If you've been waiting for a breakthrough in hydrogen fuels

[baldheadeddork]

...this could be it.

CHICAGO (AFP) - US researchers have developed a method of producing hydrogen gas from biodegradable organic material, potentially providing an abundant source of this clean-burning fuel, according to a study released Monday.
ADVERTISEMENT

The technology offers a way to cheaply and efficiently generate hydrogen gas from readily available and renewable biomass such as cellulose or glucose, and could be used for powering vehicles, making fertilizer and treating drinking water.

The method used by engineers at Pennsylvania State University however combines electron-generating bacteria and a small electrical charge in a microbial fuel cell to produce hydrogen gas.

Microbial fuel cells work through the action of bacteria which can pass electrons to an anode. The electrons flow from the anode through a wire to the cathode producing an electric current. In the process, the bacteria consume organic matter in the biomass material.

An external jolt of electricity helps generate hydrogen gas at the cathode.

In the past, the process, which is known as electrohydrogenesis, has had poor efficiency rates and low hydrogen yields.

But the researchers at Pennsylvania State University were able to get around these problems by chemically modifying elements of the reactor.

In laboratory experiments, their reactor generated hydrogen gas at nearly 99 percent of the theoretical maximum yield using aetic acid, a common dead-end product of glucose fermentation.

"This process produces 288 percent more energy in hydrogen than the electrical energy that is added in the process," said Bruce Logan, a professor of environmental engineering at Penn State.

The technology is economically viable now, which gives hydrogen an edge over another alternative biofuel which is grabbing more headlines, Logan said.

That is huge. The biggest drawback to developing hydrogen as a fuel has been the massive amounts of electricity needed to release hydrogen from water. There would also be a conflict between using water as a source for fuel and meeting the growing demand for drinking water, or handling the waste brine that would be created by using seawater. If extracting hydrogen from biomass is as efficient as these tests indicate, that changes the game entirely.

Keep an eye on this.

[Headmanbrewing]

I've been waiting.  Hopefully this can be utilized in a reasonable time frame, not some 20 years from now.

[Squareman357]

That does sound very promising.  288% gain in energy over that require to fuel the process is amazing.  Color me stupid, but what kind of "biomass" are they using to reclaim the hydrogen from?

[baldheadeddork]

That does sound very promising.  288% gain in energy over that require to fuel the process is amazing.  Color me stupid, but what kind of "biomass" are they using to reclaim the hydrogen from?

They said cellulose and glucose in the article, which would primarily mean grain and fruits or their byproducts, but they said that was an example. If you can use this with all biomass products, that means everything that decomposes.

[Mac]

Dam, this could be the energy breakthrough we need to change the world.

[RexRider]

Fingers crossed, but not holding my breath just yet...  

[chornbe]

They said cellulose and glucose in the article, which would primarily mean grain and fruits or their byproducts, but they said that was an example. If you can use this with all biomass products, that means everything that decomposes.

SOYLENT GREEN IS MADE OF PEOPLE!!!

[traveler]

Certainly does sound intriguing. Hope something comes of it, and soon. But, I wonder if big oil is already trying to buy, or already own the rights to it. They have for a long time invested heavily in other forms of alternative energies, yet oil/gas remains the base energy for the planet. Just wondering.

[shah269]

Certainly does sound intriguing. Hope something comes of it, and soon. But, I wonder if big oil is already trying to buy, or already own the rights to it. They have for a long time invested heavily in other forms of alternative energies, yet oil/gas remains the base energy for the planet. Just wondering.

The black helecopters will be at your home shortly to pick you up and carry you off on an all expence paid vacation to GITMO.

[highside]

How much energy is spent to contain and grow or acquire the necessary biomass?

[jed]

Hmmm,  "electron-generating bacteria and a small electrical charge in a microbial fuel cell to produce hydrogen gas."

bacteria and microbial fuel cells lead me to think that in the short term this ain't going to be scalable.  And besides this kinda reminds me of the pod thingys that people were farmed in from the Matrix....

