Forget the hydrogen economy, go methanol!
 

"Scientists in Germany and Italy have discovered a way to derive hydrogen gas from methanol at low temperatures and pressures using soluble ruthenium based ‘pincer’ catalysts."
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/si...nation_630.jpg

Supercharging methanol for fuel cells

This seems a much better idea as it's sticking with a liquid fuel. One that can initially be made from natural-gas prior to more renewable sources coming on-stream.

...bet the "...soluble ruthenium based ‘pincer’ catalysts." ain't cheap?!?

But by definition, a catalyst is not consumed in the reaction.

Liquid fuels beat all gaseous fuels hands down, but natural gas production is currently consuming fresh water at an unsustainable rate, and causing way more pollution than we know or can handle.

Methanol is good stuff, especially for biodiesel production, bet we need to make it from something else, like cellulose.

When you refer to natural gas, are you quoting fossil natural gas? One thing that I consider a shame is that many biomethane is wasted at landfills and sewage treatment stations while all that fossil natural gas is extracted :mad:

My diesel is methanol ready.
Heck any diesel could use methanol to reduce diesel consumption for maybe $1000 right now.
Methanol is so much easier to make than ethanol.

Attempts to reinvent how we power personal transportation as the age of oil wains have time and again run into the brickwall of the fossil infrastructure that already exists. ~ for instance, even though pure BEV are perfectly useful today for over two-third of all journeys the average driver won't be even considering them as a second car.
- The thing I like the look of for this methanol tech is the infrastructure adjustments appear to be far easier, whilst issues like range anxiety and 'charging time' are sidestepped.

The methanol should not be produced from any fossil source ideally, that's a given. But realistically we need a way to give momentum to newer to technologies (momentum that hydrogen will never gain IMO [and for good reasons]), but personally I'd rather water that we can't be spared (in an ideal world) was used for turning a relatively low carbon fuel like NatGas into an efficient, workable road fuel than have fresh water [and NatGas!] consumed in, say, upgrading tar-sands; continuing business-as-usual!

I am not sure you are considering biodiesel.

UFO, as your signature asserts, "no oil for blood"... but the same is true if a rich minority of the world's pop. is going to steal the 'bread basket' from the poorest, surely?

To be fair, the future of energy is going to need to be much more diverse than the 20th century was, but unless a diesel or petrol replacement can be made today by means that won't be in competition with someone's arable land (like a way that the whole of the Sahara can be pumping out oil from captured sunlight) I don't see how we aren't going to require some fossil-fuels to make the transition - and natural gas is better than the others!

Biodiesel can be produced from algae and wastewater. Not bread. Natural gas is not better, it's a fossil fuel and it is consuming our fresh water to produce (far more scarce and valuable).

What are the global projected quantities that could be realised for producing Biodiesel "from algae and wastewater"? ... a tenth of current diesel use; a hundredth? - It's not so simple when looked at in these terms.
That's the 'well' part of the equation; what about the 'wheel'? - nice clean methanol (of what ever source) sloshing around in a fuel tank has the potential (via the tech above) to turn (I'd estimate) three-quarters of it's chemical energy into driving (via a fuel-cell/e-motor) the wheels -full cycle- ... biodiesel is only suited for an ICE and will be lucky to return one quarter chemical efficiency full-cycle; plus it does nothing to encourage wider changes in infrastructure, etc.

All of the current US transportation needs can be handled with algal biodiesel. Methanol is actually not nearly as energy dense as normal liquid fuel, however if a fuel cell can be made to be as efficient as you claim it could perhaps claim the same range as the same volume of biodiesel in an ICE. By the way, diesel engines currently are 40% thermally efficient, and combined with a hybrid technology can be even better. What's not to like about solar energy, be it biodiesel or methanol? There is room for both, and we don't have to sacrifice our water, our climate or our arable land.

I agree. There is nothing to dislike about capturing sunlight to turn it efficiently into fuel; liquid fuel especially. But I struggle to understand where all this algal biodiesel is going to appear from overnight - ? .. I should reiterate that methanol predominately from NatGas should pragmatically only be viewed as a stopgap whilst other renewable streams are encouraged to fulfil the longer term demand.

...A couple of points:
Are diesels "40% thermally efficient" for the averaged load conditions found in real-world driving? ...I suspect not [though obviously hybridisation can go some way to countering this].

Can you provide support for claiming that "All of the current US transportation needs can be handled with algal biodiesel" ? - So there is enough recoverable 'waste water' within her boarders (plus enough unused land) to process the millions of gallons of algae needed then? If your assertion is actually heavily focused on developing foreign processing 'ponds' as sources, what happens then? And what of the rest of the world; as it's needs expand?


"There is room for both, and we don't have to sacrifice our water, our climate or our arable land." - That's how I feel too, but I think, even though the political landscape is beginning to change, there is some major headaches in going all out straight for renewable-derived liquid fuels at present.

It's on wiki.

Algae fuel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To get back to the O.P.'s citation, it sounds like the intent is to reform the methanol at the point of use—at 65 on the freeway. :eek:

Algal biodiesel? Use one of the black governments nuclear powered subterrenes to tunnel from the Pacific to Death Valley, CA, below sea level; and use seawater in holding ponds. They move fast, it would take a few days.

You could extract energy from the temperature difference between the seawater and the valley floor to power the process.

Importantly it all happens on a small-scale at the membranes of the fuel-cell; so there is no free H2, just that which is only free to transfer ions across the cell junction with the outside air (as a straight H2 fuel cell would). The only difference is it cracks each of the three double-hydrogens off from the methanol (+ 1x H20) in three discrete events, but all at the junction of the cell.


