Gas Goes Solid 154
Roland Piquepaille writes "This innovation from Japanese researchers can potentially revolutionize the energy distribution sector. Instead of transporting liquid gas, they changed gas into a solid material which is easier, safer and cheaper to distribute. Technology Review has the story. "Rather than extracting methane from hydrates, they want to turn methane into hydrates -- essentially, transforming the colorless and odorless gas into small pellets that can be easily stored, transported, and eventually turned back into natural gas. A few months ago Mitsui, in partnership with Osaka University, opened a demonstration plant near Tokyo to promote the concept and show that it works." Check this column for an analysis."
I knew it. . . (Score:2)
Because hydrates are still a mysterious substance, there are many scientific and engineering obstacles that could make the process cost prohibitive.
One problem (Score:1, Insightful)
the millions of cars in the world to be able to use this !
This is natural gas (Score:3, Funny)
Re:One problem (Score:3, Informative)
Secondly, they arent expecting the consumer to recieve these pellets, the pellets are just a intermediary to ship and store the gas easier before it gets to the customer. This should have been EXETREMELY obvious since it specifically states that the pellets are harder to ignite then regular gas, you shouldnt have even had to RTFA for this one.
And thirdly, you wouldnt convert all the cars on the road to a new fuel source, you would just produ
Re:One problem (Score:1)
Another thing you might be intrested in is that you can convert COAL into natural gas, and of course then turn it into oil ect. If we are willing to spend the cash then we won't have a "oil shortage".
The solution is already out there. (Score:4, Funny)
Cows produce large methane generating chips too.
Certainly helps with the energy company PR problems, who can argue with a fluffy little cute bunny? Will Greenpeace dare break out the holy hand grenade?
What is gas? (Score:5, Funny)
In the USA, gas is liquid (i.e. petrol).
In Soviet Russia, gas is
Re:What is gas? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:What is gas? (Score:3, Funny)
(sweden, as well norway and finland, has quite high taxes on alcohol)
i wonder if you could abuse these pellets by eating them and then fwarping extra loudly.
Re:What is gas? (Score:1)
Bose-Einstein condensate!
I got it! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What is gas? (Score:1)
Been there. Done that. (Score:5, Funny)
Shit happens.
Re:Been there. Done that. (Score:2, Funny)
Your cubicle is probably not the most popular I can gather
Re:Been there. Done that. (Score:3, Funny)
tried to shit and only farted.
Then one day I took a chance,
tried to fart and shit my pants.
Freaky (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Freaky (Score:2)
Re:Freaky - And here is a picture + other links (Score:4, Informative)
How many miles per? (Score:4, Funny)
Miles per Pound?
Miles per Pellet?
Miles per Block?
Heck with this we might as well switch to metric.
Re:How many miles per? (Score:1)
How much is that "Gram" thing in inches, anyway?
Re:How many miles per? (Score:3, Funny)
"My car gets forty rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I like it!" - Grandpa Simpson
Miles per dollar, miles per tank (Score:2)
Re:How many miles per? (Score:2)
A feq questions first (Score:1, Interesting)
A few questions though -
Maybe some of you who got to the artic
article (Score:3, Informative)
Japanese researchers may have found the secret to exploiting the world's untapped natural gas reserves.
By David Wolman
April 11, 2003
Nearly 95 percent of the known gas fields in the world are too small to justify the costs required pipe the gas to a plant, turn it into a liquid, and then transport it on specially equipped tankers.
But a handful of researchers have an idea that could make these fields worth mining: rather than figure out cheaper ways to transport this cleaner-burning energy so
Re:A feq questions first (Score:3, Informative)
You can thank Slashdot for another useless article summary and title. The process is actually talking about Natural Gas, not Gasoline. The primary goal of this is not to make "fuel pellets" for cars (although that would be cool), rather it's to find an alternative method of transporting Liquified Natural Gas (LNG). LNG tankers have to maintain a very cold env
Re:A feq questions first (Score:1)
You can thank Slashdot for another useless article summary and title. The process is actually talking about Natural Gas, not Gasoline.