Still holding out for high effiicency solar:

http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/31/2034239

Renewable Energy Access is reporting that a consortium led by researchers at the University of Delaware has achieved 42.8% efficiency with a silicon solar cell. The method uses lower concentration (factor of 20 magnification) than the previous record holder (40.7% efficiency) so that it may have a broader range of applications, since tolerances for pointing the device will be larger. They are now partnering with DuPont to build engineering and manufacturing prototypes. They expect to be in production in 2010. On a roof, such cells would require less than half the surface area to produce the same amount of power as today's standard solar panels, which have an efficiency of about 17%."

Whatever wins the race has got to be scalable, simple to maintain, durable, and require minimum operator intervention.

[2wTraveler]

This may be a silly uneducated question...If the byproduct of Hydrogen fuel powered vehicles is water. Do they plan on each vehicle trapping its waste water in some sort of onboard tank, or will it just pour into the atmosphere like a gasonline engines exhaust? I am more concerned about having to ride my motorcycle on a soaking wet highway all the time due to these alternate fuels vehicles....just a thought.

[shah269]

How much energy is spent to contain and grow or acquire the necessary biomass?

Ah I live in the north east and man there is bio freaking mass all over the dam place!
Freaking grass cutting and fallen leaves. Ok it's not huge but I'm sure that and all the unused parts from corn and grane production would help?
As for the exhaust being water, well it would be pure H20....so I guess you could collect it? But it wouldn't be huge masses of water on the streets. But the major issue wouldn't be the water but the ice that would cover our roads!
So i guess we would all have to ride around on BMW GS's with spiked tires! Woo hoo!

[baldheadeddork]

How much energy is spent to contain and grow or acquire the necessary biomass?

Depends on how many subsidies you can get attached to it, and how much of it is grown in an early primary state....

But seriously, the cool thing about gathering any energy from biomass is that it works great with the stuff we throw away now. You could use crop scraps, garbage...in addition to high cellulose crops like switch grass that don't require a lot of fertilizer and are perennials, which further cuts down on the amount of fuel needed to grow them.

[jed]

This may be a silly uneducated question...If the byproduct of Hydrogen fuel powered vehicles is water. Do they plan on each vehicle trapping its waste water in some sort of onboard tank, or will it just pour into the atmosphere like a gasonline engines exhaust? I am more concerned about having to ride my motorcycle on a soaking wet highway all the time due to these alternate fuels vehicles....just a thought.

Prolly released as vapor, much like the water produced internal combustion engines.

With the exception of using pure H or natural gas I'm seeing one thing in common with all the alternative energy solutions.  They all produce electricity.  Electricity needs to be stored in batteries.  Me thinks it would be a good time to do Due Dillegance in battery manufacturing techniques, storage capacity, environmental impacts, longevity, etc., and small up and coming companies that are pushing the envelope.

No mater what source wins the green war the juice is going into batteries of some sort.

[baldheadeddork]

Hmmm,  "electron-generating bacteria and a small electrical charge in a microbial fuel cell to produce hydrogen gas."

bacteria and microbial fuel cells lead me to think that in the short term this ain't going to be scalable.  And besides this kinda reminds me of the pod thingys that people were farmed in from the Matrix....

I think you've got a point. It is hard to see something like this taking the place of something like an oil refinery or a large electrical powerplant. If for no other reason, simply transporting the biomass materials to one central point would remove a lot of the efficiency.

But what about using thousands of small facilities using this at the local collection points for biomass, either to generate hydrogen as a vehicle fuel for local distribution or to fuel small generating stations that would plug into the grid?

[Mac]

I agree, battery tech is way behind the rest. Lithium ion is the best as of now, but it only is about 4 to 5 times as efficient as lead acid.

[jed]

I think you've got a point. It is hard to see something like this taking the place of something like an oil refinery or a large electrical powerplant. If for no other reason, simply transporting the biomass materials to one central point would remove a lot of the efficiency.