....I hope I got that right! ~ I'm only reading about Hemp (to make bio-methanol), nothing else! :cool:

I've been reading about hemp-based biodiesel. The hemp fibers could also be used for other petro-chemical industrial purposes, replacing synthetic fibers such as nylon and even fiberglass in some applications :thumbup:

With Hemp or bamboo you can make food, clothing and shelter. Are there any other plants that offer so much?

I don't think you can make fuel out of bamboo.

Yes, it's possible. Any source of cellulose can be used to make fuel.

...something to remember: energy density (BTU per unit) is not the same as octane number (knock resistance). People keep mixing ethanol & methanol's higher octane numbers with diesels higher energy content...they ain't the same, nor are they compatible values.

Certainly... And a fuel-cell doesn't care what octane number the fuel has (or cetane #, or any other value related to combustion). It is true however that yes, the energy density of methanol (and to a lesser degree ethanol) is pretty damn low (at somewhat less than half of diesel) ~ the saving grace here though is the overall efficiency that could be returned for the full driving-cycle using fuel-cells of this type; offering efficiencies that IC engines (of any type or complexity) can only dream of.

Q: how many fuel-cell powered vehicles currently driving around?

A: not many!

I know, right? Reminds me of this:

Cool Planet | The only company producing carbon negative fuels based on plant photosynthesis to remove CO2 from our atmosphere

That is sort of my point when highlighting this fuel cell design...

That is, I've never been a fan of H2 fuel-cells for cars, actually because of the complete sea-change that would be needed in the 'gas station' infrastructure, and all the problems associated with piping it and storing it, or reforming it on site.... Now, admittedly some of these problems also apply to methanol but it is much closer to our current fuels. The other old hang up is that methanol has half energy per kilo (and, per litre) of petrol ... but this fuel-cell reports efficiencies close to that of a straight hydrogen FC, so it seems like the final big hurdle has been overcome.

How efficient we talking?

You can use hemp for just about anything - from home construction to clothing to fuel ... it's all down to breeding and harvesting / separating the right fibers for each task.

Real world low-temperature PEM cells regularly manage above 60% 'full-cycle' fuel efficiency, so these cells should be very close to them.

Do we have any operational examples of this technology?

Yes.
Straight hydrogen ~ Honda_FCX_Clarity, but only in very low numbers because it needs hydrogen filling-stations, that there is no economic incentive to build (or put in the production/delivery infrastructure).

There are also buses operating today that reform liquid fuel into H2 for their FCs onboard.

Obviously, the Rostock-led group is some years off fully commercialising this invention, but I predict that this tech and better BEVs will eventually replace IC engines, not hydrogen.

The fuel cell alone still costs more than most cars don't they?

The fuel-cells are still too expensive, altough they evolved a lot since the first experiences performed by GM in the 60's when it could be around 100 times more expensive than a comparable gasoline-powered vehicle.
workaround ideas to discuss among friends: Hydrogen as a fuel: a distant dream

Compare and contrast; other efforts to replace a century-old technology, the CRT, met with some success ~ in time:
"In 1997, Philips introduced a 42-inch (107 cm) display, with 852x480 resolution. It was the only plasma to be displayed to the retail public in 4 Sears locations in the US. The price was US$14,999 and included in-home installation."

...This thread was never supposed to indicate that we can expect 'fuel-cell car' sales to take off tomorrow; there's still quite a way to go before they begin to catch on.
What it is saying (or was having a go at predicting) is that, as one of the techs that may eventually replace the IC engine, the FC-engined cars a couple of decades from now will be far more likely to use a 'fuel tank' holding methanol than one containing [adsorbed] hydrogen.

The methanol-to-hydrogen converter is also not cheap, but considering the high energy expense to stock pure hydrogen with safety it would still eventually remain as a middle-to-long term viable alternative

Just for the record, this cell doesn't require a converter unit. The cell itself is inherently converting 'methanol-to-hydrogen' at the interface of the fuel-cell itself. ~ If this process can fulfil expectations by having efficiencies close to that of a straight H2 fuel cell then there will never be enough of an economic (or environmental) motive to warrant the expense of creating a hydrogen infrastructure anyway.

If it could also use CNG or LNG, that would be even more cost-effective, since many of the hydrogen is converted from Natural Gas :thumbup:

I don't know enough about the chemistry to say if a NatGas (well, methane) fuel-cell could be designed along the same lines as this one, but so far fuel cells (apart from hydrogen fuelled cells) have only found uses in static applications (or for relatively low-power tasks like those they're looking at for laptops).
I think it gets more challenging anyway with increasing molecular complexity, so for heavy duty power like road vehicles, it seems (presently) that all but hydrogen and this new methanol process are too bulky and too inefficient for cars, etc. ~ LPG would definitely be out, as it is a mixture of HC gases (a propane and butane mix); but butane alone would be better than methanol if a cell like the one described could work with it as it can be liquefied at lowish pressures and has a high energy density. ~ it's a huge 'if' though!

Fuel-cells seem to be still so far away from economic viability, at least for the next decade.

Yep.

Agreed. The future is still a battle between battery chemistry and fuel cells.

Meanwhile, as far as internal combustion engines go, I'd still keep the Diesels as a primary choice. Believe me, before becoming a dieselhead I used to be favorable to fuel-cells and 10 years ago I even used to think they would be economically-viable in 2015.

I dont think fuel cells will be able to power a on road vehicle with satisfactory performance with out batteries or capacitors.
A fuel cell powering the vehicle all by its self would have to be so big and expensive I don't see how it would be workable.

One thing I don't understand is why people have range worries. Get a charge trailer for longer trips.