Brewing hydrogen with bacteria
As many of you point out, the hydrogen economy remains on the distant horizon for a handful of reasons, one of which being the absence of an economical, safe and environmentally friendly production method. Daniel (Niels) van der Lelie, a biologist at the U.S. Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory, however, believes we will be able to use bacteria to safely "brew" it.
His team's lab experiments show that the bacterium Thermatoga neapolitana is able to generate large quantities of hydrogen when given a glucose feedstock. One of the most significant of their findings is that the bacterium was able to produce the hydrogen in an environment in which oxygen was present. Until now, this had only been witnessed in oxygen-free conditions. Van der Lelie stresses the importance of this because removing all of the oxygen from an environment would burden the production process with massive costs.
[Source: Brookhaven National Laboratory via Fuel Cell Today]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Howard Lee Harkness 1:59PM (9/15/2006)
Saw some other stories recently about similar ways of producing hydrogen via biological processes. Seems there is some progress along this line. If it can be produced with no dinosaur juice at all, then it can at least be considered 'green'.
"As many of you point out, the hydrogen economy remains on the distant horizon for a handful of reasons, one of which being the absence of an economical, safe and environmentally friendly production method."
That's only one of many problems with hydrogen. The remaining barriers to the efficient and cost-effective use of hydrogen involve the mere revocation of several laws of chemistry and physics. Good luck with that!
If you ever decide that revoking the laws of chemistry and physics is impractical, you could try researching biodiesel instead -- it doesn't require any new technology at all, and it's already 'green'.
Reply
1985 Gripen 3:52PM (9/15/2006)
A problem with biodiesel, Mr. Harkness, is the same as ethanol. There aren't enough crops available to satisfy the demand should we convert all cars to biodiesel.
And that's the second problem: how do we convert all existing vehicles to run biodiesel?
I say we use biodiesel (B100) for commercial vehicles & trains and run biobutanol for gasoline-powered vehicles. There's still the problem of limited resources, but we have to hope that cellulosic ethanol isn't far away from large-scale production and we could add ethanol into the mix. If they can come up with an economical, non-polluting way (like biologically) to create hydrogen, maybe all these billions of dollars car companies (like GM and BMW) have been dumping into hydrogen fuel cell development will actually pay off.
Shoot, build small nuclear reactors (or repurpose old ones from ships and submarines or something) to provide power for hydrogen generation plants. I know that's not "non-polluting", but it's LESS polluting and doesn't add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.
No one alternative fuel will meet demand, but a mix of the more promising ones might.
Reply
Howard Lee Harkness 6:05PM (9/16/2006)
"A problem with biodiesel, Mr. Harkness, is the same as ethanol. There aren't enough crops available to satisfy the demand should we convert all cars to biodiesel."
It would be possible to generate enough biodiesel from algae to run all US ICE-based transport within about 10 years. The costs and resources are manageable, and don't even have to be done by one humongous business -- which is probably why it's not the darling of the PC set.
"And that's the second problem: how do we convert all existing vehicles to run biodiesel?"
No need. Fleet turnover is about 50% every 3 years, and nearly 100% in 10 years. The availability of reasonably-priced, ultra-efficient diesel/electric (or SVO/electric) hybrids could accelerate that turnover considerably. And if somebody actually produces such a vehicle in the US, I will buy one -- along with a home biodiesel production plant.
Reply
Jimmy 11:28PM (9/16/2006)
"Fleet turnover is about 50% every 3 years, and nearly 100% in 10 years."
Those numbers don't sound quite right. I'll believe them for buying and selling transactions, but not for cars leaving service. You will find millions of 10+ year old autos still in service.
CBS news reported that if a new technology were adopted instantly (starting tomorrow every new car sold has some new tech) it would be 17 years before the old cars were completely replaced.
Look at hybrid adoption. The first model was introduced in the US in Dec. 1999. With almost constant good press, celebrity endorsements and major tax credits, hybrids still only account for 1.2 percent of the total vehicles sold in 2005. Looking at the fleet as a whole, hybrids are about 0.28% of registered autos (*).
I'm all for hybrids, diesels and diesel/hybrids, but a 10 year adoption plan is not plausible.
* cumulative US hybrid auto sales from hybridcars.com divided by Environmental Working Groups measure of registered cars and trucks in the USA.
Reply