Technology Review
A new way to make hydrogen from corn or potatoes could make fuel-cell vehicles more practical.
Using a stew of enzymes culled from several organisms, researchers have developed a way to convert starch, available from numerous sources including corn and potatoes, into hydrogen gas at low temperatures and pressures. The method produces three times more hydrogen than an older enzymatic method does, suggesting that it might be practical to use such enzymes to produce hydrogen for fuel-cell vehicles.
While fuel-cell vehicles are appealing because they emit no pollutants, it's been a challenge to find clean and affordable ways to produce, transport, and store hydrogen to fuel them. Most commonly, hydrogen is extracted from fossil fuels. Making hydrogen by electrolyzing water is energy intensive and can be expensive. The new system improves on other experimental methods for creating hydrogen from biomass by using low temperatures, making it potentially more convenient and energy efficient.
The researchers--from Virginia Tech, in Blacksburg, VA; Oak Ridge National Laboratory; and the University of Georgia, in Athens--combined 13 commercially available enzymes isolated from yeast, bacteria, spinach, and rabbit muscle. The work is available online in PLoS ONE, a journal published by the Public Library of Science. The hydrogen comes from two sources: the starch and the water used to oxidize the starch. The enzymes facilitate chemical reactions in which the water and starch can be completely converted into hydrogen and carbon dioxide, says Y. Percival Zhang, professor of biological systems at Virginia Tech. (The carbon dioxide released is offset by the carbon dioxide captured by plants that provide the starch.)
The new system produces a higher yield of hydrogen than previous experimental systems that used enzymes for converting sugars into hydrogen. But while the yield of hydrogen is high, so far the rates at which the gas is produced are extremely low. That's in part because the researchers used off-the-shelf enzymes and have not optimized the system, Zhang says. The scientists' next project will include analyzing each stage of the process in detail to find the rate-limiting steps.
For example, one of the enzymes may be producing a by-product that slows down later steps, says Michael Adams, professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at the University of Georgia. The researchers would then look for other enzymes, or modify current ones, to minimize the by-product. They will also look for enzymes that can operate at higher temperatures. "If you increase the temperature by 10 degrees, most times you can increase the reaction rate twofold," Zhang says.
One of the first applications of the system, Zhang says, could be generating hydrogen for fuel cells in portable electronics. The starch could be a safer way of storing energy than using methanol, a current leading option for such small fuel-cell systems. He estimates that it will take about six to eight years to improve the rates enough for such applications. Eventually, he hopes to use his process to solve one of the biggest current problems with hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles: fitting enough hydrogen on board to compete with gasoline-powered vehicles.
Proton OnSite's lack of progress toward its proposed "hydrogen highway" demonstrates the low priority America gives this alternative fuel.
Researchers have designed a process to generate hydrogen from organic materials.
Fat people as source of hydrogen
The USA contains the most fat people of any nation so it seems. You can see these fat blobs walking through airport terminals and shopping malls and it is enough to make one sick. Why not convert the fat in these people to hydrogen? If they would operate treadmills that make electricity that could operate a electrolysis system for making hydrogen everyone would win including improvement of healthcare in this country. I am guessing that there is an excess of 10 billion pounds of fat in humans in the USA. Converted to hydrogen at 10% would yield as much as 500 millions pounds of hydrogen per year. The fat people characteristically comsume the starch you are speaking of. Starch to human fat to hydrogen works...... does it not? Treadmills would install easily everywhere. I could take off a few of my excessive pounds, too. How about hydrogen blimp cars that could take more direct routes overland and upstairs to tall buildings? It makes about as much sense.
Re: Fat people as source of hydrogen
Agreeably, most harvested by-products-grass, sawdust, etc... could be easily turned into a more readily available source of biofuel (of course, then people will belive that means we should cut down more trees!). But fat from humans? I agree, but don't kill the people for the fat, simply harvest the fat from the liposuctioning cosmetic surgeons here in Beverly Hills! Of course, then people will think its ok to eat a lot more McDonald's.
Re: Fat people as source of hydrogen
The last estimate I saw was that a human on a treadmill for an hour could produce about 75 Wh (Home Power magazine, Jun/Jul 2007). If you got 300 million Americans on a treadmill 1 hour a day, 365 days a year, it would then produce 0.2% of U.S. electric consumption (which was 3,721 TWh in 2005). At present however, I think most exercise machines consume more than 75 W of electricity for all the features necessary to keep their humans entertained while pedalling/running.
Re: Fat people as source of hydrogen
Your suggestions lighten up a rather weird thinking process prevelaent in the world.
For hydrogen to work, it should create a energy and emission balance.
Re: Fat people as source of hydrogen
First of all the average man can only produce about 1/10 horsepower per hour in an eight hour day. I perfectly fit person in my estimation might some how be able to double that if they were extreme.
However, I am a fat person who is not lazy, nor eats too much. In fact other than coffee in the morning...I typically only have one meal (dinner) a day, as I typically work 50-85 hours per week.
