Sewage To Be Turned Into H 229
Anonymous Howard writes "The New Scientist website reports in this article that British scientists are working on a more efficient way to convert sewage and other wet waste into hydrogen fuel. It sounds fairly promising."
Heroin? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Heroin? (Score:5, Funny)
Do we really need that much more heroin in the world?
What does that say about our geek-ness, or lack of it, when we see "H" and think heroin instead of hydrogen?
I know what I think when I see "weed" and if I find it in my garden I am *not* going to kill it.
Because hydrogen is diatomic (Score:5, Informative)
What does that say about our geek-ness, or lack of it, when we see "H" and think heroin instead of hydrogen?
It means we know the difference between H, H+, and H2. Hydrogen, like oxygen, nitrogen, and the halogens, is diatomic [google.com], meaning that it exists in nature in pairs (Cl2 I2 F2 Br2 O2 H2 N2). In nature, it also exists as positive ions (labeled H+); Bronsted acids give off these. (Water is amphiprotic; that is, it's a weak acid and base simultaneously.)
When I see "H2", I think "hydrogen." When I see "H+", I think "hydrogen ion" and then "there's an acid somewhere around here". Plain "H" by itself is heroin, just like "X" [ecstasy.org] without the "Window System" [x.org].
Re:Because hydrogen is diatomic (Score:1)
If plain H is smack, plain X isn't X11. It's E.
Re:Because hydrogen is diatomic (Score:1)
No, I still don't get it. All your scientific explanation taken into account, I still don't see how "H" translates to "Heroin". I've never seen that abbreviation before. Am I just weird or something? Ok, I'm British, but I read enough yank diatribe that I usually know how to translate it into English - but this one doesn't even tap quietly on a triangle... And "X" definitely means "X Window System", sorry. Maybe I'm too geeky or something
Re:Because hydrogen is diatomic (Score:3, Informative)
And then there is good ol' pulp fiction [opioids.com] (not the movie, but actual pulp fiction)
Re:Because hydrogen is diatomic (Score:4, Interesting)
The way I understand it, this process just reforms biogas into hydrogen. Biogas is mostly methane (CH4; ie natural gas). When you burn methane, the only pollution is one molecule of CO2.
Now, reforming methane produces the exact same amount of pollution as burning it. You break it up into 2 molecules hydrogen, and two oxygen atoms bond to the Carbon. You got two molecules of hydrogen and one of CO2, which is the exact same amount of pollution as when you burn it.
Reformation is:
CH4 + 02 --> H2 H2 CO2
Reformed methane pollutes more than burned methane. This is because reforming it and then putting it into a fuel cell is much less efficient than just burning it. I think we are looking for a high-tech solution when one is not needed.
I also don't think biogas production is such a good idea. (I am all for producing methane from places that would otherwise vent it off, however, like sewage plants and cattle yards.)
If you have comercial biogas plants, like ones proposed that use seaweed, they would pollute much more than natural gas, as well as taking up more land than natural gas wells. Biogas has a lot of sulfides and such in it. I might also remind you that CH4 is ten times as bad a greenhouse gas as C02. So any gas that escaped from these plants would contribute to global warming(if global warming is caused by us. Most scientists think it isn't). So It's better just to stick with cheap, clean natural gas, or better yet, nuclear power.
I know you're trolling but... (Score:3, Interesting)
So nearly every government in the world (except for the USA, naturally, with corrupt Bush) has signed up to the Kyoto treaty because most scientists think we have no effect on global warming? Aren't you a little divorced from reality?
So It's better just to stick with cheap, clean natural gas, or better yet, nuclear power.
Why shift our whole infrastructure to a resource that will run out such as natural gas? There are a multitude of ways of extracting the hydrogen for our fuel cells, these scientists are working out a way for the medium-term to prop up production and not a be-all and end-all solution.
Nuclear has a lot of potential, but more money needs to be put into research in ways of making the waste inert, rather than cutting research funding because nuclear is no longer 'trendy'.
Phillip.
http://www.FutureEnergies.com/
Kyoto? What are you talking about? (Score:2, Insightful)
Speak for yourself, hippie. Several countries have ratified Kyoto, but none of the countries who would actually face restrictions have signed it, with the exception of only two. [edie.net] So unless by "nearly every government in the world" you mean "Romania and the Czech Republic and that's about it," lay off the knee-jerk Bush-bashing and don't believe everything your fellow patchouli-sniffers tell you. Get your facts straight and try to break your immature leftist addiction to outrage for its own sake.
