tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19508699.post114094458276268828..comments2024-03-29T06:38:18.116+00:00Comments on Energy Balance: Bio-Hydrogen from Sugar: Scaled-Out of Question.Professor Chris Rhodeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12060542089215379056noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19508699.post-47625584032732929332008-02-10T14:13:00.000+00:002008-02-10T14:13:00.000+00:00Hi!I have a reasonable and broad background in sci...Hi!<BR/><BR/>I have a reasonable and broad background in science and I try to answer some of these questions from first principles. Am I ever incorrect? Well, that's why I show my workings, to give the reader the chance to point out anything that's wrong.<BR/><BR/>In this article, I am mainly emphasising the sheer question of scale in the quantity of liquid fuel the world uses: 84 million barrels a day or 30 billion barrels a year, of crude oil.<BR/><BR/>Before I started writing this blog, I hadn't really understood this, and I think most people don't and when it is pointed out some simply fall into denial.<BR/><BR/>I find some of the conclusions that have materialised from my musings pretty uncomfortable and I think there are difficult times ahead although I don't subscribe to the idea of some kind of immediate return to the "stone age".<BR/><BR/>Neither do I think that many proposed technologies can be brought-in fast enough, or on a sufficient scale, to replace oil as its supplies begin to wane (within 10 years certainly).<BR/><BR/>On the basis of the amount of fuel that might in principle be generated per hectare, growing algae to make diesel seems the most promising, although this is an untested technology on the grand scale, as are most others.<BR/><BR/>I like the idea of biomass to liquids but there are many technical difficulties here too. I attended a meeting in Oxford a while back where a speaker reckoned we could expect commercial BTL by 2020. However, this is not certain, but what is almost indisputable is that world crude oil production will have fallen considerably by then.<BR/><BR/>If BTL is possible, it means that the present contest between growing crops for food production or for fuel production is avoided, as it must be to feed a rising global population. The difficulty in feeding the latter number as fossil resources dwindle is the most uncomfortable aspect I have found yet.<BR/><BR/>In the end, this is just my view, but as I say, I do try to base it on hard numbers, rather than being bamboozled by hydrogen-salesmen and taking what is written on websites written by people with vested interests as gospel!<BR/><BR/>Chris.Professor Chris Rhodeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12060542089215379056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19508699.post-72571764355926513042008-02-08T14:13:00.000+00:002008-02-08T14:13:00.000+00:00I have read through your blogs Chris and they are ...I have read through your blogs Chris and they are very interesting indeed. Though a question that I must ask is that do you ever get anything incorrect? Is there any form of biofuel technology that you do champion or see the potential use of? <BR/><BR/>I think you should be a government advisor with the breadth of knowledge you have.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19508699.post-32058765173162505522008-01-30T07:52:00.000+00:002008-01-30T07:52:00.000+00:00You're not dealing with an amateur here, "mate". L...You're not dealing with an amateur here, "mate". Look me up on the web. My knowledge derives from my former profession as a research scientist. Now I am a writer and a businessman.<BR/><BR/>A girlfriend? I think my wife might object to that! What about your own sad, uninformed little life. You probably won't have a job when the oil runs out or welfare payments ... oh and all those credit card debts!<BR/><BR/>It's notable that there has been no serious scientific criticism of this article. Just carping and "I don't like what you say", but no contradicting numbers or facts. This speaks volumes about the likelihood of a "hydrogen economy" happening before oil begins to run out.Professor Chris Rhodeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12060542089215379056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19508699.post-85703633163236205152008-01-29T17:30:00.000+00:002008-01-29T17:30:00.000+00:00You need to get out more mate and get a life. Its ...You need to get out more mate and get a life. Its amazing how you have sourced all of that data. Maybe you need to go and find yourself and girlfriend or soemthing?