The Enemy of Reasonably Priced Clean Energy: Bad Ideas
Here’s something I noticed from the process of participating in a large number of energy-related conversations at the American Chemical Society Conference last week: some of these subjects–even those receiving funding–have virtually no chance of practical application. And, while I don’t have a problem with academicians doing experiments from which we can all learn valuable things, I have a big problem with putting false hope for our energy future in ideas that lack true merit.
Here’s a great example: I ran into a guy who mentors graduate students in microbial fuel cells. In brief, part of a microbe’s metabolic process includes emitting an electron that can be funneled through a circuit, just like the more familiar hydrogen fuel cell. But, where a hydrogen fuel cell can be 40%+ efficient, and thus enjoy some reasonable power density, the feeble rate at which electrons are emitted from whole organisms results in power densities that are ridiculously small. Can they be improved with more work and funding? Sure, but it’s tough. There are obvious limits to which we can increase the temperature (something we would do with inorganic fuel cells), as doing so would harm the organisms.
Bottom line: Does this subject have a reasonable chance for commercial success, i.e., in competition against the many other major ideas in generating clean energy? Not in a million years. But, for some reason, it seems to be a darling of someone with some level of authority, because darned if it didn’t rise above the pack in selection process to receive funding from the Department of Energy’s ARPA-E — at the expense of hundreds of ideas that could actually make a difference.
With this level of insanity (?) ignorance (?) corruption (?), or whatever it is that lies within our decision-making, we’re in deep trouble. Solving our energy problems is hard enough with good thinking; with foolishness like this, it’s impossible.
Call it like it is! I agree, stuff like this is what feeds Fox “News” Reality needs to be Sustainable fantasy is not. Green washing “will waste water”
Greg Chick Green Plumber Trainer
Here’s another one
CCS vs DCFC (Direct Carbon Fuel Cell)
Coal fired power station ~38% of energy in coal converted to electricity, add CC(S) (at much cost) >> 30% efficient.
Direct Carbon Fuel Cell ~80% of energy in coal(carbon) converted to electricity CC(S) is built in at no extra cost.
UK funding for CCS, £1Bn for commercial demonstration + £20M for additional research.
UK funding for DCFC, << £1M.
If you haven’t come across this book you might also find “Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air” by David MacKay an interesting read, it’s free to download from http://www.WithoutHotAir.com
Could you pleeeeeze explain what CCS and CC(S) mean??
You save a minute by using abbreviations, but each reader who really cares has to spend several minutes trying to figure out what you mean, and your message gets lost!
In this case, I expect most readers of this newsletter know that CCS means carbon capture and storage, and I would take CC(S) to mean carbon capture for storage, in recognition of the fact that many fossil fuel plants are not located at a suitable storage site, and storage would have to happen elsewhere. I expect you know this, and are making a point. It is also a pet peeve of mine-too many people will go on and on using abbreviations or acronyms without ever explaining them. People, if you are going to abbreviate, at least spell it out at least once (preferably the first instance), to save us the trouble of trying to guess at it.
As the renowned engineer/scientist, Buckminster Fuller once said, “there is no energy crisis, just a crisis of ignorance”
I agree.
Crisis of ignorance? Seems like an abundance of it.
Could it be that your conversation was too short and you failed to fully understand the process, it’s potential, and its applications? To label the funding of such innovative technologies as insanity, ignorance, corruption sounds like sour grapes. Was your proposal rejected?
Actually, I’ve never submitted a proposal personally, but I’ve worked as a consultant/advisor for dozens of companies that have.
Craig, you refer to the low efficiency of microbial fuel cells. This is undoubtedly true, but is it important?
Hydrogen fuel cells require high quality clean hydrogen which is expensive to produce and transmit, and most of which is derived from fossil fuels by chemical processes. Hydrogen fuel cells also generally incorporate high cost rare materials such as platinum, and have a limited operational life.
Microbial fuel cells use any kind of biological waste including sewage which costs money to process so that the fuel cell potentially offers two fee generating services rather than one. Microbial fuel cells may potentially be simpler to make and require far lower cost materials than hydrogen fuel cells once fully developed.
Surely cost to make and run the fuel cell taking into account the cost of fuel and or the fees to be received for waste processing need to be compared. Maintenance cost, and residual value of materials at end of life also to be accounted for. In this way, comparative cost can be assessed.
I would say that microbial fuel cells are unlikely to become power dense enough for transport applications, but at a sewage works to take an example, power density is far less important.