Re:I know you're trolling but... (Score:2)
So nearly every government in the world (except for the USA, naturally, with corrupt Bush) has signed up to the Kyoto treaty because most scientists think we have no effect on global warming? Aren't you a little divorced from reality?
Actually, no. Go to Pushback.com. [pushback.com] The vast majority of scientists think global warming fears are unfounded. You should be able to find a link to the Heidelberg Appeal. This was a petition that global warming fears were unfounded signed by several times the amound of scientists that signed the Kyoto Petition.
Why shift our whole infrastructure to a resource that will run out such as natural gas? There are a multitude of ways of extracting the hydrogen for our fuel cells, these scientists are working out a way for the medium-term to prop up production and not a be-all and end-all solution.
Natural gas will run out in about 30 years. But my point is that biogas is not a viable replacement. Nuclear power has a proven safety record in all countries except the USSR (Their crappy Chernobyl RBMK reactor was just asking for trouble).
Nuclear power can provide us with cheap hydrogen and electrical power. The waste fears are not as bad as Greenpeace has lead people to believe. Waste decays to the radioactivity levels of uranium ore in 500 years due to the simple fact that the most radioactive transuranic elements such as Cesium decay first. Uranium ore is not dangerously radioactive.
Re:Because hydrogen is diatomic (Score:2)
Re: No to Nuclear Power!!! (Score:2)
Just visit Pushback [pushback.com] for excellent nuclear power info, with lots of great links.
Re:Heroin? (Score:2)
Yeah, we're not the most educated people.
The symbol for for Heroin is actually Hr.
:p
Re:Heroin? (Score:2)
Re:Heroin? (Score:1)
Re:Heroin? (Score:2)
Re:Heroin? $$$ (Score:3, Funny)
Alternative fuel sources... (Score:4, Funny)
World has energy crisis
Turn poop into fuel
Re:Alternative fuel sources... (Score:3, Funny)
Hopefully... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Hopefully... (Score:1)
They will not pay you - here is what they'll do.
They will charge you a fee and add it to whatever you pay now for sewage. They'll call it a Universal Fuel Recovery Fee.
Then they'll (the gov. folks as this will be originating from public systems) will take kick backs to give contracts to their friends to do the actual work. Then they'll pass laws requiring you to use a certain amount of the new fuel.
When you go to buy the new fuel you will pay another tax. This will be the Universal Fuel Access Fee.
Your life will get quite a bit more expensive while 15-20 white men between the ages of 55 and 65 (who are already incredibly rich) will profit enormously.
If they can't get all this in place - they will squash the technology.
.
H? (Score:2, Funny)
Never mind.
first post? (Score:1, Insightful)
H2, not H.... (Score:1, Insightful)
oh well.
Re:H2, not H.... (Score:2)
Do you always refer to oxygen as O2 and Helium as H2, just to be completely accurate?
Re:H2, not H.... (Score:1)
Finally (Score:4, Funny)
1. Collect poop
2.
3. Be rich as Gates and rule the world.
Isn't Hydrogen Abundant (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Isn't Hydrogen Abundant (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Isn't Hydrogen Abundant (Score:4, Informative)
Ingredients:
Granular Lye
Aluminum foil
water
PLASTIC gas can
garden hose
1.Take the little gas spigot, and attach to garden hose with duct tape or somthing. Attach the other end of the garden hose onto a garbage bag.
2. Now, take about 1 sq. foot of foil. Make a thickish line of lye on the aluminum foil. Roll it up until it looks like a cigar.
3. Fill the can with 3/4 inch of water.
4. Now, as quickly as you can, cap the gas can. Much of the hydrogen is produced in the first few seconds.
5. Sit back and watch your bag fill up with hydrogen. The gas can will get very, very hot during the reaction. The reason for the hose is so the water vapor can condense.
Now, you can do all sorts of things with your hydrogen:
1. Blow it up. When you make hydrogen for exploding, include about 50% air in the bag, to provide enough oxygen for rapid combustion. This is not very dangerous. The hydrogen blows up too fast to burn you. The worst exploding hydrogen can do is singe your eyelashes. The main danger of this is getting hit by the burning plastic bag. Blowing it up is very fun. It even makes a shock wave. However, I suggest igniting it with a 10 foot long pipe with a match on the end.
