Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Breakthrough turn-on for hydrogen power

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 07 January 2009
SCOTS scientists claim they have achieved a breakthrough in efforts to use hydrogen to provide clean electricity.
It has long been thought hydrogen could be used as a fuel, particularly for transport. If the hydrogen is produced from biofuels, its use results in very low carbon dioxide emissions.

However, efforts to produce hydrogen from biofuels have been
dogged by difficulties – and currently it is usually created using natural gas in fossil fuels, which produces large amounts of damaging .

Now a team of scientists, led by a professor from the University of Aberdeen, have achieved a leap forward in the process.

Using a catalyst, they have converted ethanol fermented from biofuels into hydrogen.

Although this has been done before, Professor Hicham Idriss, Energy Futures chairman at the University of Aberdeen, said it had never been effective as it had never been achieved without producing waste products, such as carbon monoxide, which is poisonous. It took the team of scientists from across the world, led by Prof Idriss, more than ten years to hone the technique.

The hydrogen could be used to power fuel cells, which can provide clean electricity for vehicles, homes and even large buildings.

Prof Idriss said: "It's quite feasible that we could see the use of this new type of catalysts to generate the hydrogen used in the UK in the future if the necessary changes to public policy were implemented."

The catalyst used by Prof Idriss and his colleagues to convert ethanol into hydrogen is made from the rare metals rhodium and palladium.

Although they are expensive, he said such small quantities were needed this should not be a problem. However, there is still one disadvantage to the process because it requires temperatures of about 500C in order to work.

Dr Richard Dixon, director of WWF Scotland, said he thought it was a "step forward" but added he believed it would be better to focus on electric cars to provide the transport of the future, rather than those powered by fuel cells.

The research is published in the journal ChemSusChem.


BACKGROUND

THE process developed by scientists in Aberdeen to produce hydrogen for fuel cells from biofuels starts with fermentation.

Crops are fermented using yeast, producing ethanol and water.

Then a catalyst made using the metals rhodium and palladium is added to the ethanol and water, at temperatures of about 500C.

This converts the ethanol and water into hydrogen and carbon dioxide.



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 06 January 2009 9:37 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Climate change
 
1

,

07/01/2009 00:21:21
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

Scotindy,

Los Angeles 07/01/2009 02:02:22
# 1
Do'nt kid yourself,when Hydro was introduced back in the 50/60 that was supposed to drop our fuel bills,but it did'nt. The british government got in on the act and TAXED IT TO DEATH, they will do the same with this, yet another Scottish Innovation. Independence is our only saviour against these people......
3

FerryPort,

07/01/2009 02:06:05
free gaza
free palestine
free everything
free the lot
what do we have to loose?
4

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 07/01/2009 03:42:45
Sadly, like most Scottish Inventions. This will probably end up being commercialized by someone else.

What Scotland needs is an entrepreneurial culture. That is hard to develop when you are caught politically in a culture of Dependence.
5

williamx,

Delta, Canada 07/01/2009 05:57:06
Why not just use the ethanol in a fuel cell and cut out the hydrogen part? That way there would be no need for a temperature of 500 degrees. Sure you can make hydrogen by this process on a laboratory scale but commercial? Doubtful.
6

carrottop,

Dumfries 07/01/2009 09:46:24
Biofuel means using agricultural land for its production, some starve while some drive their electric cars. Its all been said before that biofuel is not sustainable so why go on down this road.
7

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 07/01/2009 09:56:23
As far as I can see, the process producing the hydrogen must be strongly endothermic - ie. it requires a large input of energy.

If the process produces just hydrogen and carbon dioxide, then the equation for the reaction is:

C2H5OH + 3H2O => 2CO2 + 6H2

With the enthalpies of combustion being:
C2H5OH -1371kJ/mol
H2O -186kJ/mol
CO2 -393kJ/mol

That gives the overall process (2*-393)-(-1371+3*-186) = +1143kJ to produce 6H2.
Now, burning 6H2 produces 6 * -186kJ = -1116kJ.