But what about using thousands of small facilities using this at the local collection points for biomass, either to generate hydrogen as a vehicle fuel for local distribution or to fuel small generating stations that would plug into the grid?

If this could be scaled to run with minimum user supervision (no lab coat and PHD required) at farms, landfills, or even households I think this would be a great alternative.  I don't think would win the majority of the market share but it could easily supplant existing H extraction processes and reduce the cost of bulk H which would in turn lower the entry barrier to H based fuel technologies.

I wonder if each microbial fuel cell needs to be wired in or if they are autonomous entities that intermingle with the biomass supply.

Did they say how long it takes to yield X grams of H from Y grams of biomass?  I wonder if the stuff has to ferment before being sparked.

[kurtw]

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=110648&org=NSF&from=news

[veefer800canuck]

I'm still holding out for one of these:










 

[Ant]

I'm still holding out for one of these:

Bastard! You beat me to it as soon as I saw biomass, electricity and running on rubbish  

[Johnny Busa]

"This process produces 288 percent more energy in hydrogen than the electrical energy that is added in the process," said Bruce Logan, a professor of environmental engineering at Penn State.

Ummm...bullshit.  Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but wouldn't that violate the laws of thermodynamics ?  

[highside]

"This process produces 288 percent more energy in hydrogen than the electrical energy that is added in the process," said Bruce Logan, a professor of environmental engineering at Penn State.

Ummm...bullshit.  Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but wouldn't that violate the laws of thermodynamics ?  

Your reading it wrong. Electrical energy is assisting the release of the existing energy within the biomass. Its not a "creation" of energy but an alteration of inert energy into usable energy.

[Johnny Busa]

Your reading it wrong. Electrical energy is assisting the release of the existing energy within the biomass. Its not a "creation" of energy but an alteration of inert energy into usable energy.

ahh.. my mistake.  Utilizing stored energy within the biomass.

[Headmanbrewing]

"This process produces 288 percent more energy in hydrogen than the electrical energy that is added in the process," said Bruce Logan, a professor of environmental engineering at Penn State.

Ummm...bullshit.  Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but wouldn't that violate the laws of thermodynamics ?  

An analogy might be a pile of tinder is the cellulose and a lit match is the electrical part.  A single match makes it possible for the pile of tinder to go up in flames, releasing more energy than the match used.

[fjralex]

New battery technology... how about this: http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news-betavoltaic-10.1.html

Interesting enough, remember those advanced batteries that pushed the 1997 toyota RAV4-EV electric vehicle 120 miles on one charge.  They leased those cars back in 1997-2000 but then swiftly pulled them back without the option of purchase.  Well Texaco purchased the division of Panasonic that created those batteries in 2000, then a few weeks later, Oct 16, 2000 Chevron merged with Texaco then turned around and sued Panasonic for 30 million.  Guess what.  They won the lawsuit and had to pay Texaco/Chevron.

Now, 10 years later, Bush is pushing for cars that can make it 20-40 miles on a charge.  Thank godness that Chevy will be able to create the Volt. (capable of up to 60 miles per charge)  

[Walker]

hmmm, been a while since I studied biochemistry and organic / physical chemistry and microbiology.  However:  I'm still on the fence about a 288 percent release of energy.  Cellulose molecules are polysaccharides, with 6 carbon rings in a beta-D glucose ring, joined by oxygen bonds when removing an H20 between the rings.  While there are several hydrogens that could be severed from the cellulose, this won't completely consume the cellulose, and creating the enzyme to hydrolyse the chains and break the hydrogen bonds will cost the bacterium energy.  I just can't see there being that much energy inherient in the system to rate such a large free release of energy from the system, and certainly not as scalable as they suppose.  Not to mention that I'm sure they aren't accounting for the energy it would take to transport and compress the H2 gass created.

I have engineer friends (us engineers in various industries love to talk shop) working in the potatoe processing industry who have all told me of the extreme difficulty they have keeping large scale 'digestor' biotic processes on line and functioning.

Personally, if you want hydrogen, I believe that this is the most realistic solution with technology available today:  http://www.ans.org/pi/matters/docs/hydrogen.ppt
http://www.ans.org/pi/matters/hydrogen/

[jed]

I believe the 288% is in reference to traditional H generation using electricity -- i.e. you get a yield 288% greater using this method instead of the traditional method.  Not 288% more energy but 288% more H per volt consumed.

Those batteries look cool, except that Tritium isn't exactly apple pie and chocolate chip cookies.  It'll be interesting to see how this tech gets shelved.

[baldheadeddork]

Personally, if you want hydrogen, I believe that this is the most realistic solution with technology available today:  http://www.ans.org/pi/matters/docs/hydrogen.ppt
http://www.ans.org/pi/matters/hydrogen/

The only problem with nuclear is that its not economically viable without massive subsidies to build the powerplants.

[Walker]

The only problem with nuclear is that its not economically viable without massive subsidies to build the powerplants.

Ummm... well, speaking as an expert in this industry, I call bullshit.  

My plant was built with a public bond, and we supply our member public utility districts via the power grid run by the federal government (Bonneville, very similar to TVA) at cost.  That bond will be paid free and clear during our last two years of our current operating license.  Currently, our power is worth about $2 million per day on the market.  That means that my plant is going to net about $1.5 billion dollars during its last two years of operation on the current license, and again, my plant is public power, not run for profit.

But wait!  There's more!  We are in the process of applying for a 20 year license extension.  That means that my plant will be on line and operating until the year 2044, all of that debt free from the original construction bond, providing power to our rate payers AT COST, nonprofit, the way all public power works.  

I suggest you do some research my friend.  It doesn't matter what method of power generation you choose, or any other public structure.  They are ALL built with a large 'subsidy', which is in the form of a public bond or levy.  After that initial capital investment and amortized O&M costs, the service is provided to the public at cost, nonprofit, and the bond is repaid.  This is the way that public power works, whether it is dams, coal plants, natural gas, wind turbines, whatever.  (Point of fact, my company also runs the country's largest public power windfarm).

Now for nonpublic power entities, 'for profit' nuclear fleets such as Entergy, Exelon, First Energy, Duke, etc that originated after deregulation, they are running their plants for profit, which means that ALL O&M costs they have to pay for regardless, and while many of the plants that they currently own may have been built under a public bond when the power industry was previously ALL public power before deregulation, they still had to purchase the plant from the previous owners at whatever the negotiated price was.  Some plants that are still owned by public power groups are also currently operated and managed by some of these fleet operators, for instance Entergy currently manages Cooper Nuclear Station, which is owned by Nebraska Public Power District.  

(Personally, having lived in parts of the country under deregulated power companies, and your electricity is more expensive.  I'm really a big believer in public power, because the 'for profit' companies have a legalized monopoly on your business.  For a free market economy to work properly, the consumer must have freedom of choice, which you absolutely DO NOT have in those areas... at least with public power, you have a vote, and the mandate of all PUD's is to provide electricity at cost, as opposed to the cost of power plus profit margin.  Granted, some PUDs are more efficient than others.  But this is a competely different topic for debate... back to my original argument...)

There are some consortiums that have been created to build new nuclear power plants, most notably the Nustart Consortium, that have been formed to persue new construction and operating licenses.  While they are expected to receive some government monies, these are being paid through the Dept. of Energy's 2112 initiative, and is ONLY for the cost of the construction and operating license with certain restrictions being imposed by the DOE.  These monies do not include the actual cost of contruction of any specific plant.  We're talking about a budget of a couple million, not the hundreds of millions that it actually takes to construct a plant.  That cost will be footed solely by the consortiums / individual companies.  It is a HUGE capital investment, but then again, with power worth in excess of $2 million or more per every DAY of operation, on a 40 year operating license, if you do the math you see that they are looking at huge profits when amortized over 40 years for a standard operating liscense, 60 years with a 20 year license extention granted by the NRC.