2. Make a balloon. Just get the hydrogen as pure as can be. Then, tie up your bag when it is full. On a still day, just realease your balloon. Attach some colorful paper or somthing to it so you can see it on it's ascent. If you only fill the bag a third of the way full, your balloon should reach about 40,000 feet.
3. Breath it. It creates a high-pitched voice just like helium. Hydrogen is completely non-toxic. Just don't go near flames for a few minutes! (-: Also, don't stick your head in the head in the bag or anything. You could suffocate. Hydrogen is non-toxic, but without oxygen, you would die. You also wouldn't realize you needed to take a breath. When you hold your breath, the burning in your lungs is C02. Since you are inhaling pure hydrogen, which is not metabolized into CO2, you would have no idea that you needed to take a breath.
Re:Isn't Hydrogen Abundant (Score:3, Informative)
Also, you can put multiple fuel cigars into the gas can.
Re:Isn't Hydrogen Abundant (Score:2)
Re:Isn't Hydrogen Abundant (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Isn't Hydrogen Abundant (Score:2)
Re:The correct answer (Score:3, Funny)
So, from my experienice, it's unlikely you'd actually swallow it because as soon as it hits the warm part of your tongue and begins to react your body tells you something is very wrong and you tend to spit it out violently and start rinsing with water.
I was with a bunch of drunk idiots who wouldn't take it seriously and call the ambulance, so I ran into a nearby grocery store and grabbed a bunch of lemons thinking this would be the logical solution to the problem --I was inexperienced in these matters at the time and not thinking very clearly.
So, I just grab a lemon right there in the store and bite into it. Holy shit! It was the wrong thing to do, the reaction was violent and excruciatingly painful. The bloody red chunk of lemon fell from my drooling mouth as I sank to the floor in drool and tears.
There was two old ladies in the produce section and when they saw what I had done and the blood on the yellow lemons they pushed each other into the bread isle looking quite concerned.
Being in such a bizarre state, I insisted on trying the lemons again. So, I bundled a bunch of them in my shirt and sat down in the cereal section forcing myself to bite down on them and moaning.
Finally, I went up to the cashier with the bloody chunks of chewed lemon and tried to smile and act casual and I said through my screwed up mouth --"I wanted to see if they were any good."
The fucker didn't even laugh.
So, I got back to the house and my associates had started to straighten up a bit in my absence. They informed me that the lye bottle itself said not to use acids if ingested and they gave me some half and half which was what the bottle suggested and it instantly eased the pain. It was like the fire went out.
So, I thought my mouth was fucked. I called poison control and they said it was too late to do anything. I'd just have to live with it.
Well, the next day I looked in the mirror and I was terrified. My gums had receeded quite a bit and my tongue looked like hell. My cheeks and lips had clearly lost tissue. I was way way bummed.
But in the end, it turned out to be no big deal. Within three days my mouth had more or less totally healed and I swear my breath was fresher than ever and my taste buds seemed totally alive and sensitive to delicate tastes. For about a year, I was overly sensitive to anything basic, but it went away.
Re:Isn't Hydrogen Abundant (Score:2)
Re:Isn't Hydrogen Abundant (Score:3, Informative)
I don't understand. The hydrogen is the fuel in the fuel cell. You don't recharge a fuel cell, it works like an engine (though using the movement of electrons and protons instead of mechanical parts). And it's not a closed system. You put fuel in, and electricity and waste (water) comes out. Nothing stays internally. Read more about how they work here [howstuffworks.com].
Besides, hydrogen has so many other drawbacks due to its low molecular weight, that the main problem isn't getting hydrogen it is using it.
There are two drawbacks. The first is you need to compress it to get a good power/volume ratio, and the second is that the molecules are so small they tend to leak out of anything trying to contain it. They are simple engineering problems though. The former we can already do without problem. The latter various materials are being tested for containers, as is storing the hydrogen within another compound such as boron and then using a catalyst to release it upon demand.
Phillip.
http://www.FutureEnergies.com/
Re:Isn't Hydrogen Abundant (Score:2)
Or Borax as Daimler-Chrysler did with it's Natrium [popsci.com] minivan. The Sodium Boro-Hydride carries the H2 and it is extracted when needed. No storage problems, no compression needs. Gets 300 miles to the tank too. So what are we waiting for?
How is this alternitive fuel? (Score:3, Insightful)
Think "Storage" Re:How is this alternitive fuel? (Score:2)
Sure, you need to expend energy to make it, and that energy will come from sources that include oil and coal. But it's much easier to deal with emissions in a big plant than in individual internal combustion engines. And down the road, as wind and solar and tidal become affordable, you can start phasing out the fossil fuels and get most or all of the carbon out of the loop.