I thought your attitude towards larger people had a connection with Hitler as you came across as a cold elitist. Perhaps you should examine your heart to see if bloods is still flowing through it. We could extract the FAT from your HEAD!
If the weight and efficiency are not suitable to a vehicular application, why could the system not be used to generate power for the grid? It doesn't matter how much a power plant weighs!
PV efficiency vs Bio efficiency
I've read somewhrere that the efficiency of converting the sun energy into biomass is less than 1% while the PV efficiency is (lower bound) about 10%. And the most efficient PV are about 20%.
If we are going to use that land for transportation isnt it better if we cover it all with PV instead of biomass production?
Re: PV efficiency vs Bio efficiency
Photosynthesis can be up to 7.5% efficient (e.g. algae biodiesel). PV is 15-20% efficient (sometimes higher, but not cost-effectively). Solar thermal is 30% efficient. SCE and SDG&E are building 500-850MW and 300-900MW respectively of solar thermal in the Mojave desert. It makes sense. However, electricity might have difficulty handling long-distance freight transportation (trucking and rail) at least until we electricify our long-distance rail lines. Something 7.5% efficient like algae biodiesel might be the short-term answer for long-distance freight.
You are all good,have some good ideas.Electricity or hydrigen is universal.Now try and sell the idea of its generation to 6 billion people in the next 25-40 years.
Running Cars on Hydrogen Made from Starch
Given the interest in running vehicles on processed biomass, what work is being done on extracting combustible materials from the fermentation of sewage? The last time we had an "oil crisis" in the 1970s methane digesters were all the rage. Since all that material is free for the asking and we have a huge and expensive infrastructure to get it where it needs to go, and it must be processd by city facilities, can't it be made to produce hydrogen, methane, or complex hydrocarbons to power vehicles?
Hydrogen from Wind Turbines - NREL project
The NREL or National Renewable Energy Lab has a project to use Wind Turbines to generate electricity that is used for electrolyzers that generate H2.
See their Video for a complete explanation.
http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_wind_hydrogen_video.html
More info here-
http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/pdfs/utility_hug_briefing.pdf
A Means to the Hydrogen Age: The U.S. Power Industry (PDF 1.86 MB)
http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/pdfs/doe_hug_briefing.pdf
DOE Perspectives on the Hydrogen Utility Group (PDF 772 KB)
I've looked over all of the above statements and suggestions and just about all of them are looking at large cooperation’s being the ones to take the big leap into the hydrogen economy so they can just control the market like they have been doing with oil (if you would like me to show you this just respond). Just rather than it being oil that they are controlling it's hydrogen while it's one step up from oil it still could be better. This is where my obvious play on words for a title comes into play. I want a hydrogen (or some other fuel that is clean) future just as much as the next guy but I don’t want to be dependent on some stiff just looking to make a buck, what I would like to see not only having a clean fuel but for it to be able to have the average Joe be able to have his own kit set up and ready to produce in just a weekend and for a reasonable price. I don’t know the feasibility of this type of set up but I feel it could be accomplished in the near future.
Knock, Knock... What happened to water...Clean or not it's still water. One of the only NATURAL H2 sources that supplies the levels of H2 needed.
Wake up.... I have never seen so much Stupidity in educated circles.
It sounds good at first but now we are getting into making a choice between food and fuel. If farmers can make millions growing crops to be turned into fuel that’s just what they are going to do. And the cost of food will be so high that most people will not able to afford to eat. It’s as simple as supply and demand the world only has so much farmland. If we use this farmland to grow fuel crops then the cost of our food scores must go up to make it financially able to compete for production space on farmlands. So it’s a safe bet we need to rule this out as well.
Why aren't we exploring the possibility of using human waste, god knows we make enough of it so then the source of fuel wouldn't be in competition with us for food it would do away with infrastructure and save us money. We already break down the waste so it would be on a molicule structure or smaller and all the collecting facilities etc are there.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
thmlco
18 Comments
Wrong direction...
Once again we're figuring out how to make fuel from food, putting our cars in direct competition with us for energy. Do we drive or eat?
What we need instead is to figure out how to make hydrogen from something common that's not part of the food chain.
So how about making hydrogen from the common everyday grass? We already have a major industry devoted to growing rich green lawns, cutting then, and then taking the results away for disposal.
Why not put it to use?
Reply
Kinch
2 Comments
Re: Wrong direction...
Absolutely! Why not focus this research on non-eddible forms of biomass, e.g. corn stover, sawdust, leaves, grass, etc?
Reply
deirdrebeth
25 Comments
Re: Wrong direction...
There is already research being done into using grass to produce Ethanol.
http://www.mepartnership.org/mep_whatsnew.asp?new_id=2146
Reply
thmlco
18 Comments
Re: Wrong direction...
The article discusses growing switchgrass as a crop to produce ethanol. My point was that we ALREADY cultivate and harvest millions of acres of grass. We just need to figure out how to use it.