In other words, the processes uses slightly MORE energy to produce the hyrogen than the hydrogen gives out when it is used. I can accept that this may not be a fatal problem, (the process may be regarded as a way of storing electrical energy, for example) , but I think it is one that needs to be explained.

Could the good Professor Idriss, or someone who knows about this, care to comment, (or to show me if I've made a mistake in the above calculation).

8

ddmc,

07/01/2009 10:00:33
#2 I think your confusing hydro electric with hydrogen

Hemp oil & ethanol was used in a concept car by Henry Ford in the late 1920's burns just as well with far less emissions, obviously the big oil & pharma companies put paid to it.
9

The Strategist,

07/01/2009 10:24:34
A pointless exercise. What we really need to do is burn more coal and produce lots of CO2. You then collect the CO2 and add in a pinch of H2 and bingo you have Methanol or Wood Alcohol as it used to be known. This is a high octane fuel still used in motorsport.
10

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 07/01/2009 10:35:01
It seems that progress is being made regarding finding viable alternative fuels. Let's hope that it doesn't get killed off by the green brigade whose only aim is to stop people driving cars.

Comments like:

"...it would be better to focus on electric cars to provide the transport of the future, rather than those powered by fuel cells."

are not encouraging.

Of course, if Dr Dixon understood anything about cars then he would know that a car powered by a fuel cell IS an electric car---it just has it's own on-board supply rather than having to rely upon an external energy source. Unfortunately, this kind of comment is typical of the ramblings of the "find fault with everything" brigade, and even more unfortunately, it is exactly the kind of comment that stupid, head-in-the-sand politicians are likely to listen to.

11

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 07/01/2009 10:36:07
And of course, The Strategist's suggestion is perfectly valid... And a lot more fun!
12

RCro,

Edinburgh 07/01/2009 11:08:58
#11

I believe the Dr Dixon is referring to battery electric cars in comparison to fuel cell electric cars, but no doubt the reporter didn't feel the need to go into detail with this as he had his token 'opposing viewpoint'. The Dr has probably also become weary of refuting hydrogen fallacy.

If we have to make hydrogen first, this takes energy, which will probably come from electricity, and only some of the original electrical energy ends up in the hydrogen. If we cut out the middleman and just deliver the electricity straight to standard batteries it is much more efficient, and almost certainly cheaper (why pay for two or three times as much energy as we need to make H2, instead of just storing the energy directly?). So it is you who are rambling nonsense, not the Dr.
13

zeno,

www.thinkhumanism.com 07/01/2009 11:13:03
#1: There is no such thing as a zero point energy machine. They just do not work.
14

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 07/01/2009 11:18:25
Arrh! I've just noticed a mistake in the above calculation (#8). The enthalpy of combustion of Hydrogen is -286kJ/mol (not -186kJ/mol as I had remembered - unfortunately Wiki doesn't seem to have a table of enthalpies, and I gave up looking earlier and went on memory. Now I've just found the correct figure).

So that makes the energy change for the above process:
(2*-393)-(-1371+3*-286) = +1443kJ
and the energy from burning the resulting hydrogen:
6*-286 = -1716kJ

So that makes the overall process slightly exothermic (by -273kJ), but it still represents a pretty marginal amount of energy. So, my question to the professor remains:why is this regarded as a useful way of using biomass energy? Or is it actually mainly a way of STORING electrical energy (supplied by fluctuations in electrical supply from wind farms, for example)?
15

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 07/01/2009 11:48:32
#14 "Adam continued his research into new energy technologies with colleague David Farnsworth. In June, 1989, in New York City, Trombly and Farnsworth physically demonstrated a small solid state electrical transformer that measurably showed an efficiency of 54:1"

"One of the reasons I asked Adam if I could write this piece is because it is now ten* years later and the American people, in particular, have still not gotten the message that there is an entirely new and benign option to the current death spiral of humanity. As the result of ignoring the opportunity that was presented on that day in 1989, the world still suffers under the tyranny of fossil fuels and a global power structure which seems bent on the eradication of all species."
16

,

07/01/2009 12:29:51
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
17

G,

dundy 07/01/2009 12:48:38
A few people have go the wrong end of the stick...biofuels don't mean having to take land out of food production...the next wave of biofuels will use crop wastes, food wastes and timber offcuts....