One more point on efficiency, photosynthesis operates at between around 1% and 5% efficiency, yet ultimately enables the life of nearly every animal and plant on the planet
I doubt that most researchers in this area are even looking at using microbial cells for mass production of grid electricity. The first application that would come to mind is sewage processing. In that application, microbial cells have the potential advantage of doing a more complete job of breaking down the waste, requiring less additional treatment. Since treatment plants themselves require electricity for operation, any electricity produced would most likely be used to help run the plant.
Often, research like this leads to unexpected applications. I disagree with anyone who suggests that such research is useless.
By the way, hydrogen is a great deal less expensive to generate than its automotive alternatives, gasoline and diesel fuel-in fact, more than half of all hydrogen produced is used to process and refine those fuels. One company alone, Praxair, has over 300 miles of hydrogen pipeline, with a huge underground cavern storage facility, for the purpose of delivering hydrogen to refineries for use in the desulfurization of diesel fuel. It is also used in desulfurization and dearomatization of gasoline.
Apart from the catalyst, hydrogen fuel cells are made from quite ordinary materials. The amount of platinum used in a 100kW automotive cell has dropped to less than 30 grams. Daimler’s next generation cell is expected to use less than 10 grams. There are also other potential alternatives; Toyota is experimenting with manganese catalysts. Cell life has also increased, and should be at least comparable to that of a typical gasoline engine.
Evolution has shown that efficiency cannot focus on specific chosen targets. The byproducts of an energy conversion must also be sustainabley useful somewhere, somehow.
GARD ELECTRIC INC.
12625 Beebe Rd.
Irving, NY 14081
Craig, I am afraid you would not know a good idea if it slapped you on the posterior and kissed your cheek … If it was not for ridiculous amounts of federal financing, wind turbines would not and probably never would have been built. But that does not matter to the average thick skulled American tax payer, does it? Politics and science never mix very well, and this is a prime example.
I have shown you a real solution that would provide vast amounts of free renewable and storable energy and you apparently could not figure it out, or could not bother to even look at it. Too much invested in turbines no doubt? No problem, your loss. However your complaints of others inability to grasp reality strikes me as a very weak argument … being you are a prime perpetrator …
Tim Gard
I looked at this when you first presented it to me a year or so ago, but I’m not interested. I’ve been trying to be kind in this public forum, and I’ll remain civil, but your idea won’t work. It’s rooted in a misunderstanding of the basics of physics.
Dear Craig I fully agree Mr Tim Gard
As it is said ” Aman is not disturbed by his status but by his opinion”
What YOU MEAN CIVIL its about ” People who are cautious never take responsiblity but try to save their reputations ” This not a way about CIVIL when energy needs kills billions of human on this planet world wide What Tim Gard said wind energy is a wrong technology which takes huge land plus danger to nature birds are killed very noisy and little energy produced
With this level of insanity (?) ignorance (?) corruption (?), or whatever it is that lies within our decision-making, we’re in deep trouble. Solving our energy problems is hard enough with good thinking; with foolishness like this, it’s impossible.Nick CookMarch 28, 2012 at 3:39 am
As the renowned engineer/scientist, Buckminster Fuller once said, “there is no energy crisis, just a crisis of ignorance”
I agree.I agree corruption is the main reason not ignorance but ignorance are taken to save themselves a method
Thanks to find truth in people who wrote here.
C.K.P
Sorry, but bad science will not help any of us get anywhere. And there is a ton of it out there (including Tim’s example) – purveyed by many different types of people, some of them frauds. I’m not accusing Tim of being a fraud; most of these people honestly believe in what they’re saying, and I’m sure Tim is in that category.
Btw, I usually handle communications like this privately. The only reason you’re seeing this discussion is that Tim (over a period of the last many months) has posted numerous comments here, so I had no choice.
I challenge you (or anyone) to Google Tim’s idea (“hydraulic oscillation”) and compare it the basic principles of physics that surround energy, force, pressure, etc. Sorry for being so blunt, but it’s bad science, and no one is well served by pursuing ideas that have no basis in reality.
Again, I see ideas like this at the rate of about one a week, and I calmly but firmly explain that I’m not interested. I normally tell people, “If you don’t believe me, I urge you to try to build working model.” I suggest the same for Tim.
Dear Craig Thanks for your corrective reply GOD BLESS.
Craig I don’t support TIM GAURD.
