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
This is an older Scientific American article (2009) but interesting; on storing solar power in molten salts.
They have a 93% round-trip efficiency; meaning they recover 93% of the energy used to melt the salts.
They also say electricity from a solar thermal plant costs about 13c per kilowatt hour; my understanding is that has been beat by 2c already. And it is not twice as much as electricity from a coal-fired plant, that is about 9c/kWh. So maybe 20-25% more.
Nevertheless, an interesting article, and impressive round-trip efficiency for storage. In the three years since the article, the molten salt solution described, sodium and potassium, is now proven to meet expectations.
Most interesting, Gene H. — a great thread.
Interesting, according to Wikipedia, anyway, Zinc is the fourth most common element produced in the world, behind Iron, Aluminum, and Copper. The USA is the fifth largest producer, Canada the sixth with a nearly equivalent amount.
So there is everything we need for the hydrogen economy; iron for steel and magnets, Aluminum for light weight and mirroring, copper for wiring and coils for electrical generation, zinc for hydrogen production.
We can relegate petroleum to its pre-1850 role, when it was nothing but a good, cheap, high temperature lubricant. In that role it is used in small amounts so demand is low (and price is low), and it is not burnt as a fuel, so it is not a significant source of CO2 or other greenhouse gases.
And, I believe, even with a zinc oxide cycle, or water electrolysis cycle, or any other storage medium, energy production becomes a local matter and produces jobs that require only a high school education, because it is maintaining simple engines, hydraulics, and machinery a common car mechanic could understand.
*************
Personally I think the key to breaking the grip of big oil is finding a way to make personal production a viable economic choice. Big projects that supply a city or state or country must be approved by politicians that are going to be corrupted by big oil, and even without corruption will be controversial expenditures among voters.
We have inadvertently given a cartel a monopoly over worldwide energy production, and we are suffering the effects of monopolistic pricing and practices. If we had an alternative, big oil cannot force us to buy gas, the coal companies cannot force us to buy coal-fired electricity. These behemoths are still subject to the laws of supply and demand. But their influence over politics means we cannot wait and hope for politicians to break out of their grip. Big oil will make sure, by hook or crook, there is never any government rejection of their dominance.
So I think what we need is personal production. For personal production to be a valid choice, we need some simple solar power generator that does not cost a fortune, does not use anything exotic, works on principles and mechanics an average American can understand, and is easily maintainable by the average plumber, electrician, or engine mechanic. (which would make my avid DIY family happy).
That is the strategic reason I lean toward old-school tech that (theoretically at least) could have been machined with tools and expertise commonly available circa 1960 or so. IMO that is about the level of tech we can count on being fully grasped by the common man, it is the level of tech where they can be confident in maintaining it, recommending it, or explaining to friends how it works. I want a system that is not dangerous, or toxic, or explosive, or at least not more so than the common household electrical panel, water heater or furnace.
Based on the descriptions I provided above on the power available using solar concentration, I do not think I am talking about an impossible product. The government may not let us connect to their grid, or sell energy back to them, but (at least where I live) it is not illegal to generate power by solar concentration, buy a bank of car batteries or something to store the power, and use the power in the house, or to recharge a plug-in hybrid car. (note that the batteries in a plug-in hybrid would be great for storage, and with a simple inverter could provide 120V A/C house power as well).
That is how we can defeat big oil and big coal. One house at a time generating their own power. I have near zero hope of big government projects ever coming to fruition or dealing with more than a small fraction of energy demand. What we need is personal production of solar electricity that can pay for itself in a reasonable amount of time, like ten years at most (IMO).
Kudos to Erik Koepf! The light at the end of the tunnel
We should note that the hydrogen technology, as well as the many other renewable energy technologies we have mentioned here, could have been in mass production by now if the government / corporations had taken good science seriously:
(1981 Climate Change Predictions Were Eerily Accurate).
TI,
Ah yes, Marxism, always a subject for discussion. Will you also bring us reports of philosophical nature from the phlogism discussions?
GeneH and TonyC,
Eating my porridge, I am now convinced that zinc oxide/water is no dettraction.
How, in all irreverence, I point out the danger to running out of zincoxide and the possible deleterious effect on sun bathers. Something to consider.
Science & Society does not adhere to any particular school of contemporary Marxist discussion, and does not attempt to define precise boundaries for Marxism. It does encourage respectful attention to the entire Marxist tradition, as well as to cutting-edge tools and concepts from the present-day social science literatures.
QUOTE “What if all that money had been invested in researching alternative energy sources instead of protecting big oil.”
It isn’t JUST big oil, we have 180,000+ war contractors, they benefit from big oil’s (and their) control of government/propaganda to start a war & drain the treasury dry.
And then we have ‘our people’ who put ‘their people’ in charge of a country after the oil/war contractors do their part in the great scheme of things. (Then they no doubt take the spoils of war…like the billions that went missing of Iraq money.)
There are a LOT of people in on this scheme.
I’m not a conspiracy nut, but I ain’t friccken stupid either!!!
Here is an interesting post over at Tom Dispatch, which says to us that sane environmental considerations, such as those discussed in this thread, are fantasy pure and simple in the U.S.eh?