18

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 07/01/2009 13:18:29
#13:

At present, there is no battery powered car that would keep going for 10 hours plus at between 70-100mph which would be required for a continental trip.

The solution at present is to use more batteries, as in the case of the Tesla but even that doesn't have a decent range.

A car powered by a hydrogen fuel cell would have the range and the performance required for a long trip. Now that Slioch has corrected his calculations, you can see that the process of conversion between alcohol + water to CO2 + H2 is indeed exothermic and as such, this would suggest that with further research, it may even be able to be made self-supporting under the right circumstances.

This would then put hydrogen fuel cells in a totally different light if hydrogen could be produced under a self-supporting reaction in the presence of a catalyst wouldn't it?

The bottom line is that whilst battery powered cars might be fine for the daily commute, something a lot more substantial is required for serious motoring and for that, you are going to need to carry your power generation around with you.
19

Guy Wersh,

Eccy Byde 07/01/2009 13:32:10
Slioch:

I can only find the numbers for octane and not the hydrocarbon mix that petrol is, but it has an enthalpy of combustion of -5470 kJ/mol so I'm guessing (oh dear!) that my H2 car would be visiting the pumps at twenty times as often unless we can store much more H2 than petrol (in terms of energy available from a tank).

Also, as the H2 is produced by fermentation which produces CO2 then the climate change aspect might not be *that* favourable.
20

,

07/01/2009 14:58:37
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
21

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 07/01/2009 16:46:35
-- At present, there is no battery powered car that would keep going for 10 hours plus at between 70-100mph which would be required for a continental trip.

They have these things called electric trains.
22

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 07/01/2009 17:37:52
#23:

Electric trains are not battery powered.

Also, it may have escaped your attention, but trains only go where rails have been laid.

Another thing, when you're on a train, you cant see where you are going and you don't get to drive it yourself ;-)

23

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 07/01/2009 18:20:00
The The PML MINI QED claims an endurance of 4 hours on batteries. Which looks good though not using all of its 640 HP. When you couple in its 250 cc petrol generator I think it would manage your 10hrs at 70mph+ target.

It's horses for courses. You have to consider the environmental cost of making batteries and safely disposing/recycling of them.

Trains offer a great platform for innovative and hybrid engineering. When you're looking for a transcontinental express for the breadth and length of Scotland. And lying down in a comfortable bunk while the scenery zips past.
24

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 07/01/2009 18:35:48
The MINI QED looks interesting, I must admit. Let's see what happens when Clarkson, Hammond and May get their hands on one. One thing is for sure---it ain't gonna be cheap.

"And lying down in a comfortable bunk while the scenery zips past."

...Having previously struggled to the main-line station with loads of luggage, using all manners of possible modes of transport, probably not including the car, in the wind and rain, with kids in tow.

...And knowing that when you get to your destination, you will likely as not have to repeat the exercise to get to your hotel (or whatever) but this time will have to do it at stupid o'clock in the morning, in an unfamiliar town.

...And should you decide to travel any distance away from your destination, not having the car with you, you will have to repeat the exercise again...

...And they won't let you smoke.

No thanks! Give me the car any time. I'll leave when I want, take whatever I want with me, drive at whatever (safe) speed I want to, smoke when I want to, stop when I want to, wherever I want to, eat and drink when I want to, go door to door and have the car with me for outings once I get there.

Regarding trains, whatever floats your boat, be my guest! I just know what I prefer, that's all.
25

Geomac 1,

Scotland 07/01/2009 18:52:15
Is there no end to the garbage produced by this so called Environmental Correspondent?
Since when has CO2 produced from ethanol been any better for the environment that CO2 produced fron coal, oil or whatever????
This constant diet of rubbish is getting very wearing and tedious.
And then there;s Richie Dixon pooh pooing this as his pet belief is that electric cars are the answer - not those powered by fuel cells.
Can we really continue to believe that any form of common sense will emanate from the mouths of dogmatic and ignorant so called ecomentalists.
Please, please lets' have some common sense in such articles - or at least some informed or intelligent comment.
26

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 07/01/2009 20:28:37
A few responses to points made whilst I've been out:

#18 thanks Rules. But that would blow my cover! I'll have to resist the temptation.
Of course, obtaining energy from a dilute aqueous solution of ethanol - which is all that you can get from fermentation - is bound to include endothermic steps however it's done. It may be that this is more energy efficient than obtaining hydrogen by electrolysis, and if it is hydrogen (rather than ethanol) that is required, then the energy loss is acceptable.