Time is running out one specific quote I read I won’t be able put exactly here but the truths are out. ” If you listen to INTELLECT you can’t do business,you can’t have a love,you cant have your friendship.Only thing you have to climb the top of the mountain and jump from there on your way down you have to create your own wing to land safely ” This situation every creative genius is trapped between the ARM CHAIR INTELLECT and the advancement of mankind are delayed or indefinitely wiped out the results are peeking at our face like a pensioner shot himself was at 77 shocks me How come you Craig can tell the technology you personally checked or what ever don’t have the value of solving human who are in deep need with every governments failing is the result of the same INTELLECT giving wrong information than the right ” Like ” The whole worlds problem with the world Fools and Fanatics are so certain of themselves while wiser men with full of doubts ” What is your standing Craig? Do remember what He Tom Guard said about if not the political support “WIND ENERGY AREA IS HEAVILY INVESTED ” Thus he might expressed any technology have to go through the basic doubts of this INTELLECT ‘ who are unqualified and if they decide WHAT IS GOOD ? WHAT IS NOT VIABLE IS A NONSENSE .mY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE cRAIG YOU NOTE IT DOWN TODAY good Friday THE DATE 6TH,APRIL 2012. “WIND ENERGY ” are looked upon as a difference and the day is not far it will be failed like What in mobile phone tech ” NOKIA ” Failed ” “APPLE’S iphone did . The same shock ENERGY SECTOR GOING TO EXPERIENCE .i DON’T RULE OUT ” wind energy ” out But it can be improved better with lesser price much more energy generating capacity.and the PE like “BLACKSTONE “are even in the cloud which of their investments can be be put to best practices the serves the poor AND CRAIG THERE ARE VOICE LESS PEOPLE WHO BEAR THE HARDSHIPS AND IF THEY WERE TO GO FOR “OCCUPY WALL STREET ” Things would become unbearable for every government which I do get scared before they take up we must address being here Today only I thought about you meeting all and every investor as well the innovative INTELLECT groups teams individuals What you an author having met so many people still have no knowledge I feel pain and dismay Craig.IT TAKES TO LITTLE TO CHANGE and for not taking timely action COST even this whole planets some trillion will be lesser to get on hold Even in millions the right technology is far from us your comments shocks me A man having authority on the subject if you think your action should be in the line of right information sharing would give you and USA you being at the peak of technology power house and say such things its uncalled for.Right info leads to right technology correction like CORRUPTION BREEDS CORRUPTION and there is no chance of recovering stage world to see the lights of HOPE Craig I would request you please don’t say or share wrong information I from 1987 and 1097.98 since observe and study CLEAN ENERGY.iF THE MINUS WISER MAN AND THE INTELLECT THIS WORLD MOVED FORWARD HOW LIKE APPLE PRODUCTS TAKEN THE IMAGINATIONS OF MILLION AND MILLIONS WORLD WIDE TODAY I can judge this world like a WINNER.” A WINNER takes is time cherishing his dreams knowing that climbing the mountains and the veiw from the top SO EXHILARATING ” tHIS STAGE JK Rowling,and few other even MARK ZUCKERBERG and the most at His bottom of failures THE LATE STEVE JOBS gone through thus he emerged a true WINNER FROM THE TOP HE SEEN ALL OTHER PRODUCTS FAR BELOW FROM HIS IMAGINATIONS CRAIG.I WISH YOU GET CORRECTED FROM YOUR THINKING AND THIS DAY OF LONG WAITING ESPECIALLY MY EXPERIENCE SEEING THE POOR WHOSE LIFE IS NOTHING BUT HE SMILE AND LAUGHS BEING HAPPY BUT WHEN ITS ABOUT intellect corruption KILLS MILLIONS DAILY ON THIS PLANET I meet daily craig no voice i do carry but i expect intellect of fake must give up their power and let this earth flourish and get cleansed through technology that is not costly either but cheaper as world is connected no SPECIFIC USA PROBLEMS or Africa’s problem or for that matter CHINA,INDIA,but every where poor suffer on the expense of greed corruption I said enough it pains me so I thought never go over board enough is enough Craig and Thanks to all and this holy weak should bring enlightenment’s and peace C.K.SWAMY.P.J I wishing we reach out to peace of mankind through our action that costs zero $’s to billions $ if one lucky may be a billionaire who can stop?some body if comes out with anothe ” APPLE “
While its true that throughout history there have been “discoveries” that in themselves were events that changed the world. Many were the product of scientists working on a theory and they worked; that said, today we have statements made by renowned people that do give false hope without substance. Amory Lovens said he sees the electric car serving as battery backup during peak demand; what a joke. Lovens left out the human equation and the idea will never fly. I think that in the world of academia, today’s agenda is first go after the money then figure out how to spend it in the lab. There may be scientists that are serious about finding the answer but I think most are after dollars.