Just because when you say gas, you mean gasoline, doesn't mean the rest of the English-speaking world sees it that way. In Australia at least, the word gas refers to natural gas or LPG (which used to be quite popular as a car fuel until the price difference between it and ordinary unleaded dropped), and the stuff inside your car is called fuel or petrol.
A new Metal Gear Solid??? (Score:1, Funny)
Oh, just a crap article
Interesting... (Score:3, Interesting)
Assuming that all the hurdles around the process can be overcome, and it turns out to be finacialy sound, this may very well be the start of a revelution as far as energy distribution goes. Something needing just -10C to distrebute... heck, I could store a pile outside in the winter and just carry 'natural gas' inside in a bucket. Come summer, whatever remains there was would just evaporate away (I assume) safely. Methane - which is the main component of natural gas - is a quite efficient fuel for a properly designed internal combustonengine, or you could feed it to a fuelcell.
I missed a few details however... just how do you go from solifed gas and back to gaseous gas? Is it just a matter of heating them above -10C, or? Can anyone offer any inisght on this? Because if it's a realtively easy process, I can easily imagine these pellets beeing used for energydelivery in cars, homes, cabins, laptops (well, maybe not for a few years) etc etc ad nasaum.
...and then there is the 'other uses' this stuff can have... If you built a bomshell much like a thermos, you could just fill it up with pellets, add a bustercharge and get yourself a nice FAE-bomb...
Oh, gotta qoute this bit of the article (emphasis mine);
Norwegian petroleum engineers first proposed the idea after comparing the transport economics of liquid natural gas to natural gas hydrates, knowing that hydrates could store large amounts of natural gas in a small space.
Re:Interesting... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Interesting... (Score:2)
Re:Interesting... (Score:1)
I work with LNG, and yes you could build a a fuel air bomb out of this. However, the tempature of the material makes this hard. Look at the pictures of burning hydrate being held by peoples hands, until it is a gas it isn't dangerous. LNG is very similar. The tempature of the liquid will snuff out most flames ect.
Isn't this old news? (Score:2)
Can anyone speak (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Can anyone speak (Score:1)
"On the quality of minds that work at the U.S. Department of Energy?" it should be.
I need to wake up.
Re:Can anyone speak (Score:1)
Re:Can anyone speak (Score:1, Informative)
Things to remember (Score:5, Insightful)
2) When you break the hydrate down, you have methane and water. You have to do something with the water - dump it on the ground, feed it into the engine to be vaporized, something.
3) While hydrates may store more methane than storing the methane as a gas, I don't think hydrates store more methane per unit volume than storing the methane as a liquid.
4) You are storing methane and water - you will have more mass per unit methane than storing just methane.
Those things said, this could be a good thing, in that anything that allows better storage and transport of methane makes it a more viable fuel source.
Re:Things to remember (Score:2, Informative)
The water might not be so unwanted as you suggest.
There are some concepts of internal combustion
engines which use a mixture of fuel and water.
The water will be evaporized during combustion
and the produced steam will provide an added force
to the piston. Think of an additional steam-engine
you get for free.
johnboy
Re:Things to remember (Score:1)
and the produced steam will provide an added force
to the piston
Sweet! I thought water in gas was bad, but now I know better.
Seriously - it sounds like a good plan, but IANAAE
Re:Things to remember (Score:2)
Re:Things to remember (Score:3, Interesting)
2) When you break the hydrate down, you have methane and water. You have to do something with the water - dump it on the ground, feed it into the engine to be vaporized, something.
Along these grounds, why not recycle the water to a) cool the engine itself and b) drive a small turbine for added electrical power generation. Perhaps, this additional energy can be applied to a fly-wheel assembly for quicker accelleration.
Re:Things to remember (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Things to remember (Score:2)
Re:Things to remember (Score:1)
Re:Things to remember (Score:4, Interesting)
First, it actually contains more energy per unit volume than liquid methane.
And second, it is much more difficult to liquiefy methane than to form the hydrate phase. Liquid form requires very very low temperatures, and very high pressure, while the hydrate phase can be attained at around the freezing point at much lower pressures.
Transporting methane in the hydrate phase is very attractive for countries that don't have their own power sources (southeast Asia). 1 cubic metre of methane hydrate holds 160 cubic metres of gaseous methane.