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19508699.post-19336600361167630132008-01-03T13:37:00.000+00:002008-01-03T13:37:00.000+00:00If my critic is right and we can simply buy all th...If my critic is right and we can simply buy all that sugar in from elsewhere, how much arable land would it take to grow enough sugar to run the world's transportation on biohydrogen made from it? Roughly 30% of the Earth's surface is land and around one tenth of that is arable. This makes a grand total of 14.9 million square kilometres. We may deduce that to grow sufficient sugar from cane or beet would require 34.4 million km^2 of arable land to substitute for the entire world's oil requirement to fuel transport (clearly not feasible) and more than half of it, or 8.8 million km^2 just to keep the U.S. mobile. Unfeasible though these numbers are per se, they must be further regarded against recent estimates that the Earth can only support about 3 billion people, or half the present human population, in the absence of fertilizers etc. and a system of modern agriculture based on oil and natural gas. It should be noted too, that this population is predicted to rise to around 9 billion by 2050, but how can it, when many producing wells of oil and gas will be running out by then?Professor Chris Rhodeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12060542089215379056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19508699.post-54657617901330110102007-12-16T08:53:00.000+00:002007-12-16T08:53:00.000+00:00Hi Johnny!Do see my response on the other article ...Hi Johnny!<BR/><BR/>Do see my response on the other article re. biohydrogen that you passed-by.<BR/><BR/>It's all wonderful... all that you say, but do you really think we can put a completely new system in place for sugar production (which would involve turning over much of the world's agriculture for that purpose), handling and distributing the hydrogen, making the fuel cells without platinum to convert 600 million vehicles to run on it and so on?<BR/><BR/>And by the way, what sources of energy do we use to power all of this? Oil, gas, coal?<BR/><BR/>I am emphasising scale here. Do you simply not understand just how much oil the world gets through and what would be accordingly involved in substituting all that is underpinned by it, using hydrogen?<BR/><BR/>If this were a serious proposition, why didn't we do it 30 years ago when OPEC artificially hiked-up the price of oil? The reason was that cheap oil came back onto the markets thus removing the incentive to find alternatives. In certain respects it is a shame that we weren't forced to find them then, as we now face a geological problem regarding oil supplies, rather than a relatively simple political issue.<BR/><BR/>However, in view of the engineering problems involved on such a massive scale, I doubt that hydrogen would have been the answer. The most promising idea I have come across is to grow algae to make diesel and use this as a conventional liquid fuel.<BR/><BR/>Any thoughts on that?Professor Chris Rhodeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12060542089215379056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19508699.post-38995208557832651012007-12-16T00:03:00.000+00:002007-12-16T00:03:00.000+00:00Hi, have you ever heard of the following three thi...Hi, have you ever heard of the following three things:<BR/><BR/>1. gasification?<BR/><BR/>2. carbon capture and sequestration?<BR/><BR/>3. biomass trade in tankers and bulk carriers which is very efficient.<BR/><BR/>You can read a good introduction to the efficiency of biohydrogen production here:<BR/><BR/>http://www.bio-wasserstoff.de/pdf/Brussels2007_slides.pdf<BR/><BR/>You can then also read about why bio-hydrogen is both the most efficient and cleantest of over 25 hydrogen production pathways, here:<BR/><BR/>http://ies.jrc.cec.eu.int/wtw.html<BR/><BR/>You can produce biohydrogen very efficiently from gasified wood (or any type of biomass for that matter; imported if necessary).<BR/><BR/>You then obtain H2 with the lowest emissions of more than 25 production pathways and the highest energy balance.<BR/><BR/>You can go even further and sequester the CO2 under ground. The result is decarbonized energy, also known as carbon negative biohydrogen which delivers 'negative emissions' energy.<BR/><BR/>That is, when you use this energy, you actually take CO2 out of the atmosphere. You are not carbon neutral like renewables (solar, wind, etc....) which merely prevent new emissions. No, instead you clean up the atmosphere, which other renewables can't.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, you still have quite a lot to study. That much is clear.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19508699.post-558091421069319332007-07-29T08:18:00.000+01:002007-07-29T08:18:00.000+01:00Hello "Anonymous"!Yes it is shameful when someone ...Hello "Anonymous"!<BR/><BR/>Yes it is shameful when someone who doesn't know what he's talking about speaks up! So hello again.<BR/><BR/>Do criticise my calculations if you wish (or can?). Even if I am "out" by a factor of ten (BTW look at the Research literature for concentrations etc. which is where my "volume" value comes from), the amount of water needed to fill these as yet un-engineered reactors is stupendous (as indeed is the engineering itself), in order to match, by hydrogen, the energy equivalent of the petroleum that we currently use and is running-out. It's as simple as that.