It won't happen overnight, but this is a start. Gotta get those learning economies going.
Stefan
Re:How is this alternitive fuel? (Score:2)
What I'm trying to say/ask is, what is an example of an "alternative fuel source" that fits your definition?
Re:How is this alternitive fuel? (Score:2)
Nuclear power is drastically cleaner than coal, oil, and when done properly causes less enviornmental damage than hydroelectric. And thanks to the nature of radiation, the most dangerous waste becomes inert the fastest. The biggest downsides to nuclear power are the security concerns (fresh waste needs to be guarded, reactor-grade fuel requires less work to be made into weapons-grade, etc) but it's certainly nothing that we can't work out.
Re:How is this alternitive fuel? (Score:2)
The old process is 20% efficient, which presumably means that it gets 20% of the energy in the waste out in the form of H2. The new process is supposed to be twice as efficient. The process doesn't require more energy than it produces, but it remains to be seen whether it produces enough energy to be worth the pain of dealing with waste and hydrogen-depleted waste.
Re:How is this alternitive fuel? (Score:2)
In the case of our sewage the same thing is the case, we're getting our energy by exploding Hydrogen, which was produced by some kindly humans eating green leafy things or things that ate green leafy things.
So, you could get your H{sub}2{/sub} out of the waste without terminally breaking any of the tenents of thermal dynamics, since what you are doing, rather then creating or destrying energy is converting it, with a big loss from the origional source (the sun).
Re:How is this alternitive fuel? (Score:2)
The process is much like a swamp making swamp gas, but quicker and with a cleaner product. The trick is to waste as little as possible of the energy that's in the waste, and to get a good clean product.
The new process begins with turning waste "biomass" into hydrogen, methane, water, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, using standard gasification techniques that involve heat and pressure. But further hydrogen is then produced by also breaking down the methane and water, says Bhattacharya, with the aid of a nanocrystalline catalyst.
The process can be run continuously because pure hydrogen is extracted through a palladium-coated ceramic semi-permeable membrane that blocks other gases. If the hydrogen was not removed the reaction would reach equilibrium and stop. Bhattacharya adds that the heat efficiency of the new system has also been significantly improved.
Re:How is this alternitive fuel? (Score:2)
If your thinking of the 2nd law, that only applies to closed systems. Since this system is getting a continuous supply of fresh waste material (read: fuel) from elsewhere, this is not a closed system.
Hydrogen is a dimer! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Hydrogen is a dimer! (Score:1)
Re:Hydrogen is a dimer! (Score:1)
Re:Hydrogen is a dimer! (Score:2)
When He bonds to form He2, it realeases lots of energy. Atomic Helium is metastable and will instantly recombine to form He2.
The energy produced by this reaction is about 5 times as energetic as the most energetic combustion reaction, H2+O2.
The main use for it would be rockets. Most hydrogen rockets get a specific impulse of around 450 seconds. Metastable helium or hydrogen would get about 2500 seconds. However, we don't know how to make anywhere enough for a rocket, or store it.
In the nearer term, ozone could boost rocket isp's. Ozone is metastable. It is not as energetic as atomic H or He, however. Using ozone in place of O2 in rocket engines can boost ISP by over a hundred seconds.
Rockets powered by metastable H or He will probably never happen. There are easier methods with which you can get increased fuel effieciency.
For boosters, scramjet/rocket powered spaceplanes would provide excellent fuel effieciency.
For in space, the ultra-efficient VASIMR plasma rocket would provide an ISP of 30,000, about ten times as great as metastable elements.
Metastable propulsion now is pretty much just theory. However, these 2 propulsion systems I just mentioned are under development right now. They have test engines for both the SCRAMJET and the VASIMR.
Re:Hydrogen is not a dimer! (Score:2)
Elemental hydrogen is stable under ultra-mega high pressure, like in Jupiter's atmospher. But it isn't stable here on earth. And that's all that really matters for it's use as rocket fuel. On earth, atomic hydrogen will be gone faster than you can say "Holy shit!! It's gonna blow!!"
Open Source? (Score:1, Funny)
Howard? (Score:1)
Summary... (Score:2, Interesting)
Pretty interesting. This bodes well for the future of recycling, too...
Suwage acid? (Score:1)
Finally... (Score:4, Funny)
sniff sniff (Score:2, Funny)
wait..
snifff
whats that smell?
