by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
Science and society are common topics of discussion here. As frequently noted on this blog, a great number of our foriegn policy and domestic economic headaches could be made to go away if we were not dependent on foreign oil or oil at all. Alternatives have been discussed, but one of the most promising technologies – hydrogen – has time and again run into the issue of how to manufacture carbon-free or clean hydrogen. A new technology developed by doctoral student Erik Koepf working out of the University of Delaware and currently being tested in Switzerland shows promise of delivering hydrogen production free from carbon dioxide and other undesirable emissions.
Traditional methods of manufacturing hydrogen involve fractionating natural gas. This process negates any benefit of burning the hydrogen because the volume of carbon dioxide released in the manufacturing process is comparably as polluting as burning traditional fossil fuels. Koepf’s process essentially involves super heating zinc oxide via solar concentration in a cylinder filled with layers of ceramic and ultra-high temperature insulation materials. Zinc oxide is a benign substance similar to baking soda. Once a high temperature is achieved – in the test, a temperature of 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit or approximately 1/3 the temperature of the surface of the sun will be used – a gravity fed system is used to introduce zinc oxide to the cylinder. This causes a chemical reaction that converts the zinc oxide into a pure zinc vapor. This vapor is catalyzed with water during the next step producing hydrogen and zinc oxide. Because one of the byproducts of the process is the primary catalyst for the process and possibly reusable, this has the theoretical benefit of being a self-sustaining process.
All of Koepf’s work up to this point has been on the design itself, building the prototype and building and testing the control systems of the prototype. April 5 marked the start date for six weeks of testing the reactor at temperature at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich. These tests will not only measure the reliability of the reactor mechanism(s) at temperature but measure the amount of hydrogen produced and help determine if the production rate merits taking the reactor design beyond the prototype stage and into an industrial scale test. Although Koepf’s work has been primarily funded by the Federal Transit Administration, he is currently working to patent his design through the University of Delaware’s Office of Economic Innovation and Partnerships. If this works, Erik Koepf could be a name that goes down in the history of science as someone who fundamentally influenced the world and likely for the better.
The question then becomes, if this works, how do we best proceed? Manufacturing facilities, safe delivery channels and safe storage facilities will need to be developed. Transportation and power companies will need to be incentivized to adopt hydrogen. Key to all is the manufacturing process.
Given that the oil industry directly used their improper influence over the Bush Administration to both force an invasion of Iraq – a country that did not attack us on 9/11 – and evade attacking Saudi Arabia – the country that did man and fund the 9/11 attacks but were and are business partners in the oil industry with the Bush family – if this technology does play out in providing a sustainable clean form of alternative energy, should we as a nation allow the oil industry to participate in the manufacturing and distribution of hydrogen given the heinous nature of their past bad acts? Should we nationalize hydrogen production and distribution? Should be create new monopolies discrete from the petroleum industry? Should we simply bar those bad actors from participating by force of law?
Once we overcome the supply issues for carbon-free energy, there is no reason we should allow the same corporate criminals currently running the oil industry to take over the (potentially) burgeoning hydrogen industry. They are known bad actors with a propensity to pursue profit over all other considerations including peace, human health, safety and welfare and the environment. We have options and at this early stage it is a pertinent and prudent time to consider those options if (and when) we can move forward with the first viable form of alternative energy. Which options should we consider? What do you think the best political and economic path to energy independence is once the technical barriers are breached?
What do you think?
Source(s): Geek.com, University of Delaware UD Daily, Phys.org
~ Submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
GeneH.
And you did not even mention the infrastructure costs which weaken the Stirling argument.
But I would still like the confirmation by a quantum chemist to elucidate the cycle. That hydrogen-oxygen bond is not to be dissolved for nothing.
And these magic temperature thresholds sound so familiar from charlatan schemes—-like the latest cold fusion one.
And that does not say anything about what you say, so if the hackles are going up, relax please. It is my scepticism after two “big deals” in the last years time, I am displaying.
Soon they will be tapping off the energy of ultra-fast neutrinos. Just a matter of getting the cables the right length. True?
PS
When the zinc oxide turns into zinc fumes where does the oxygen go? I mean how do you separate it from the hydrogen which is released when the pure zinc unites with the oxygen previously in the water form H2O?
I missed that.
“I didn’t say clean coal is a viable alternative presently. I said instead of killing a few hundred thousand people and squandering hundreds of billions of dollars for big oil interests, it might be better to invest in other alternatives. And given the amount of coal that exits in the continental United States, clean coal technology is worth researching.”
Equivocation. Now or later makes no difference to your assertion resing on using coal. Feel free to research all you like though, because the problem in hydrocarbons is their fundamental chemistry. There is no way to make them clean.
“Is burning oil polluting? How about developing filtration systems that capture as much of the carbon as possible, then bury the filters. Its not like oil and natural gas don’t release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.”
Already addressed and besides the point. Burying pollution isn’t eliminating pollution. It’s hiding it. The entire point of developing clean hydrogen isn’t just to replace coal but all hydrocarbon fuels including oil and natural gas (specifically mentioned in the article as the current source for most hydrogen produced). The core of the pollution problem is carbon. You aren’t going to solve the problem by using more carbon.
Gene H.
Are you being pugilistic? I didn’t say clean coal is a viable alternative presently. I said instead of killing a few hundred thousand people and squandering hundreds of billions of dollars for big oil interests, it might be better to invest in other alternatives. And given the amount of coal that exits in the continental United States, clean coal technology is worth researching.
Is burning oil polluting? How about developing filtration systems that capture as much of the carbon as possible, then bury the filters. Its not like oil and natural gas don’t release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Once again, pick your poison.
id707,
“The zinc oxide/water scheme have two supply elements, Stirling none.”
I don’t see an edge, but an equivalence. Non-polluting because of lack of toxic byproduct or not using toxic materials is still non-polluting. The difference is going to be in efficiency.
“The Stirling runs off of sun. Sunlight generated energy can be stored in compressed air, or in water generation plants where the water is stored in high reservoirs.”
The zinc-oxide reactor runs off the sun too. The sunlight is stored in hydrogen, a much more energy dense medium than compressed air.
Shifting the burden of proof is also a logical fallacy.
You’re the one claiming “clean coal” is a viable alternative by fiat. The burden of proof rides with the claimant. The proof is yours to make. I point to the fundamental chemistry of complex hydrocarbons as evidence that “clean coal” is a pipe dream. It’s a marketing term that does not change the chemistry of hydrocarbons which are polluting in use no matter what you do to them. It’s their chemical nature. Carbon has eight bonding points open on it in its purest form and unfortunately for humans, most of what it bonds to results in either directly toxic or otherwise environmentally damaging chemical compounds. Having such a large number of bonding points, carbon is a chemical whore too. Carbon sequestration isn’t clean either. It’s hiding the waste product just like burying nuclear waste. Out of sight may be out of mind, but it doesn’t make a pollutant suddenly not a pollutant.
I don’t care if you were Pope before you were an accountant. It’s irrelevant.
Try again.
Now I am back and can see AY2 playing his common sense card.
Even I with my lack of training can see his false dilemma fallacy.
The only thing which amazes me is that the American public went for all of George’s. Do you want another 9/11 or a war against terror?
What was that again George?
And our “best” minds, ie our lawyerly politicians went along with it. Assuming somebody was threatening their tenure, who would that have been???
Clean Coal??? Now that is the best joke I have heard repeated often, on Fox News.
GeneH.
TonyC still has the edge with the Stirling motor alternative, IMHO.
The zinc oxide/water scheme have two supply elements, Stirling none.
The compressed air scheme and subpavement electric grids in cities take care of the mobility need. The Stirling runs off of sun. Sunlight generated energy can be stored in compressed air, or in water generation plants where the water is stored in high reservoirs. A similar scheme was used in California in the Tehachapi Mountain water transport project. I had a short planning connection to it when it was in the prototype test stage of 3 competitors’ pumps and generators.
The sun gives us energy. Someday we’ll be able to use the chlorophyl cycle for energy purposes, than food of course and eneegy forests, etc.
Maybe TonyC has more on the pump/gen storage for non-solar hour generation.
Gene H.
Perhaps you need to make your case. I was an electrician before I was an accountant. Wait until the lights go out.
Fallacy of the false dilemma (a.k.a. a false dichotomy) and another appeal to emotion (also a logical fallacy), AY2.
I don’t know if you bothered to read this blog before you started posting, but a good many of us are professionally trained logicians and there are several gifted amateurs posting here as well. You’ll have to do better than that to make your case.
Gene H,
Basic question. Do you want heat in your house or not? A little bit of air pollution or freezing. Decide.
Dog farts don’t generate very much methanol. Just ask the French. They’re highly dependent on nuclear energy, the waste product of which they keep dumping in the ocean. It keeps pissing off Greenpeace.
“Would you rather freeze when there’s no electricity left. No water. No sewage.”
Appeal to emotion.
“I didn’t say to ramp up the coal plants right now.”
Okay.
“I said to invest in clean coal technology.”
I have yet to see any proof such a thing is possible yet alone exists. Coal is dirty by its very chemical nature as are all complex hydrocarbons. The problem is inherent in carbon. Any processing of it leads to some sort of undesirable byproduct when compared to clean hydrogen models (which produce water and/or water vapor as the primary byproducts at the point of consumption).
There is no such thing as clean coal. We are moving to natural gas. It is cleaner than coal and quite plentiful but there are other risks. Hopefully, natural gas only be an interim step. The stocks of coal companies are in decline. I think the market knows something.
Is that guy in Delaware the same person who was trying to capture dog farts but was forced to move to Spain because of some notion about rain and dog farts and that the rain there stays mainly in the plain? I know, long sentence, but that is the same guy that is now going to Swiss to test something to get it away from big oil. And big oil, by the way, already has the patent on dog farts as an energy source. Which, is how Blackwater, got its name.
Just A DogTalkin
Hi Guys,
Would you rather freeze when there’s no electricity left. No water. No sewage. Everything runs on electricity. I didn’t say to ramp up the coal plants right now. I said to invest in clean coal technology.
And yes, “clean coal” is an oxymoron.
Tony,
That energy independence is going to require a multifaceted solution is a given, but still one technology will dominate over the others. It’s the nature of the beast. Given that any form of clean hydrogen is essentially just borrowing water as a battery for solar energy, I see many advantages to hydrogen over the competition although its inherent characteristics make for novel (but by no means insurmountable) storage and transportation issues. “The real question in this arena is how efficient the zinc-oxide process is, the ratio of energy input to energy output.” True, but that is precisely why this (and any other) new method needs to be tested. Efficiency is critical when scaling up a process but especially when that process would be as ubiquitous as power production is in the modern world. Clean won’t make the economics work if we can’t get cheap to go along with it.
@AN2: Then critics are idiots that do not know what the hell they are talking about, and should have taken that high school physics class.
I do not believe coal is a viable choice for a clean energy. I will say that greenhouse emissions from coal are NOT unavoidable, but preventing and containing them makes the burning of coal far, far more costly as a source of electricity than simple, pedestrian thermal solar like Spain is producing.