That is why I commented as I did to D.S upthread.
@Gene, Idealist: I also do not see any particular disadvantage in adding zinc to the mix, since it is not used up in the process and is recycled in the process. It is, I think, still a closed system.
To me it is like water/steam in the Stirling; heat expands it, doing work condenses it, repeat that process. It is all the same atoms going round and round.
id707,
“The problem with the zinc/water system as I mentioned to Gene is the system does involve them, whereas the Stirling requires nothing extra.”
Extra is not a bad thing if you get greater efficiency or other benefit, especially in a case like this where the extra components of the process are non-toxic. Cost is tied to benefit in analysis for that very reason.
Tony,
Good point about the rare earth components in PVs. A huge economic disincentive.
That I had reason to point out thermal shock factor, was due to having had some knowledge of the measures taken to guard against such when giant glass blanks are poured and allowed to slowly cool into what will eventually be spy satellite optics. The temp gradient is one degree C. per hour. In some cases less.
Applied tech is fun.
I bypass having come back just now all posts just to speak to TonyC who addressed me. Have to go beddy bye as it’s after 12:30 AM.
TonyC.
Very impressive, terrific summary. The only controverse I see is your solution included embedded rails for inductive (I presume) electric power transfer in cities, etc with compressed air for gap coverage (with ev. “refills” as needed) for transportation needs.
This brings it into a highly contested politicised geographic area.
Your efficiency figures are I assume correct.
As I said before, the Dept of Water Resources in Calif. did use the low reservoir/high reservoir in crossing the Tehachapi mountains, pumping up the water at night using low rate net energy and letting it generate during the daytime at a better payrate.
The problem with the zinc/water system as I mentioned to Gene is the system does involve them, whereas the Stirling requires nothing extra.
To that I add my suspicion “Why was not this discovered before. re the Zincoxide/water system. It seems to me that any quantum chemist, Linus Pauling for example, could have figured this out 30 years ago. Why now?
And that’s not a challenge to GeneH or anyone else—only a question based on my low level of knowledge. I am neither chemist nor quantum anything.
I’ve always been a system man, starting in the sixties. And when folks can’t see the nose on their face I usually give them a mirror.
Witness the proud presenter of Ericsson’s new venture in chips, when he said the yield was kind of low, and then showed a photo showing them taking the stuff from the oven out into a room temperature.
I said have you ever thought of what happens when you put a ceramic oven dish on a stainless steel kitchen surface?
I’ll read the rest tomorrow.
Damn good subject GeneH. It covers well the complexities, but leaves for anon the politics out of the equation. Or does it?
@Bron: But why not just use photovoltaic cells?
Because they are expensive, and they require minerals (rare earths) to be efficient, and the known world deposits of all such minerals is only sufficient to address about 5% of the world energy needs.
It comes down to economics, manufacturing, and the rather mature technology of “mirrors.” A photovoltaic array is a highly detailed and fragile electrical device; the same area covered with a shaped mirror is not; it can be stamped out, sprayed, and done, a square foot focuses 75 watts of energy. Thus far it has been impossible to make photovoltaics as cheap as that, or as efficient as that without using very expensive alloys, rare elements, and exacting production processes.
D.S 1, April 7, 2012 at 1:54 pm
Exciting tech news, however the idea of nationalizing, barring, or not allowing petrol companies to invest in the new tech is highly irrational. Yes there are special interests that abuse power but it is not like it’s just oil companies abusing the environment, influencing govt etc. nationalization is a terrible idea, competition is what drives prices lower(not to mention a stable currency). I hope it works and he allows public access to the design then there can be no monopoly and anyone is free to purchase and use the tech which would allow the benefits to be the most well dispersed and keep prices low.
================================================
One of my pet peeves is that we do not recognize the institutionalization of madness in our society (The Peak of Sanity, see also Why We Love Sociopaths).
Gene H. 1, April 7, 2012 at 5:37 pm
Research demonstrates that activated carbon could store hydrogen at room temperature
Dredd, while I’m not opposed to methanol, the problems you point to with hydrogen are engineering problems, some of which are being addressed now and will be better addressed as materials technology evolves. This is a fine example of what I was just telling Tony about attractiveness of various solutions for various applications. Methanol fuel cells make more sense for automotive applications, but in industrial applications, the benefit of higher energy density and efficiency in hydrogen makes more sense for centralized generation plants. Different tools for different jobs.
================================================
Good point.
For those interested, here is a video discussing what is going on at Fukushima, pointing out that the Japanese are in revolt against nuclear power plants (53 are shut down): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwO3MDfUeRo&feature=player_embedded
Bron,
You’re welcome. As to PVs?
Inefficiency is the short answer. Although photo-voltaic cells are becoming more efficient every day, they’d have to go a long way to be as efficient as hydrogen. Even though I expect advances in materials sciences will make PVs more attractive and practical than they are now, I’m pretty sure they’ll never be as efficient as something like this due to heat retention/disposal if nothing else.
Good question, pete. I would think that is a question that will be answered by later testing, but I suspect at this stage they are using purified water for control purposes if nothing else.