However, the infrastructure to use it efficiently is still under heavy development so it'll be a while before we see methane hydrate being used on a large scale.
Re:Things to remember (Score:1)
Re:Things to remember (Score:1, Informative)
energy conservation: >90%
standard technology (cooling trucks) sufficient.
2) When you break the hydrate down, you have methane and water. You have to do something with the water - dump it on the ground, feed it into the engine to be vaporized, something.
mass water to mass methane: 2:1, ie
One problem from the world of ice cream (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, what I have GOT to wonder is this...what effect might this have on ice pellets that contain lots and lots of tiny bubbles of methane??
Re:One problem from the world of ice cream (Score:4, Informative)
Bzzt. No. But thanks for playing.
Whether a liquid or a solid, water is has a vapor pressure. If a system of ice and air is at the same temperature, there will be water vapor in the the air. The system will be (once there is enought water vapor in the air) in equilibrium - there will be no net movment of water from its ice form to its vapor form. But this is dynamic equilibrium, ice will be moving to vapor at the same rate that vapor is moving to ice. (Both processes - solid to gas and gas to solid - are called sublimation.)
If there is a temperature difference in your freezer, the ice will move from the (even slightly) warmer spot to a colder one. However, the process, for instance, of having all your ice cubes smoothing their edges and attaching themselves to each other would occur even if the contents of the freezer were all at the same temperature. The ice is trying to get itself into its minimum energy configuration, where it would be one big sphere.
If the top of the ice cream container is cooler than the rest of it, water will migrate to the top. The migration just requires a spatial temperature gradient, not a temporal temperature change.
Wait a minute.... (Score:1)
Not from Concentrate (Score:1)
I'll say this much... (Score:3, Funny)
"Dear, did you remember to give our son gas?"
"Yes, I did. His trunk is full of it..."
Etc.
It's great they're beginning to research hydrates (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's great they're beginning to research hydrat (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.mms.gov/tarprojects/
Of course Japan would be pushing this technology because they have the largest know reserve of hydrates off their coast. In
Re:It's great they're beginning to research hydrat (Score:2)
Methane hydrates (Score:5, Interesting)
Methane hydrates are not particularly high-energy-density fuels- wouldn't be suitable for automotives, for example-but the bigger a store the easier it is to keep cold (lower surface area to volume ratio) so I guess they could actually be useful as a way of storing large amounts of gas economically and safely, the role they are basically playing on the seabed right now.
Basically, I just don't get the Japanese argument. Is it really going to be cheaper to transport several ordinary refrigerated trucks of methane hydrate than one very cold truck of liquid methane? It looks as if the technology might be more of a way to stockpile large reserves of gas. As electricity generation in many parts of the world is increasingly gas-fired using turbine generators, perhaps this is a way to protect fuel reserves and generator capacity better from terrorists.
Re:Methane hydrates (Score:3, Interesting)
the first is safety.. if a truck full of methane hydrates wrecks, so what, you've got these not-very-harmful rocks slowly melting and releasing methane into the air.. not a big deal..
on the other hand, a tank full of pure, liquid methane would tend to ignite w/ the sparks of any sort of tank cracking.. not good
also, it probably is cheaper to use regular, everyday refrigerated trucks and train boxes rather than getting a tank
Re:Methane hydrates (Score:5, Interesting)
But there's also the issue of "White Crude," not mentioned here. In Alaska, we have enough gas to fuel the world for years, but can't get it to market because it's so much cheaper to do so elsewhere. We and others are working on a chemical process that creates "White Crude," a room-temperature liquid, from NG. White Crude can be shipped within existing oil pipelines, separated easily at the terminus, and loaded into existing oil tankers. Once at port, white crude can be turned back into NG and distributed through pipelines to consumers.
Re:Methane hydrates (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Methane hydrates (Score:3, Informative)
Pipelines are NOT safer (Score:2)
There are regular pipeline accidents. I remember one(I think gasoline pipeline?) levelled a neighborhood. Levelled. For about a two block radius.
