I see SynthGas stations on the corner, then I'll believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansasVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-11 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
84. I bet I read 500 of these stories for everyone that actually makes it to market. Skeptical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-11 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
85. POODLES! Thread is over 24hrs...can't rec
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-11 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
86. Misleading/incorrect OP: "NO CARBON EMISSIONS" think again!
Edited on Fri Jan-28-11 12:18 PM by garybeck
"the fuel is hydrogen based and produces no carbon emissions when burned."


they don't say much about how much carbon is used/produced to CREATE the fuel. That is somewhat of an issue. The fact that the car doesn't put any CO2 into the air when it drives is meaningless if there is a manufacturing plant thousands of miles away spewing CO2 into the air to make the fuel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 17th 2024, 11:46 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC