New Catalyst Can Produce Hydrogen Efficiently from Biofuels
This week is turning out to be a good one for the discovery of new catalysts. First we had catalysts to clean up toxic pollutants, and now researchers at Ohio State University say that they have developed a catalyst to make hydrogen from ethanol at 90% efficiency at only 350 C (a low temperature in biofuel industry standards). The low temperature will bring both cost and energy savings.
Ohio State University professor Umit Ozkan says that the catalyst is significantly less expensive than others being developed because it does not contain precious metals. Instead, it contains cerium oxide (a common ingredient in ceramics) and calcium.
- » See also: US Arpa-E Funding Enlisting Cyanobacteria to Make Fuel For Humans
- » Get CleanTechnica by RSS or sign up by email.
Ozkan believes that the catalyst could be used in a “distributed production” strategy. Instead of making hydrogen from biofuels at a central facility and taking it to gas stations—thus increasing energy expenditure—the catalyst could be stored inside reactors located at gas stations.
The OSU team is also looking at ways to use the catalyst with liquid biofuels besides ethanol.
While we have a long way to go before hydrogen cars become mass produced, this is an interesting step in making them just a little more viable.
Posts Related to Biofuels:
- Algal Fuel One Step Closer to Becoming a Conventional Oil Alternative
- Solazyme Hopes to Mass-Produce Algae Biodiesel in Three Years
- First Algae Biodiesel Plant Goes Online: April 1, 2008 : Gas 2.0
- Chevron Backs Solazyme’s Algae Biodiesel Production Process
Why does this article exist with so many obvious missing details? What is the energy cost for making hydrogen? How big a loss of energy compared to just using ethanol?
“they have developed a catalyst to make hydrogen from ethanol at 90% efficiency at only 350 C”
So why not just use the ethanol directly, and save on the inefficiencies in converting to hydrogen?
Mel –
Hydrogen has two major advantages over ethanol. First when burned it only produces water and no greenhouse gases. Secondly, it canned be packed for a better energy density, improving fuel economy over ethanol (which actually less energy dense that normal gas).
It’s true the process to turn ethanol to H2 produces greenhouse gases –methane, CO2, but the methane is trapped and burned to fuel the process eliminating it, and the carbon is harmlessly sequestered by the production equipment, according to researchers.
An energy cost estimate would be pretty useless at this point, as the technology is still in the experimental stage. It will probably be at least 10 years before this might see industrial-scale production, so you’ll have to wait for it.
To give an idea of the cost savings, though the catalyst previously used, Rhodium cost $9,000 an ounce, while the new catalyst costs around $0.25 an ounce.
There are many hydrogen options — some algae have been bred to produce hydrogen, there’s also metal catalysts in water that have been tested. Also, electricity from solar/wind/geothermal can fuel electrolysis of water, which can also produce hydrogen.
Gabba –
Read above. Remember this is just one of several methods being considered. But its worth consideration and the catalyst savings certainly make it more viable.
Cheers,
Jason @ DailyTech.com
Additional Reading:
http://www.dailytech.com/Suprisingly+Solid+New+Compound+Promises+Better+Hydrogen+Storage/article11342.htm
http://www.dailytech.com/Purdue+Develops+Alloy+For+Commercially+Viable+Hydrogen+Production/article10805.htm
http://www.dailytech.com/Solar+Cell+Makes+Hydrogen+Via+Synthetic+Photosynthesis/article10735.htm
“it [hydrogen] can be packed for a better energy density, improving fuel economy over ethanol”
That’s rubbish.
First, liquid hydrogen is hydrogen in it’s most compact form. Yet ethanol has over twice the energy content of liquid hydrogen per volume.
Energy densities by volume:
Liquid hydrogen: 10.1
Compressed hydrogen (700 bar): 5.6
Ethanol: 24
Gasoline: 34.6
Second, stating that hydrogen has better fuel economy ignores the cost and loss of energy in:
1) converting ethanol to hydrogen
2) compressing, cooling, and maintaining the −423.17 °F temperature of liquid hydrogen
3) hydrogen “leakage” from cylinders
4) cost of cylinders
Rick - hydrogen has good energy density in ethanol in terms of weight, though it’s poor in volume - so it just needs a bigger storage tank.
Ariel, when you factor in the weight of a hydrogen cylinder, hydrogen is heavier than ethanol. I believe that even true for the lightest carbon fibre cylinders.
Here are some facts that I found about ethanol as a fuel, even the producers of the junk finaly admit to it. E-85 gets less MPG than gasoline. 4.8 fewer MPG or 26% so far there are only 14 places that excede that differance with a lower price at the pump so if you are lucky enough to live in those places and have a FFV then you can save money on fuel. This is a very low number. Now here are some other things to consider about ethanol fuel. It has to be shipped to the blending facilities via train, truck, or barge. All of those use petrolium fuels that are said to create more emissions. Pipelines could fix that but who is going to pay for them? Last time I checked the government has us 9 trillion dollars in debt. And I know there are much more important things they need to be spending our tax money on. (Fixing the roads, bridges, and the education system. Are just a few.) Here is a question that I can’t find the answer for, is the CO2 that is produced when sugar is fermented into ethanol figured into the cleanliness of this junk? So if one adds up all the emissions from all that goes into the production of ethanol and then the fact one burns more of it to go the same distance (The MPG) then it is NOT “GREEN”! This leads us to the debate of, is global warming real? My answer is possibly, but it is not as imminent as the money problems the United States of America faces. Some of the politicians are talking about a carbon tax or a cap and trade system for carbon. This is the dumbest idea since using ethanol as a fuel. The bottom line for all the fighting over carbon tax is if they get it, the working class (The largest percentage of Americans) will be working harder for less. Because if they get it the price of just about everything will go up. Wages haven’t kept pace with the raising prices, (AKA inflation.) for a long time and we just accept it and try to be happy. Everyone should be furious about this and when fuel prices get to $6 they will. Is there a better way? Just so happens yes there is. There are two in fact, one is Butyl Alchol, (AKA Butanol) it replaces gasoline up to and including 100%. Ethanol only achieves 85% and that is a lie too if you read the fine print it is really only about 70%. Butanol will work in any spark ignited internal combustion engine without modifacation. And as a bonus one production method also produces hydrogen as a byproduct. If it is that much better than ethanol why isn’t it in the news? Because the powers that be don’t make as much money from it. If they could make butanol in 1916 without even trying (They wanted acetone to be futher refined into gun powder.) then we can damn sure make butanol now! If all the money that is being wasted on telling us to use those stupid compact light blubs and that we are going to bake to death if we don’t, were to be spent on helping butanol get into mass production then we would all be better off. Also butanol can mix with diesel, thus helping extend the biodiesel production numbers and increasing the MPG of the engine burning the mix. Then there is biocrude on the horizon.
I’m sure there will be lots of debate over all of this and that is also a problem. Why is it that more negative things can be found about just about everything? I ask all the critics of the world, if you are going to find a problem with something then you better also find a better soulition. I think I did that. Problem: ethanol as a fuel. Solution: butanol and biocrude. Faster soulition liquid coal. Replace the coal power plants with capstone micro turbines (Check out the company, the product what it does and the cost differance. Then knowing that look at the price of it’s stock. Cheap now buy some of it now when it is cheap,(Incresing their funds to increase production, thus decreasing the price of the product.) help convince the “greenies” that reducing the poulition that coal power plants produce with the cleaner cheaper Capstone turbines is a win win win. It frees the coal to be liquafied and the clean can be achieved with a 30 some year old technology called brown gass. It saves a lot of money because the Capstone turbines can be located near the grid or can opperate without the grid, they also can provide further energy savings by using the heat from their exhaust to provide either heating or cooling for a building, thus saving money on conventional inefficient heating and cooling systems. And for those smart enough to buy the stock now when it is cheap they make money when Capston’s sales increase, thus increasing the value and price of the stock. Someone please get Warren Buffet this information I can’t find how to do it. ATTENTION GREEN BUILDERS CAPSTONE MICRO TURBINES AND SOY BASED EXPANDING FOAM INSULATION ARE THE WAY TO GO!
Think Different America Please.
[...] hurdles include energy storage, energy efficiency, transmission infrastructure and technology, hydrogen power, CO2 capture and sequestration, and producing bio-fuels at an industrial scale. Economics is also a [...]
C.A.N, butanol is only viable when produced from fossil fuels - so why not burn gasoline, propane, or natual gas directly?
Currently, ethanol isn’t very green, but it can be. Unlike fossil fuels, plants are carbon neutral and the process to make ethanol could be more environmentally friendly by using electricity from hydro, wind, geothermal, or solar.
Also, I don’t think Warren Buffet needs any investing advice from you or me. He’s the expert.