In fact, the South Texas Project recently applied for a combined construction and operating license to build two new ABWR plants (Advanced Boiling Water Reactors).  The government has not subsidized this license application at all, as the DOE 2112 initiative had some specific requirements that are not being met by this application.  However, this is the first new application for a license since 1979, and there are 31 other applications waiting in the wings.

And just so you understand, the license application processes, while it has been streamlined, is a HUGE cost involving massive manhours of engineering analysis that is IMPOSED by the government (NRC), not paid for by the government.  

The nuclear power industry has not received any federal government subsidies since way back in the day when the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 was created to promote the peaceful use of nuclear power worldwide.  Today, the operating budget of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is established by Congress, and they are actually mandated to generate a percentage of their budget via fines imposed upon the nuclear operators.  We call it regulation by extortion.  They are litterally traffic cops with quotas.  

So really, you ought to do more homework before you make such statements.  Your argument that it isn't cost effective is so far off the mark its laughable.  The problem is getting over the huge initial capital investment, and most people are too short sighted to have the patience to look at a 40 year amortization on capital costs as being profitable.  Did I mention that my plant's power is worth $2 million per day?

[baldheadeddork]

The nuclear power industry has not received any federal government subsidies since way back in the day when the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 was created to promote the peaceful use of nuclear power worldwide.  Today, the operating budget of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is established by Congress, and they are actually mandated to generate a percentage of their budget via fines imposed upon the nuclear operators.  We call it regulation by extortion.  They are litterally traffic cops with quotas.  

So really, you ought to do more homework before you make such statements.  Your argument that it isn't cost effective is so far off the mark its laughable.  The problem is getting over the huge initial capital investment, and most people are too short sighted to have the patience to look at a 40 year amortization on capital costs as being profitable.  Did I mention that my plant's power is worth $2 million per day?

No, you should do your homework. This is from 2005, not 1954.

The industry is optimistic about new plants, because last year's energy bill contains sweeteners that are certain to tempt once-timid investment dollars into the nuclear game. The licensing process has been streamlined, and the government will guarantee certain debt payments caused by unforeseen delays.

Plus, there's a production tax credit of $18 per megawatt hour. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, that translates into $5 billion to $6 billion of economic benefit. Since the construction cost of a new plant will be about $1.8 billion, tops, returns could be 30% to 36% from tax benefit alone.

[Walker]

No, you should do your homework. This is from 2005, not 1954.

This is a TAX CREDIT, not a subsidy Dork!  There is a huge difference.  The way this works is that if say my plant's power is being sold on the market at $195 per megawatt hour, then the Fed will knock $18 off that and only tax us as if we produced it at $177 per megawatt hour.  Which means that the Fed will only tax us $62 per megawatt hour, not $68.25 per megawatt hour.  It is an incentive in other words.  Hopefully our O&M costs would be $15 per megawatt hour, which leaves us with $115 per megawatt hour to pay the principal and interest on our original capital investment...

The reason that the Fed is willing to give this tax credit is to spur the industry to commit that huge amount of capital towards new construction.  The reality is that my industry also recognizes that those tax credits could easily vanish with a new administration and a penstroke.  That doesn't mean that it is unfeasable or not profitable!  You argument is still non-existant.  What has been keeping my industry back from new construction is risk:  financial and political.

Regardless, I also believe that the nuclear industry deserves a tax credit, considering that it is a non-emmitting method of electricity generation.  The coal and petro chemical / natural gas industry has gotten a free ride off of the environment for far too long.  If they were forced to pay a 'carbon' tax like has been proposed, they would no longer be economical at all.

If you want to look at subsidies and tax credits, look no further than 'green' power.  I can tell you that without the tax credits my company receives for its wind power, that method of generation would not be a good investment at all.

