Chicken Feathers for Hydrogen Storage and Wind Power?

[NeilBlanchard]

Hi,

Let's not forget the other part of this: chicken feathers are a great low cost source for carbon fibers, to make into all sorts of things like wind turbine blades, cars, etc.

[ZeroFuel]

Originally Posted by dcb

But ZF, hydrogen is still a half-baked energy storage medium, no? You would be better off compressing air with the energy it takes to make hydrogen. I mean folks throw the term "renewable hydrogen" around, but the typical plan is a very inefficient use of electricity.

And, speaking of x-prize, ZF, how is making Carbamide from natural gas "zero fuel" anyway? It is an interesting way to carry energy, I will give you that much, but the hard part in making it "renewable" is left undone for the x-prize competition AFAICT.

i.e. How do you plan on separating the N from the O coming out of the industrial plant?

and How do you plan to make "renewable hydrogen"?

I do think it is a very interesting and unique approach, but would like to see how efficiently it compares to, say, LiFeP04 storage of "renewable" energy.



ob chicken: I wonder if I put a steam boiler on my rocket stove and started cramming feathers in there if it would burn anywhere near clean and make my bike move?

Hey dcb

I'll try to answer your questions the best I can, but you must remember ZF is proprietary & we have an NDA with the X prize. You can be rest assured this in not half baked , as the X prize had to take a close look at our fuel, infrastructure & business plan to accept Alternative Fuel Sciences & ZeroFuel into the competition. We at AFS applaud the X prize for their insight.

Components of ZF are: H2, N, CO2

H2 is produced primarily from steam reformation of natural gas, a fairly clean & cheap art. H2 can be produced from renewable also. One of our goals is to have the current art & the renewable producing side by side with the renewable eventually making all or most of the H2 for ZF. At that level ZF's GHG emissions is "0".

Another form of making H2 & using a valuable resource that is being totally wasted is stranded gas. Part of our business plan is to setup skid pad factories at the drilling sites that have stranded gas. Steam reformation can be performed & the N & CO2 is drawn from the atmosphere. You get solid carbamide (ZF), cheap & safe to ship.

Factories will give AFS continues N & CO2 feedstock to produce ZF. The CO2 is sequestered and only emitted upon combustion, producing a net "0" CO2 emissions.

The 2 fuels produced by the ZF on board decomposition process is NH3 & H2. NH3 emits N & H20, H2 emits H20.

By using the formulas given to us by the X prize for MPGe & WTWGHG emissions ZF will be a very competitive fuel during the competition.

So in summary ZeroFuel has solved:

Safety: non-toxic, non-flammable or explosive

Storage: "0" PSI, easy to transport, 0-0-0-0 DOT rated

Range: vehicle only limited by size of fuel tank

Emissions: "0", N & H2O

Sustainable: endless feedstock, does not interrupt food supply

Performance: can fit any consumer segment with NH3 130+ octane

Lowest cost per mile of any other fuel: with the above arts, & home filling stations able to buy in quantities.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by ZeroFuel

H2 is produced primarily from steam reformation of natural gas, a fairly clean & cheap art.

Clean? Crap. Pardon my bluntness, but unless they've changed the rules of chemistry, CH4 + 2H2O -> 4H2 + CO2.

[ZeroFuel]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Clean? Crap. Pardon my bluntness, but unless they've changed the rules of chemistry, CH4 + 2H2O -> 4H2 + CO2.

High temp CH4 + H2O → CO + 3 H2

Low temp CO + H2O → CO2 + H2

So, let me see if I understand you correctly.

You feel steam reformation is dirty & should not be performed. So you suggest we just keep the stranded gas (that is flared gas) burning, polluting, doing absolutely nothing, totally wasted. Or as AFS suggests, to use that stranded gas to produce H2 & ZeroFuel, an inexpensive, safe transportation fuel.

There's no choice & your comment is ignorant.

You seem like the kind of person that wants perfection, well your not going to get it with any transportation fuel.

[dcb]

Unfortunately, the mpge formula is a bit half baked. It is what allowed guys like hp2g to make 100+ mpg claims in an ethenol powered v8 mustang. It isn't "well to wheels", so efficiency and emissions in the supply chain can be ignored.

Just curious ZF, did you have xprize sign a NDA or did they have you sign one?

Also, what do you think about the whole hp2g fiasco? Do you think that targeting petrolium sources in part and using "free" steam conversion energies would put "ZeroFuel" in the same category as hp2g in peoples minds?

Don't misunderstand, I really do like the concept, it is definately out of the box. It is just that winning the PAXP based on a techincality would not be much to brag about, and I haven't seen that the proprietors of the contest are going to look beyond what is in the "gas tank" and choose the most efficient vehicle from there.

[ZeroFuel]

Originally Posted by dcb

Unfortunately, the mpge formula is a bit half baked. It is what allowed guys like hp2g to make 100+ mpg claims in an ethenol powered v8 mustang. It isn't "well to wheels", so efficiency and emissions in the supply chain can be ignored.

Just curious ZF, did you have xprize sign a NDA or did they have you sign one?