With a tanker, you only have to worry about what's in the tanker. Pipelines? There are MILES between control valves(ie, dozens of tanker-truck's worth.)
In the particular accident I'm thinking of,
Re:Pipelines are NOT safer (Score:3, Informative)
Look for how many hazardous chemical spills we had in the US by trucking or train in the last couple of years...
When you use overland transportation, the variables increase -- thousands of potential collisions, more human error capable (as there are now thousands of drivers instead of a few pipeline controllers), weather
Re:Pipelines are NOT safer (Score:3, Interesting)
As for car vs plane safety- depends on whether you are measuring per distance, trip, travel time etc.
http://www.teemings.com/issue07/safety.html
White Crude (Score:1)
Exerpts:
Most processes for making white crude or its cousins involve three major stages.
In the first, steam, oxygen and natural gas react to create a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide called ''syngas.''
In the second stage, the syngas is converted to wax.
In the final stage, the wax is converted to one or more liquids -- diesel, jet fuel or the clear, nearly odourless white cru
Re:Methane hydrates (Score:1)
At -10 C, of course, the hydrate is stable at a couple of atmospheres pressure, so if you don't crash, you're OK.
It's mainly these problems that make mining the clathrates (old name for methane hydrates) from the ocean bed uneconomical.
Damn physics, but there ya go...
Re:Methane hydrates (Score:2)
It might not be cheaper to transport it by truck, but once necessary facilities are in place you could start using trains, resulting in the cost of transportation per ton dropping considerably. Not to mention that you could sure move thousands of tons of this stuff with a train rather easily.
net energy loss (Score:2, Insightful)
Brazil had (has?) similar issues in using ethanol as a fuel. The machinery used to harvest and convert the sugar into ethanol used more fuel than was produced.
Re:net energy loss (Score:2)
It's the same problem with White Crude (room-temp LNG by process) -- it works, but is currently too expensive to be viable.
Beans (Score:3, Funny)
A little thin on the details (Score:3, Interesting)
Also annoying that they mention nothing about pressure, as the fun way to get hydrates that I know about is to flash a high pressure stream of natural gas with a bit of water across a valve to lower pressure. Hydrates form and plug up the valve. Not a good thing, But the point is that pressure=compression costs. Nobody ever seems to give lifecycle energy costs for these new & improved technologies. And yes, I realize they are using a tank reactor, but I bet there are still some decent pressures involved to get reasonable yields.
LNG has always been borderline on whether it makes economic sense. Places like Trinidad and Qatar are into it because they have such huge natural gas supplies in relation to their oil reserves that they can build huge plants and get some economy of scale. Customers are places like Japan (hence this bit of research) and the U.S. believe it or not. Latest numbers I heard are that LNG is competative with pipeline natural gas at about $4/MMSCF, depending on how far you have to ship it. With the strong prices of the last couple of years, the pace of projects is accelerating.
Re:A little thin on the details (Score:1, Informative)
I used to do research on hydrates and the density issue was really non-intuitive but turns out to be true. It has to do with thermodynamic stability inparted by the massive amount of hydrogen bonding in
energy cubes (Score:2)
weight (Score:2)
FYI, methane has a molecular weight of 16, while water has a molecular weight of 18.
If, as the image on the web site seems to imply, it requires 20 molecules of water to encompass one molecule of methane, then we're talking 23 times the weight of the liquid methane. It would also take up around 20 times the space. Add on the refrigeration system that would be needed and it's just not practical, at least for
Re:weight (Score:1)
If you're transporting your methane one molecule at a time, this would be true.
However, it's water in bulk, with methane dispersed throughout, and in more of a cubic structure than the dodecahedron shown, so the packing efficiency gives roughly a 2-2.5:1 weight ratio, and a 2:1 space ratio.
Each molecule of water would play it's part in transporting about 1/2 as much methane, and the extra space taken up is less than the water volume.
Having said all that, I'm not at all sure that the hydrates are as the
Coming up next... (Score:1)
Re:Coming up next... (Score:2)
Damit! (Score:1)
Ice-9 (Score:1)
Powdered water! (Score:2)
Solid Gas (Score:1)
Isn't innovation much cooler over in Japan?