Also, it really doesn't amount to spit since that estimated 5 - 6 billion will be compiled over a 40 year lifespan.  Also, with the use of a combined construction and operating license, and using one of the two 'cookie cutter' approved designs (Westinghouse AP1000 or GE ABWR), the construction cost quoted here is overstated.  They are basing those numbers on cost overruns that were common during the '70's era construction and startups, much of that was due to the NRC regulations and requirements being a moving target after Three Mile Island, and due to labor disputes.

[baldheadeddork]

This is a TAX CREDIT, not a subsidy Dork!  There is a huge difference.  The way this works is that if say my plant's power is being sold on the market at $195 per megawatt hour, then the Fed will knock $18 off that and only tax us as if we produced it at $177 per megawatt hour.  Which means that the Fed will only tax us $62 per megawatt hour, not $68.25 per megawatt hour.  It is an incentive in other words.  Hopefully our O&M costs would be $15 per megawatt hour, which leaves us with $115 per megawatt hour to pay the principal and interest on our original capital investment...

Tax credits are absolutely subsidies. It is money that the recipient doesn't have to pay because of a special exemption carved out for them. The overwhelming majority of corporate welfare in the US comes in the form of tax credits. In this case, it is $5-$6 billion dollars by the accounting of the nuclear industry itself.

[Walker]

A tax credit is not a subsidy.  A subsidy is money paid up front, freely given, not even a loan.  A tax credit is a incentive to produce more business, which could easily go away from one year to the next.  Furthermore, what you call 'corporate wellfare' I call a fair shake from an otherwise overwhelming tax.... 35% of every dollar that a for profit company would make would have to go to the Fed.  Of course this doesn't apply to my company, since we are a Joint Operating Agency of Washington State with 19 member PUDs on our executive board.  (Tax exempt in other words).  This also would not apply to the Nustart consortium regarding TVA's involvement either, since they are an agency of the Federal Government.  Tax exempt in other words.

But we are still far afield.  You're original statement was:

The only problem with nuclear is that its not economically viable without massive subsidies to build the powerplants.

You are still way offbase.  Let me put it to you in very simple math:  
Construction Cost:                            - $3 Billion (with interest)
O&M costs over 40 years:                  -  $4 Billion (including labor, high estimate)
Taxes paid to the Fed over 40 years:   - $14 Billion (WITHOUT tax credit)
Worth of the power for 40 years generation:  + $40 Billion (Way over conservative estimate!  The reality is that this estimate could safely be doubled.)

Net:       + $19 billion dollars profit generated over a 40 year plant lifespan.

If you extend the operating license another 20 years, then:

- $3 Billion Construction
- $6 Billion O&M with labor
- $15.75 Billion in taxes (without the tax credit)
+ $60 Billion in power

Net :  $30 Billion in profit for one plant.  Hard to believe that a company today would pursue such skimpy profit margins on such a long term investment...

But then again, there's always Public Power, which wouldn't be operating on any profit margin at all...
You still claim it isn't economically viable?

[tripledigits]

 I'm waiting for a nuclear powered bike.  1 fuel rod will last for 60 years.  The lead seat might be a bit uncomfortable.

[jed]

Didn't the voyager spacecrafts use nuke batteries of some sort?  They're still plugging away.

[flips to google]

Ahhhh

A radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG) is a simple electrical generator which obtains its power from radioactive decay. In such a device, the heat released by the decay of a suitable radioactive material is converted into electricity by the Seebeck effect using an array of thermocouples. RTGs can be considered as a type of battery and have been used as power sources in satellites, space probes and unmanned remote facilities. RTGs are usually the most desirable power source for unmanned or unmaintained situations needing a few hundred watts or less of power for durations too long for fuel cells, batteries and generators to provide economically, and in places where solar cells are not viable.

[katzke]

I can extract gas from biomass ... just feed me beans!  

[Dichotomous]

I can extract gas from biomass ... just feed me beans!  

I'm doing this right now, and my coworkers are not impressed with my wifes beans and hotdogs