Also, what do you think about the whole hp2g fiasco? Do you think that targeting petrolium sources in part and using "free" steam conversion energies would put "ZeroFuel" in the same category as hp2g in peoples minds?

Don't misunderstand, I really do like the concept, it is definately out of the box. It is just that winning the PAXP based on a techincality would not be much to brag about, and I haven't seen that the proprietors of the contest are going to look beyond what is in the "gas tank" and choose the most efficient vehicle from there.

Hey dcb

There is a mutual NDA between X prize & the competing teams.

All teams right now are being judged on their business plan & technology. Part of the tech requirement was to estimate your MPGe & WTWGHG. They are using "well to wheels" with gasoline as the base line. They supplied a spreadsheet with all the fuels listed. We added the ZeroFuel information to it & the calculations were done automatically. I think with the formulas they have now you are not going to see the crazy MPGe number claims from the teams, & as far as I can tell they seem fair with ZF being competitive.

I agree, if a team wins by a technicality I would think the real $$$ people & OE's will not be fooled by this & will invest in the most viable tech. I am sure the X prize is aware of this & will control it.

I appreciate you appreciating how unique ZF is. We had to jump through more hoops then other teams as ZF was not an eligible fuel. Most teams are displaying some really nice cars & ideas. But the question is, can they sell enough to make a change? That is why ZeroFuel is truly novel & transformative, were in we can support any segment automobile & other industries.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by ZeroFuel

You feel steam reformation is dirty & should not be performed.

No, I don't "feel" this. It's just basic chemistry. Reforming the natural gas emits CO2 (even if it's as CO which is later burned to CO2). There's no way you can get around that.

"So you suggest we just keep the stranded gas (that is flared gas) burning, polluting, doing absolutely nothing, totally wasted. Or as AFS suggests, to use that stranded gas to produce H2 & ZeroFuel, an inexpensive, safe transportation fuel."

No, what I'm suggesting is either to leave the gas in the ground (preferrable), or if that's not an option, to use it directly instead of passing it through several steps of chemical processing, each of which (from basic thermodynamics) wastes some of the energy that's in the original gas.

You seem like the kind of person that wants perfection, well your not going to get it with any transportation fuel.

Perfection? No. Zero net CO2 emissions, yes. Otherwise what's the point?

[ZeroFuel]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

No, I don't "feel" this. It's just basic chemistry. Reforming the natural gas emits CO2 (even if it's as CO which is later burned to CO2). There's no way you can get around that.

"So you suggest we just keep the stranded gas (that is flared gas) burning, polluting, doing absolutely nothing, totally wasted. Or as AFS suggests, to use that stranded gas to produce H2 & ZeroFuel, an inexpensive, safe transportation fuel."

No, what I'm suggesting is either to leave the gas in the ground (preferrable), or if that's not an option, to use it directly instead of passing it through several steps of chemical processing, each of which (from basic thermodynamics) wastes some of the energy that's in the original gas.

Perfection? No. Zero net CO2 emissions, yes. Otherwise what's the point?

The problem is stranded or associated gas is being burnt off at hundreds if not thousands of drilling sites around the world. (Those are the flames you see at the top of the drilling rigs) It can not be stored or used for other purposes because of cost or location.

Well, if it makes you feel any better ZeroFuel is a net zero CO2 fuel as it only emits what is sequestered during production, and our X prize GHG #'s are very low. Plus, using renewable H2 brings our GHG to "0".

[dcb]

Originally Posted by ZeroFuel

Well, if it makes you feel any better ZeroFuel is a net zero CO2 fuel as it only emits what is sequestered during production, and our X prize GHG #'s are very low. Plus, using renewable H2 brings our GHG to "0".

These are some issues I could see with that position.
1. you are playing both sides of the fence, the petrol source and the renewable source. If there is a way to reclaim flare gasses efficiently and effectively, then we should do that thing certainly. Should we convert natural gas to carbamide to run our cars? Maybe not, if it isn't more efficient than using the ntural gas itself. Should we use what little renewables we have to crack hydrogen, so we can make carbamide, to put in cars? I'm pretty sure the answer is absolutely not, from a "well to wheels" perspective that would likely be most inefficient.

2. You are calling it a "fuel", but it is basically just storage of energy converted. Maybe by x-prize technicalities it is a fuel, but around here I think we like to examine the whole process that put the fuel in your tank in the first place, i.e.
If that process makes emissions, then they count (even if your car runs on batteries).
If it uses renewables, then it has to try to be most efficient with those renewables, above all else.

So you will have to forgive me if I do not debate this using xprize terminology. I do not agree with their methods and purposes if it means you can convert natural gas to something else and call that thing a "fuel" with "zero" net emissions.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hello,

It seems to me that the lowest carbon emission method for getting hydrogen is to use electrolysis with a renewable energy source, like solar and/or wind power. The method recently published by MIT that is nearly 100% efficient at getting hydrogen this way would seem to be a big help. The only significant carbon used/produced is in making the solar panels and/or the wind turbines.

A big side benefit of electrolysis mentioned by Mr. Wool (in the Science Friday podcast linked at the beginning of this thread) would be to also use the released oxygen to burn coal; making the resulting gas almost completely carbon dioxide -- which makes it easy to capture, at least.