#20 The idea would be to produce the hydrogen by this process in a central plant and then distribute liquified hydrogen at filling stations, much as petrol is done at presnt.

#21 Guy Wersh You are forgetting that a mole of hydrogen only weighs 2g, whereas a mole of octane weighs 114g (8*12 + 18).

So, 1g of Hydrogen releases 286/2 = 143kJ whereas Ig of octane releases 5470/114 = 48kJ. So you would get about three times as much energy from a given mass of hydrogen as you would from petrol.

However, liquid hydrogen is far less dense than petrol (c. 0.07kg/l H2 compared with c. 0.7kg/l petrol), which works in the opposite direction. So, from a litre of liqid hydrogen you get 0.07*143 = 10MJ of energy, whereas from a litre of petrol it is 0.7*48 = 34MJ.

So, you would need about three and a half times the volume with hydrogen, but it would weigh a third less than petrol.

#27 Geomac asked, "Since when has CO2 produced from ethanol been any better for the environment that CO2 produced fron coal, oil or whatever?"

Since it is produced via photosynthesis. In other words, the CO2 produced by burning the ethanol is exactly equivalent to the CO2 absorbed from the atmosphere to make the ethanol in the first place. Thus there is no net increase in atmospheric CO2. That is not the case with burning fossil fuels, where the CO2 released to the atmosphere had previously been locked away in the ground for hundreds of millions of years. That causes a net increase in CO2
27

zeno,

www.thinkhumanism.com 07/01/2009 22:18:33
Scott.Webb said (#17): "Humanism and the unbelievable stupidity of those that promote it goes hand in hand. Watch Edward Griffin's - Seduction of a Generation (Sensitivity Training, Brainwashing)"

Oh Well. If you can't enter into a reasoned debate, the ad hominem approach always works, doesn't it?

Yok Finney quoted (#16): "Adam continued his research into new energy technologies with colleague David Farnsworth. In June, 1989, in New York City, Trombly and Farnsworth physically demonstrated a small solid state electrical transformer that measurably showed an efficiency of 54:1"

Since this Adam Trombly made this breakthrough some 20 years ago, I assume it's a web of conspiracy by Big Petro in league with all governments and scientists and engineers that have managed to keep this away from the public - apart from allowing Adam Trombly to publish his stuff on the World Wide Web, of course?
28

truthsleuth,

Roads for Motorists not for Lunatics 08/01/2009 00:35:02
ZETA (fusion power using heavy hydrogen from seawater was the claim) promised cheap sustainable power in the 1950s. We are still waiting in 2008.
and every time there is steep rises in fuel costs we have all the 'we're nearly there scientists claiming they have solved the problem and the petrolheads and boy racers clutch at the straw handed to them.

The poor souls who refer to the three stooges JC RH and I forget the other one should watch their heros on 'Top Gear'watched by the mindless motoring morons who stand thru 30minutes of idiotic imaginations.

Give them up that trinity will never replace trhe other trinity no matter how they try to outdo each other by their miracles of manic motoring madness.

In the meantime I shall return to Star Trek there is as more chance of Aberdeen University (or any other University) of developing a transporter beam and it would probably be less risky(The Fly) than the Weapons of Mass Destruction, I mean of course cars driven by petrolheads and boy racers.
29

Hickory,

US 12/01/2009 00:29:42
Aye, tha flyin' monks will jump on this like a hungry hound on prime gammon. Tha pack is lickin' it's lips at tha chance ta milk it. I 'ave a mind that wind is where it's at. No politician can control it and no man can own it.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.