Hmmm... (Score:3, Informative)
what does 20% efficient mean? There's this lovely quote that it's twice as efficient as our current 20% efficient systems... does this mean you get 20% more out of it than what you put in? If so, it's not bad considering we have more than enough raw sewage to process. However, we have this other problem. What do you do with hydrogen? Sure, you might be able to make some sort of power plant to process the stuff. In fact... some researcher have done it... check this out...
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Lab/9
93% efficiency... not bad. But hydrogen is dangerous stuff. I'd say a large amount of hydrogen is more dangerous than a large amount of reactor-grade uranium... considering all it takes to make hydrogen explode is air and heat. That's one of the reason we don't have hydrogen-powered cars. I don't know anybody else... but if they're looking a something like this, they'd better find a safer way to store hydrogen first. Maybe make a big tank out of a bucky ball and put the hydrogen in there...
Re:Hmmm... (Score:1)
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Lab/9
Interesting though...
Re:Hmmm... (Score:1)
You could say that for gasoline, as well. However, fuel cells don't use combustion, so there's less heat. They essentially take the electrons from hydrogen molecules, use them to power whatever is on the circuit, and then gives them back to combine with oxygen and make water.
Sure, people may say "But hydrogen is in hydrogen bombs! And it would really hurt if I got hit with one of those!" but I think there would be other problems if your car/generator/??? suddenly started fusing hydrogen.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is true. All you need for a hydrogen+oxygen fire is hydrogen, oxygen, and enough activation energy for the reaction (typically provided in the form of a spark or heat from the preceeding reactions). But, before we go any further, let's talk about gasoline. Right now in you car I'm betting you have at the very least 10 gallons of it, and if you just filled up you could have more. Hydrogen as stored for electrical generation would not have oxygen- if you turned on the valve and held your lighter to it you'd essentially be making a bunson burner (or if it's leaking fast enough, a flame thrower). Now, what about gasoline?
Because of gasoline's low flash point (-40 degrees C. or F, your pick), you find yourself with a bunch of flammable vapors in a short period of time. And gasoline burns more slowly than hydrogen, and this is bad in terms of safety. Hydrogen burns up really quickly and is gone, gasoline pesters. Gasoline fires are much more dangerous than hydrogen fires. And we're not even addressing all of the toxic fumes that go along with combustion of gasoline.
In the Hindenburg disaster, all of the hydrogen was gone with a pop. The ensuing fire, flames, and mayhem were the result of the paint- the zepplin was painted with a compound that was intended to reduce drag. Unfortunately, this paint was essentially jet fuel. The Hindenburg disaster serves as more of an argument against petroleum based fuels than against hydrogen.
Of all the problems with hydrogen, safety is not one of them. It's safer for people directly, and it's safer for us and the enviornment in the long run.
As for your question about efficiency, obviously 20% efficiency means you harness 20% of the total energy that is in the fuel source. Getting 20% more out than what you put in would be a violation of the first law of thermodynamics.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:1)
I'll agree that leaked hydrogen is definately not dangerous. And actually, as a burnable fuel is great because hydrogen burns "clean". Also, good writup on the Hindenburg disaster, thank you.
The Internet, one place where if you're not right, someone else will set you straight.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:2)
As for how to store the hydrogen, storing it as a gas is difficult because of the pressures required to get dense hydrogen. We might see new and more efficient techniques for synthesizing hydrocarbons (like gasoline ;)) pop up. With nuclear power, it should be a pretty good combination. Other people support using natural gas (Methane, CH4) and steam reforming it. We will see where the future takes us with this (heck, it may take is to non-hydrogen fuel cells)!
Re:Hmmm... (Score:2)
You mean like Borax as Daimler-Chrysler did with it's Natrium [popsci.com] minivan. The Sodium Boro-Hydride carries the H2 and it is extracted when needed. No storage problems, no compression needs. Gets 300 miles to the tank too.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:1)
Right now in you car I'm betting you have at the very least 10 gallons of it,
Huh? My car holds a TOTAL of 12 US gallons, so why would you assume that's a 'very least' amount anyone would have? Currently my car has about 3-4 litres in the tank.. which works out as 1 of your gallons.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:2)
and that, of course, doesn't mean that the "empty" space in a gas tank isn't filled with the more dangerous gas vapors... a less full tank can explode quite a bit more violently.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm... (Score:2)
Hindenburg (Score:3)
A car, however, needs compressed hydrogen. Compressed hydrogen will burn fast too, but there is a lot of energy to be burnt. Assuming that a gasoline car and a hydrogen car carry the same amount of energy (let's ignore efficiency for the moment), then I don't see the different between a burning gasoline and burning hydrogen car.Essentially you have to burn the same amount of energy. Only in H2 cars, you have to burn them *faster.
In fact, I'll be happier standing next to a gasoline burning car, since pressurised liquid hydrogen at room temperature will evaporate like mad and mix with the air to form a nice, highly explosive, mixture. Imagine a leak in the hydrogen tank : you'll get a perfect nozzle (with the pressurise interior), and viola : a big bunsen burner (also known as a flame thrower). And I am not even talking about the huge super pressure vessel you have to carry around as gas tank. If it does not burn on a crash, you'll get a big, bad blowup.
Now, having said all that, I am not advocating against H2. I am saying is that it is probably as dangerous as gasoline,if not more (mostly due to the pressurised nature of H2 you have to carry around). In Malaysia, you can get Liquified Natural Gas cars, which has much higher hydrogen to carbon ratio and burns much much much more cleanly for a while in an gas producing state of ours (for you Malaysians : it's in Sarawak. I was with Shell as an intern. I know, they're evil.) I've not heard anything about big explosions of these experimental cars though.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:2)
Not quite correct, the paint was effectivly rocket fuel. Similar to that used in SRBs. Another purpose of it was to be reflective and thus prevent solar heating of the gas, which would have ment needing to adjust vertical trim more between day and night.
The other fuel on board was that for the engines.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:2)
* You can extract 20% as much energy from the produced hydrogen as you expended to extract it from the sewage.
* You can extract 20% as much energy from the produced hydrogen, after deducting the cost of extraction, compared to the theoretical energy you could extract from the sewage by fully oxidizing it.
I disagree with the dangerous part, however. Hydrogen is safer than petrol/gasoline:
* Lower energy density
* Disperses *very* quickly, so it is hard to accumulate enough around a leak site to make a decent explosion.
Once dispersed, the hydrogen is harmless. Uranium is chemically extremely toxic. Both the chemical and radioactivity toxicity are not rendered harmless by dispersal - you just do less poisoning to more area. I would guess that for nearly pure uranium, the chemical toxicity is worse than the radioactivity. Once used in a reactor, however, the result is highly radioactive and will remain dangerous for thousands of years.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:2)
Typically, when discussing fuel "efficency," the term is used to mean the amount of power actually harnnessed verses the energy of the reaction.
The combustion engine is a classic example of a horribly inefficient power source as it is something like 7% efficient meaning that only 7% of the power produced in the reaction is actually used (the rest is heat, wear, friction, etc.).
Re:Hmmm... (Score:2)
Especially liquid hydrogen--when LH2 burns it does it with an extremely explosive force indeed. That's why LH2 is used as rocket fuel. It's also the reason why when the external tank blew up on the Challenger launch in 1986 it did it with the force of a tactical nuclear warhead.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:3, Funny)
Certain forms of hydrogen are extremely dangerous to handle.
Especially that nasty Dihydrogen Monoxide [dhmo.org]!!!
So let me see if I got this straight... (Score:5, Funny)
Who might have had one too many ales...
He said "You might think I'm nuts"
"We can get hydrogen from our butts"
"And fill our gas tanks with our tails!"
Seriously, folks... (Score:4, Interesting)
Seems to me that the oil companies need only roll out that old Hindenberg film everytime to clinch this one.
Re:Seriously, folks... (Score:4, Insightful)
My point isn't that we should eschew all dangerous fuels. My point is that fuel is dangerous. It has to be. If it doesn't have a high chemical potential energy, it's not fuel; it's inert and therefore useless. I sure hope the public doesn't get swayed by stupid misguided safety arguments.
Re:Seriously, folks... (Score:2, Insightful)
Um, that doesn't happen. I know, I know, anything large and rich is bad, but if they are so ruthless at least give them credit for something less juvenile than:
ENERGYCO VP: Johnson, this darn Hydrogen research is really scary. Instead of seeing how we can make money off it as a large energy supplier with an entrenched distribution infrastructure, I guess we should just roll out the ole' Hindenburg clip. That should stop the progress in it's tracks.
