Posted on 05/25/2007 9:24:25 AM PDT by HangnJudge
snip. Researchers at Virginia Tech, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), and the University of Georgia propose using polysaccharides, or sugary carbohydrates, from biomass to directly produce low-cost hydrogen for the new hydrogen economy.
snip. Using synthetic biology approaches, Zhang and colleagues Barbara R. Evans and Jonathan R. Mielenz of ORNL, and Robert C. Hopkins and Michael W.W. Adams of the University of Georgia, are using a combination of 13 enzymes never found together in nature to completely convert polysaccharides (C6H10O5) and water into hydrogen when and where that form of energy is needed. This “synthetic enzymatic pathway” research appears in the May 23 issue of PLoS ONE, the online, open-access journal from the Public Library of Science.
snip. The vision is for the ingredients to be mixed in the fuel tank of your car, for instance. A car with an approximately 12-gallon tank could hold 27 kilograms (kg) of starch, which is the equivalent of 4 kg of hydrogen. The range would be more than 300 miles, Zhang estimates. One kg of starch will produce the same energy output as 1.12 kg (0.38 gallons) of gasoline
snip. So it is environmentally friendly, energy efficient, requires no special infrastructure, and is extremely safe. We have killed three birds with one stone,” he said. “We have hydrogen production with a mild reaction and low cost. We have hydrogen storage and transport in the form of starch or syrups. And no special infrastructure is needed
(Excerpt) Read more at vtnews.vt.edu ...
The bad news is the enzymes can only be found in a specific camel that is indigenous to Iran, and cannot survive outside their small, contained ecosystem.
Now add in the price to convert it into a usable form for this process.
I ai’nt smart ‘nuf to cipher the math, however
Until the process is worked out,
the economies cannot be meaningfully calculated
The end state looks clean, but it’s the enzyme fabrication that’s got me going.
How many batches can they process before needing to be replaced; at what cost, the replacement of a 12 gallon tank, a recyclable pouch, a toxic nightmare?
Never judge a day by the weather
The best things in life aren’t things
Tell the truth - there’s less to remember
Speak softly and wear a loud shirt
Goals are deceptive - the unaimed arrow never misses
He who dies with the most toys - still dies
Age is relative - when you’re over the hill you pick up speed
There are 2 ways to be rich - make more or desire less
Beauty is internal - looks mean nothing
No rain - no rainbows
Hydrogen seems like a good option once the technology is there.
Will this actually come to market before a flying car in everyman’s garage?
Elephino (Cross between Elephant and Rhinoceros)
No, of course not. Once the process is better defined, then economies of scale kick in and the price starts to drop. Simultaneously, the price of gas will continue to rise. When those two lines cross, we can tell the princelings of Araby to go pound sand.
I wish I was in Po’ipu right now!
Then you just add a little chocolate and have a snack!
[Simultaneously, the price of gas will continue to rise.]
If anything cuts into the demand for gas, its price will fall. The same happens if supply is increased.
This is part of why alternative fuels that are feasible with $60 barrel oil have failed in the past. There was an “oil boom” in Colorado in the 80’s when it looked like oil shale could produce oil cheaper than the then-current price of crude. Then OPEC opened the spigot to increase supply, the price of crude fell, and the “boom” went “bust”.
If there is one thing government might intelligently do to promote alternatives, it would be to take the risk out of large scale development by guaranteeing a price it would purchase alternatives for — a price that is profitable, but still lower than the current price of crude. That would take the power away from OPEC.
Nearly purchased a home in Deland Florida once. Then on a rainy day i went to look at it and the wind was out of the North West. A stench like a sewer was eminating and I went over a hill to find a very large chicken farm. Man You want to smell something bad, about 20,000 chickens is the real deal.
Thanks, wasn’t aware Michigan was into sugar beets nor that so much was actually made into sugar.
Are we subsidizing the process?
I don't think we are, but I could be wrong. I do know that Michigan is the 4th biggest sugar producing state. Most people think of us as cars, which we are, but we are in the top 2 or 3 states in production blueberries, cherries, apples and many other crops. We are a big agricultural state.
When a kid I lived outside Saginaw for a year and another year in Walled Lake.
Last year I went to Macinac Island and then drove south through the state. Very Beautiful but then I stayed out of Flynt and Detroit.
Alternatives are a joke a myth a way of confusing and diluting the efforts of science and technology. Oil is the engine. We have spent the better part of 100 year investing in what takes us where we want to go. That technology and the infrastructure to find ship produce deliver, and use is not going to change any time soon, unless there is a sudden quantum leap. Even with the quantum leap a 100 year industry is tomorrow going to fold and the new tech just jump into our cars and power them. This kind of thinking is not thinking.
The problem is anti business anti progress environmentalists who have for half a century sought to bring industry and the engine that drives it, to its knees and under the control of those who place the earth on a higher plane than those who inhabit it. We develop what we now have as the source of road power and we do it without the restrictions that have limited our ability to drill everywhere there is oil. Period, no debate. Refineries to refine, everywhere they are needed, now, not 10 years from now.
Anything else in the short run is a pipe dream. People have been trying to solve the mystery of the hydrogen powered car since I was in high school in the fifties, it is now 50 years later and I personally believe despite all the glowing press, we are not any closer to having a delivery system for anything but OIL. So stop with the dead ends, and the dilution of effort and develop what we have now until there is a viable replacement, if ever. Trying to force technology before it’s time is a waste of time and money.
You have it absolutely right!
[So stop with the dead ends, and the dilution of effort and develop what we have now until there is a viable replacement, if ever.]
I certainly do not want to force anyone to “stop” looking for better solutions than foreign oil. Oil from shale *IS* “a viable replacement” at current prices. That is what so many people ignore when talking about transportation energy. The efficiency of a process is meaningless. All that matters is the cost per mile. I certainly don’t want the government telling people to stop researching something simply because it is not cost efficient yet. Not as long as they are using their own money, and not the government’s money.
You are wrong, by the way, about it being only the envirowackos stopping drilling for oil domestically. It is the cost. There is plenty of oil already found and already on land that is accessible where environmentalists are not a factor — but it is expensive to develop. As long as OPEC can pump oil for $1/bbl, they can pull the rug out from under the local producer by increasing supply and dropping the price so that expensive local oil will not be developed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.