Reply
georgesoars
1 Comment
Re: Wrong direction...
speaking of wrong directions... in using electrolysis to produce hydrogen it takes 4 times the amount of electricity to produce the hydrogen than the hydrogen to water (ie electricity) yields. How does that make any sense?
Figure this, the article states that making hydrogen from starch a solid thing will take about 6-8 years of research. Well after that you still needs resources, biomass, natural gas, water etc. Plus all the energy it will take to process the biomass and the enzymes to make the whole thing work.
I suggest something different, how about we focus our efforts (and money) in making clean renewable electricity (that will pay for itself by leaps and bounds) and in researching better battery technologies for homes and autos (aluminum, li-ion etc). In the long run this research will probably cost less than hydrogen, the distribution system is already in place and by going clean it reduces our carbon footprint.
We have to get away from burning fuels. This link is very telling of how burning fuels is affecting the global atmosphere, http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/
Reply
frogonroad
1 Comment
Re: Wrong direction...
I wonder if your math is correct when you talk about hydrogen production via electrolysis but lets assume it is today. 4 to 1 would be a small fraction in comparison to the energy that was required for the planet to produce the fossil deposits we igorantly think are cheap and sensible to burn for fuel today. Consider the millions of years it takes to heat and compress biomass into oil then the cost to extract this substance from the depths of the planet, transport, refine, transport again, burn, and then repair the damage this poisionous fuel creates and you will find it to be an unacceptable energy transfer and one we should move quickly to eliminate.
Since we are intellegent creative and somewhat responsible beings capable of figuring out all kinds of ways to make our lives better and more profitable, should we not embrace the technologies we NOW have to produce a clean fuel that has no harmful effects on our health and environment?
Harness the massive amounts of energy the sun provides free everyday. Turn it into electricity. Use this electricity directly to power our daily needs. Store the excess electricity in the most lightweight and energy intense battery in the universe, hydrogen, use the hydrogen to power our toys and get on with the business of creating a better world to explore and enjoy.
What?
Reply
killian
74 Comments
Re: Wrong direction...
Being more efficient than geologic processes is hardly the criteria we want for our energy. If H2 is produced by electrolysis, as would be the case for solar or wind, then you would be better off just shipping the electricity over the grid (92% efficient) to vehicle batteries (86% efficient). If you instead compress the H2, ship it, fuel vehicle tanks, then decompress it, and feed a *mobile* fuel cell, the efficiency is a small fraction of the 86% above. So the question is why build 4,000,000 wind turbines when 1,000,000 will do?
If the H2 is produced without first producing electricity, then it should be compared to the efficiency of producing electricity. For example, Tilman's Carbon-Negative Low-Intensity High-Diversity Biomass paper last year estimated that (in the supplementary materials) that producing electricity was better than producing ethanol. So why use 2,000,000 mi^2 of prairie when 1,000,000 mi^2 will do?
Reply
killian
74 Comments
Re: Wrong direction...
What's needed is not research but deployment. The technologies you want already exist. Ausra claims they have solar thermal (mirrors in the desert powering a turbine) coupled with thermal storage (so they can deliver power 24x7 instead of just when the sun shines). At a recent panel they claimed they could provide 80% of California's power (based on a year's worth of real data from CalISO) for $0.067/kWh. Too bad coal is about $0.048/kWh today. The cheap always pushes out the good.
On the other side, all the technology to make great EVs (both battery electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles) already exists. Both Altairnano and A123 systems have batteries with all of the necessary attributes (e.g. long lifetimes, unlike laptop batteries and fast recharge times). The one problem is cost, but since both companies are young and ramping up, I think cost will fall as it has on 18650 LiIon cells (found in laptops).
Getting automakers to build PHEVs however remains tricky. They prefer to talk about 2020 FCVs rather than 2010 PHEVs.
Reply
Ed Holman gulch
1 Comment
Re: Wrong direction...
Definitly the right direction!!
Ed
Reply
rden
5 Comments
Re: Re: Wrong direction...
It sounds good at first but now we are getting into making a choice between food and fuel. If farmers can make millions growing crops to be turned into fuel that’s just what they are going to do. And the cost of food will be so high that most people will not able to afford to eat. It’s as simple as supply and demand the world only has so much farmland. If we use this farmland to grow fuel crops then the cost of our food scores must go up to make it financially able to compete for production space on farmlands. So it’s a safe bet we need to rule this out as well.
Reply
killian
74 Comments
Re: Wrong direction...
Yes, we have a big industry producing fertilizers and weed killers to grow lush lawns. The energy that goes into making fertilizers is enormous (it starts with making H2 from CH4 or from coal because CH4 is getting so expensive). It doesn't seem sensible to try to make H2 from something that takes a lot of fertilizer. People should compost their grass (perhaps in a town facility) and then fertilize their lawns with the compost instead.
Reply