Re:Seriously, folks... (Score:3, Informative)
Sure it does. Ever hear how the electric chair was invented? Tesla's invention of the A/C motor finally made widespread distribution of electricity feasable. The problem was that Edison only had patents on D/C generators. The public had to be convinced that D/C was better. Conveniently, New York State was looking for a new, "more humane" way to execute prisoners. Edison proposed using A/C power to electrecute them, thereby demonstrating how dangerous A/C was. Unfortunately, his plan backfired when the first victim was still alive (albeit smoking) after four full minutes of current. See the book Blood & Volts [amazon.com] by Thomas Metzger for more history.
"twice the efficiency"? (Score:2, Interesting)
I wish they said how efficiency is defined. If they mean it takes 1 KWh of energy to extract hydrogen that produces 0.4 KWh when it's burned, then this is really uninspiring unless the input is just plain heat, in which case it's about as good as an electric power plant.
Water world come true? (Score:1)
Re:Water world come true? (Score:1)
Re:Water world come true? (Score:2, Interesting)
It's already been done, and has been used successfully. some details can be found here [nasa.gov].
Good thing it's intended for astronauts. I'd imagine it's hard to get volunteers to drink the results.
Overabundant resource (Score:5, Funny)
Huh? (Score:2)
hydrogen? Why not methane? (Score:2)
Re:hydrogen? Why not methane? (Score:3, Funny)
However, if they really want to solve all the nation's energy problems then all they need to do is install a huge heat-exchanger and steam-turbine in Congress.
There's enough hot air in their to keep the nation running forever!
Keep in mind... (Score:3, Interesting)
The report isn't about being able to profitably use sewage to gain energy, it's about putting energy into waste to get hydrogen. Much like desalinating seawater will give you fresh water at a high cost, processing sewage will get you refined hydrogen at cost - though now it's cheaper to get the hydrogen than before.
So there's no {1. Get sewage, 2. ??? 3. Profit}-finishing steps yet, it just possibly costs less than it used to.
:^)
Ryan Fenton
Intro to Entropy (very long) (Score:4, Informative)
H2 + O2 -> water + energy
everyone knows this, right? You burn hydrogen, it makes heat. So, conversely,
water + energy -> H2 + O2
this is splitting water; you can do this at home (not that I recommend this!) by taking the two leads from a power supply and dumping them at opposite ends of a glass of water. The bubbles you see (just before the explosion) are hydrogen and oxygen gas.
Now, when you run a reaction that goes
stuff -> other stuff + energy
the reaction makes the environment warm. Like a piece of wood burning.
Likewise, when you run a reaction that goes
stuff + energy -> other stuff
it makes the environment COLD. A simple home experiment you can do (in perfect safety) is to take a glass of water and then upend a container of salt into it. The glass of water will get cold, because:
NaCl (salt) + energy -> Na+ + Cl-
Now, the question is - why does Salt dissolve? The answer is: entropy. Entropy is one of the most difficult of all concepts to explain (especially when it results in organised phenomenon, such as life) but, basically, Entropy is the tendency of bigger aggragates (NaCl) to shatter into little pieces (Na+ and Cl-). There is a quantifiable relationship between the amount of entropy a reaction produces (the log of the number of pieces around) and the amount of heat (energy, in joules or calories) that a reaction must "liberate" into the environment in order to go (i.e. be "spontaneous"). A reaction that breaks things apart AND releases heat into the environment - like wood burning - will always go. A reaction that takes heat from the environment, and builds things up - such as a tree forming from water and air, bear with me - will never go; living things exist by coupling spontaneous reactions to non-spontaneous ones, the net reaction can be spontaneous even if one half of it would not be on it's own:
water + air + energy -> tree (non spontaneous)
concentrated heat (from sunlight, incidentally) -> dissipated heat (spontaneous)
water + air + concentrated heat -> tree + less dissipated heat (spontaneous!)
See? We're allowed to continue existing.
So, for any given reaction, you COUNT the amount of entropy the reaction makes, and if that is BIGGER than the amount of heat the reaction takes up (as is the case when salt dissolves) the reaction goes.
Okay, now, if there isn't any hydrogen around (because all of it has filtered away) the amount of entropy you produce by liberating X hydrogen (it's a log, recall) is much, much greater than if there is already a lot of hydrogen around.
So, to go back into the kitchen, if there is already a lot of salt dissolved in the water, the reaction
NaCl + heat -> Na+ + Cl-
produces less entropy. Eventually, the entropy produced by the NaCl dissolving no longer outweights the heat required to break it into two pieces, and the salt stops dissolving. You can empty a second canister full of salt into your glass of water, and it will all filter to the bottom, the water will get no saltier.