<BR/><BR/>However, concentrations change nothing about the "lake-full" of butyric and acetic acid that will be produced. Yes there is research-stage work that shows hydrogen can be extracted from these materials, but nothing as yet on an industrial scale. All such processes - fermentation or thermal - produce methane and CO2 as well, which would be a further issue to contend with.<BR/><BR/>In any case, the "sugar" value is not sweetened either: irrespective of concentration, to match our current fuel quantity we still need to grow the amount that I indicate, and that is far more than the area of arable land in the country. Do you not get the point?<BR/><BR/>I am a trained chemist and what other calculations would you have me provide than "apparently ever so well thought through" ones...?<BR/><BR/>I have also worked-out the energy value of those by-products of acetic and butyric acid, which you will find in a posting made shortly after the article of our present discussion.<BR/><BR/>Also, I have handled acetic acid, butyric acid and hydrogen and they are not nice materials... believe me. We would not want an economy based around them.<BR/><BR/>BTW you're not an academic getting research funding for this are you?<BR/><BR/>Who are you, exactly, Mr/Dr (even "Professor" at one of the "new" universities?) Anonymous?<BR/><BR/>If you wish for a serious discussion about this or any other subject you are welcome to contact me, but spare me your sarcasm.Professor Chris Rhodeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12060542089215379056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19508699.post-82068835115355182262007-07-26T15:51:00.000+01:002007-07-26T15:51:00.000+01:00Oh dear, it's always a shame when someone who does...Oh dear, it's always a shame when someone who doesn't know what he's talking about gets involved. It's not really worth the effort in dismantling all the apparently ever well thought through calculations, but just a couple of decimations will do: 1kg of glucose in 154 litres? err don't think so, more like 15.4 litres? Are not acetate and butyrate useful chemicals? An idiot would form a lake with them, more sensible people would use them for feedstocks for other processes - Hold on a minute, they can be used to fed further fermentations to yield more hydrogen. How much I hear you ask, well I think you can increase the four moles to 12!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19508699.post-60935899432111932912007-07-14T10:45:00.000+01:002007-07-14T10:45:00.000+01:00"Strains" to improve hydrogen yields? O.k. but eve..."Strains" to improve hydrogen yields? O.k. but even if you got twice as much, it changes nothing in terms of the overall chances of replacing gasoline for H2!<BR/><BR/>Why is it being funded - and H2 generally for that matter? Good question. Perhaps some of the reason in academic careers, research grants - let's face it any excuse will do to "get a grant"!<BR/><BR/>You'd better ask those other "clever people" hadn't you?<BR/><BR/>No, I'm not the first person to show calculations that fail to support the "hydrogen economy". There are loads of web pages about the subject.<BR/><BR/>The essential difference seems to be that "dissenters" show numbers and "supporters" don't. In my opinion we are not going to replace oil with hydrogen, and that means people having to give-up their cars because petrol will be too expensive as the oil runs-short.<BR/><BR/>Nobody much thinks that the fossil fuel era is on the way out, and there is really no way to replace that huge amount of oil used, and certainly not within the next 10 years by when oil supplies will be down to probably 85% of current world production.<BR/><BR/>The most optimistic technologies (which still need to become fully developed) appear to be making biodiesel from algae, possible cellulosic ethanol (or butanol?) routes, or old fashioned coal-liquefaction. Not hydrogen. But still, matching the amount of oil used will be an enormous undertaking.<BR/><BR/>I wish it were otherwise.Professor Chris Rhodeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12060542089215379056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19508699.post-79670782585603900112007-07-14T09:53:00.000+01:002007-07-14T09:53:00.000+01:00what about the metabolic engineering of certain st...what about the metabolic engineering of certain stains already able to ferment sugars to produce hydrogen? ie if the stoichiometric production is incresed per mol of glucose (or other carbon source cinsumed) Also why are people giving pletny of money towards biohydrogen projects when Im sure others as bright as yourself would have come to the same conclusions from energy calculations? or maybe you are the first person in the world to give your hypothesis?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com