Scientists Develop New Hydrogen Reactor

Akron Beacon Journal ^ | 2/13/04 | GREGG AAMOT

[VOA]

They ought to be well advanced in the patent process before getting any publicity.

For all the socialistic, share-the-world ambience of Minnesota, the University
of Minnesota is fairly aggressive in pursuing patents...well at least in the area
of biological/medical breakthroughs.

[The_Victor]

The conclusion by the study's authors is that there is 34% more energy in a gallon of ethanol than it takes to produce it.

OK, but then your going to break the hydrogen out of the ethanol, using some amount of energy, and a catalyst (if I understand the process correctly). Does the energy balance still come out positive? (I'm just asking, I don't know.)

[Eala]

Interesting! Do I detect an electric water heater?

[ScudEast]

The thing I don't understand is - what application is there for burning Hydrogen (apart from space rockets) which can't be fulfilled by just burning ethanol. Can anyone enlighten me?

[ScudEast]

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas.

Water vapor condenses and falls as rain.

[babyface00]

How much energy is required to produce the ethanol?

Isn't there some amount of energy required to produce gasoline from petroleum? Crude is pretty useless in and of itself.

I'm not disputing your point, just curious how the costs compare if you consider the entire process - i.e. extracting crude from the ground all the way to gasoline vs planting corn all the way to hydrogen.

[spunkets]

" Water vapor condenses and falls as rain."

That depends on concentration and temperature.

[fella]

Why bother with all this when the ethanol can go straight into the tank with only a few modifacations to the car. The only emisions would be CO2 and water and you could drink the fuel.

[BigBobber]

And what are the waste products produced? Co2, Co, ?????

This is the key question that everyone else in the thread has missed.

Ethanol is a hydrocarbon. When you strip off the hydrogen there is still carbon left as a waste product. What form is it in? How is it disposed?

[ScudEast]

Is anyone suggesting that human produced water vapour is a significant contributor to climate change?

[ScudEast]

Ethanol is a hydrocarbon. When you strip off the hydrogen there is still carbon left as a waste product. What form is it in? How is it disposed?

Every molecule of carbon in Ethanol was recently absorbed from the atmosphere by plants. If anything, Ethanol production will reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere temporarily as not all of the plant is converted to Ethanol and hence the leftovers will have to be landfilled, unless they too can be burnt.

[spunkets]

"Is anyone suggesting that human produced water vapour is a significant contributor to climate change?"

The water cycle is the most significant player in the system. The green's ignore it, else they'd be stuck with no impending catastrophy. It is the point that water is a greenhouse gas that they want buried. They only want what comes from man made sources to be noted. That's, because what they're really after is control. The Earth's climate ain't going to change.

The source of the water makes no difference, because the concentration and temps are essentially fixed.

[William Terrell]

Next step coming: make the ethanol from hemp...

You can only power spacecraft with hemp derivatives.

[oyez]

Looks like a big waste of ethanol to me. It wound be more beneficial to burn the alcohol as fuel. Cheers!

[ScudEast]

Whilst I don't believe that the climate change we are seeing is down to human activity I try to keep up with the science behind the climate change debate. I have never seen anyone claiming that human produced water vapour is any sort of a contributor to climate change. There is plenty of information about the contribution of water vapour to the greenhouse effect that keeps the earth warm - a google search will give you that. The theory is that rising temparatures will be amplified by increased evaporation from the oceans.

[Dogrobber]

Yes, it is; but the issue is not total energy efficiency, rather available energy in a bio-friendly form. Ethenol is easy to transport, relatively safe (safer than gas or raw hydrogen) and can be manufactured by use of bio-stock.

If we postulate advances in the bio-production of ethenol (better yeasts eating rougher bio-mass) the system, as a whole will get better efficiency. I don't think it will ever do as well as petrochemicals or centralized power systems, but it will provide a better mix for public consumption.

On a totally "ungreen" level, it is probably better to have a diverse mix of techno which provides power to this county. The metro east has more than sufficient problems maintaining the net it has now and removing some of the load on that system would not be bad. The only really issue (as with all alternative power schemes) is whether or not it is ecomonically viable. If it is, or becomes so, people will use it. If not, it goes on the ash heap of invention.

[The_Victor]

Isn't there some amount of energy required to produce gasoline from petroleum? Crude is pretty useless in and of itself.

You're thinking in the automobile world. We don't burn gasoline for energy production. Fuel oil, coal, and natural gas are the energy (electricity) producers. These require only minimal processing, and some production cost, but I would guess (truly a WAG) that the energy balance for fuel oil is in the realm of 60-80% (Compare 34% for ethanol provided in a link earlier in the thread). Natural gas and coal require almost no processing, so the energy balance would be higher.

[The_Victor]

Yes, it is; but the issue is not total energy efficiency, rather available energy in a bio-friendly form.

For me the issue is cost, and therefor efficiency. I cannot afford the environmentalists agenda.

Just a few more issues to think about.

1)How much land are we going to have to plow/plant with corn to match our current energy production/usage?

2) How much pollution in the form of farm runoff will be generated matching our current energy output?

3) How much additional water are we going to need to cultivate this crop (enviros are already screaming about the lack of clean water around the world)?

[spunkets]

I don't want to create the impression that water vapor from human sources is important. The natural sources are effectively fixed.

"The theory is that rising temparatures will be amplified by increased evaporation from the oceans."

There is no such amplification. The cycle requires energy. Here's a look at the energy increase involved for a 2^o increase in temp, it's basic science:

PV = nRT = atmospheric energy ( E )
T_before = 298^oK
T_after = 300^oK
E_after / E_before = T_after / T_before = 0.67%
Energy increases of this order are not going to change either the magnitude of storms, the weather in general, or the concentration of water in the air.

[ScudEast]

I don't want to create the impression that water vapor from human sources is important. The natural sources are effectively fixed.

Sorry about that, I got the impression that you were saying we need to worry about the water vapour produced when burning hydrogen.

As for whether or not a 0.67% rise in energy does or doesn't cause an increase in the percentage of water vapour significant enough to further raise the temperature, I'll have to take your word on that. Do you have a source (in journals or on the internet), I'd like to take a look.