A similar thing happens with heat. If you take your salt-water with salt on the bottom and put it onto the stove, more salt will dissolve - ignore this if it doesn't make sense: this is because the more heat there is the environment, the less entropy (disorder) the environment loses when it puts any given amount of heat into the system.
The famous mathematical expression of all this is:
Total Entropy Change = Heat "Liberated" / Temperature + Log (change in amount of stuff)
(this is more commonly said dG = dH - TdS)
When I say Heat "Liberated", I mean heat which comes from the "system" (your glass of water) into the environment. If the glass of water makes the environment cold, this value is negative. 80% of PhDs can't keep the signs straight, so don't worry if something seems backwards. You're not alone.
So, doubling the amount of something always produces the same amount of entropy. If you have 60g of hydrogen, you need to make 60g more to produce (60,120) 1 "unit" of entropy. However, if you've got only 4g of hydrogen around to start with, making 60g more produces (4,8,16,32,64) 4 "units" of entropy.
So, in the reaction-
CH4 + H2O + heat -> 3 H2 + CO2
Here we are breaking things into pieces (4 pieces on right, 2 pieces on left), so the reaction is driven forward by entropy. There are two things you can do to drive the reaction forward faster.
1) You can add more heat; if you add more heat, you will make more hydrogen.
2) At any given temperature, you can drive the reaction forward by taking hydrogen away - this is what they're doing in the article. As the reaction goes forward, the hydrogen bubbles off.
Another kitchen chemistry experiment. Put two pots of water on the stove, full of water. Cover one of them. The one that you don't cover will boil away and turn completely into steam, right? This is because there is no steam in the air immediately above the pot, so when a particular water molecule becomes steam, the entropy gain is huge. The covered pot, on the other hand, will not boil away entirely (of course, eventually it will but in the short term I mean,) instead, it will boil away until a certain concentration of steam is reached in the air in the pot, and then stop.
So, if you want to boil water away more efficiently, you set up a system to blow the steam out the window (or collect it somewhere that you want to keep it) so that the air in the kitchen doesn't get humid. That's what this group has done.
Congratulations, you now know thermodynamics. That's really it.
They've also added a catalyst that makes the reaction go faster, but I'll save my explanation of kinetics (the study of how FAST reactions "go", as opposed to weather or not they go at all) for another time.
Since you've read this far, you get to know the collective secret of the scientific community: we are so high right now. Snoop Dog ain't got nuthin' on us; reefer in hand 24/7. Do you think I could've written this long schpeal without beaking baked off my derear? Oh, man, have I got the munchies.
Re:Intro to Entropy (very long) (Score:2)
Oh dear... so one can create a bomb using just a glass of water, an electrical wire, a match, and a power outlet? Just wait till the next True Believer does this in the airplane lavatory....
Sewage to made into H (Score:2)
Re:Sewage to made into H (Score:2)
Wrong book my friend, you are thinking of Better Than Life one of the Red Dwarf books by Grant Naylor.
Good book though...
Similar research at UC Riverside (Score:2, Informative)
Tells you a bit more about the process and the diagram gives you a good glimpse at the device.
--foolish
How about them emissions? (Score:1)
Is it me, or is this just doing the same thing as typical fossil fuels? I mean, if we utilize this new method and create carbon dioxide as a side effect, then what's the point? Besides turning my shitbox car into a literal shitbox, we still have the carbon dioxide emission problem not to mention a new added smell which might bring farting back into the mainstream.
Can someone please explain why this is a good thing? I'd like to know.
Free as in burgers (Score:5, Funny)
Ronald McDonald hereby accepts the Nobel Prize for ending world hunger...
Re:Free as in burgers (Score:3, Funny)
hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) (Score:1)
about some scientist
making a robot run on H2O2
as a fuel.
Does anyone have some good link
for more info on this.
Like how good is there engine and
how does one produce H2O2.
Knud
so the next time i shit my pants while driving ... (Score:1)
So Narrow! (Score:1)
Re:This is good, as Hydrogen isn't yet a fuel SOUR (Score:2)
Yes you can mine it. There is even a large deposit of trapped H2 gas. Obviously you have not read about this [slashdot.org] or this [nasa.gov]. The article linked has been moved, but if you will read my post [slashdot.org] I quote the article as saying, "One of these natural hydrogen fields is already known to exist in North America, and extends from Canada to Kansas."