Re:Solid Gas (Score:1)
More Than Meets The Eye? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:More Than Meets The Eye? (Score:1)
Re:More Than Meets The Eye? (Score:2)
- Peter
Didn't I read about this in Popular Science... (Score:1)
discovery channel (Score:2, Interesting)
The real question... (Score:2)
Hydrogen is often stored as a hydride (Score:3, Interesting)
EROI (Score:2)
Often omitted in the discussion of alternative or modified energy sources is the concept of energy return on investment (EROI). It's defined as the ratio of energy provided for useful work divided by the energy required to extract and process the fuel source.
If one expends energy overprocessesing the fuel, the net energy contributed to the system is reduced. For example, it's been published [mines.edu] that ethanol requires 70% more energy to produce than it provides.
Given that the global economic system exists
Bring on the Energon Cubes (Score:2)
For Great Justice
How about the water shift reaction and C02 hydrate (Score:1)
Gas, pellets.... (Score:1)
Interesting article (Score:2)
Too bad it never got built, but who knows, if Wired's issue before last is right, we might have it in a deca
Meanwhile in Crime news... (Score:1)
Researched these things (Score:4, Interesting)
Right out of College about 13 years ago I joined one of those huge Oil Companies and the main thing I did there for 2 years was study gas hydrates. The reason we studied them was in order to *prevent* their formation which is the opposite of what this article talks about. The problem with hydrates in the oil business is that under high pressure and low temperature they form
When oil comes from the formation, it is almost always mixed with water and some varying amount of gas or other hydrate forming HCs. Everything is fine up the wellbore and near the wellhead, but not too far away from the wellhead the fluid starts getting cold and these solid particles form. They can clog a pipeline if you don't take countermeasures. One is to run a device called a "pig" through the pipeline to clean them out. Another is to install insulation, heated lines, or inject lots of chemicals like MeOH to suppress the hydrates. But all of these things start increasing the production cost and/or decreasing capacity.
So our research looked into creating chemicals that you could inject in very small volumes near the wellhead to inhibit the formation of hydrates.
Anyway, all this hydrate study did make people think about the application of hydrates in the transport of natural gas (NG). I think it's a very interesting idea. Currently to get NG from a remote place to market, you need lots of big expensive gas turbines driving massive refrigeration equipment to create Liquified NG (LNG). Then you need these huge, wild looking LNG tankers. Then you need special port facilities to handle the super-cold LNG. The up front capex is so massive (think 10 billion plus for many potential projects) that no one just pays that upfront hoping the customers will show up. No. You get agreements on paper stretching out 30 years with customers and only THEN do you give the green light to the project.
Hydrates certainly wouldn't need near the compressor/turbine expense of LNG development, and there might be a sweet spot in terms of pressurization and temperature you might strike. However the rest of the economics I'm not too sure about. If most of the cost of a project is the tankers and you need a lot more of them for Hydrate, then you might be better off with LNG. The other huge thing in LNG's favor is that we know it works and can calculate a cost.
One interesting idea I saw floated once was the creation of hydrate subs. Huge deepsea vessels that would be able to stay cold and high pressure just by virtue of being well below the sea surface where those conditions are natural. Now unlike a typical sub, these guys would never surface and so would not need thick walls to handle pressure differences inside and out.
Imagine one of these things scooping up hydrate from the ocean floor and carting it off to a disassociation plant on the seabed (preferably in a subsea canyon as closs to the coast as possible) that evaporated the hydrate gas into a regular gas pipeline.
dave
Mobil did this 5 years ago (Score:2)
Ocean Drilling Program (Score:2, Informative)
Liquid Fuels Rule (Score:2)
Liquid fuels, hydrocarbons, can be easily pumped from one container to another.
Energy density is huge, too.
They don't need to be kept under high pressure.
A wise old professor educated me about just how indispensible liquid fuel hydrocarbons are to our modern economy about two decades ago.
He also contrasted that heavy reliance on liquid hydrocarbons to the inevitability of their limited supply.
I doubt solids or gases will displace liquid hydrocarbons soon. But I'm glad to see research into the alterna
Re:Why? (Score:2)