Your comments echo my sentiments about hydrogen fuel cell vehicles taking funding away from practical and proven technologies that desperately need capital for scaling up and proliferation. We should be hammering a way at cost reduction in good viable battery/ BMS technology and vehicle weight/ safety optimization, instead of feeding the sham known as the fuel cell vehicle. The math and physics of Hydrogen as an energy currency for mobility is bogus until we have cheap ubiquitous solar and wind available for the electrolosis!
Re-applying your last statement: The math and physics of batteries as an energy currency for mobility is bogus until we have cheap ubiquitous solar and wind available for recharging. Why, then, should we, as you suggest, spend enormous sums on battery and BMS technology?
If there is a sham, it’s the current gasoline/diesel internal combustion engine technology that we have developed over the last hundred+ years, at trillions of dollars expense. A US gallon of gasoline has about 34.5 kWh of energy, but takes some 16 kWh of electrical energy to make (even more if the crude feedstock comes from non-conventional sources). Given the difference in efficiency, it takes less electricity per mile to run a Nissan Leaf than a Chevy Cruze. In addition, desulfurization and dearomatization of our gasoline and diesel fuels requires enough hydrogen to supply half the fuel needs of our vehicles if they were fuel-cell driven. This is all in addition to the crude itself, which we have to dig out of the ground, at enormous environmental degradation and energy cost.
Here in Ottawa, Canada, I am involved with EVCO (Electric Vehicle Council Ottawa), and we promote both battery-powered and fuel-cell powered vehicles in general, (although individual members may favor one kind over another). Hydrogen fueled fuel cell vehicles are viable and should not be dismissed so easily. BC Transpo operates 20 fuel-cell powered vehicles in British Columbia, powered by hydrogen from hydroelectricity and industrial byproduct hydrogen. Your friendly Wal-Mart uses fuel cell powered fork lifts and goods handlers, converted from battery power by Ballard and/or Hydrogenics. Vehicles that operate 24/7 do not have time to charge, and keeping four or more exchangable battery packs per vehicle on charge is an enormous maintenance problem. a fuel cell powered forklift can refuel in a few minutes.
Typo (in parentheses, second paragraph, ‘conventional’ should read ‘nonconventional’)
I fixed it for you.
Thanks, Craig
By the way, the 20 fuel cell powered vehicles I mentioned are passenger buses, introduced at the 2010 Winter Olympics at Whistler, B.C., and remain in regular service. B.C. based Powertech, which built the refueling network connecting Vancouver, Burnaby, Surrey, Whistler and other nearby communities, has also built refueling stations in California and Europe.
And, since you have an interest in energy storage systems, here’s a teaser: Hydrogenics is building a 17MW hydrogen storage system in Germany, which will store wind-generated electricity as hydrogen, in existing natural gas pipelines, at up to 10% hydrogen-to-CNG ratios. The hydrogen-enriched gas can be used as normal CNG would, or returned to the grid using CNG-powered generators or SOFC’s (solid oxide fuel cell). More information on this can be found at the Canadian Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Association’s website, chfca.ca.
Sigh,
I worked on a basic cut-and-paste reply for nonsense like this… so I can reply to it whenever I see it pop up without wasting any time:
In 2011 the total refinery consumption of electricity was 46.227 TWhs, which is laughably insignificant, but greater than the 12.4 TWh of electricity produced from petroleum coke in 2011.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=8_NA_8FE0_NUS_K&f=A
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_1_1
The 46.277 TWh were used to refine 15,283,000 bbls/day of crude oil.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_unc_dcu_nus_a.htm
Each bbl of oil is ~1.7 MWh of stored energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_of_oil_equivalent
So the final result is that every kWh of electricity that is used in a refinery also involves the use of 204.920 kWh of energy stored in oil.
The refined products from this 15,283,000 bbls in 2011 are as follows:
(in bbls; then in stored energy)
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_pct_dc_nus_pct_a.htm
Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG):
~233,131,800 bbls; ~261.130 TWh of stored energy
Finished motor gasoline:
~2,510,233,750 bbls; ~3.859 PWh of stored energy
Finished aviation gasoline:
~5,578,295 bbls; ~7.931 TWh of stored energy
Kerosene-type jet fuel:
~524,359,730 bbls; ~735.552 TWh of stored energy
Kerosene:
~5,578,295 bbls; ~8.461 TWh of stored energy
Distillate fuel oil:
~1,612,127,255 bbls; ~2.384 PWh of stored energy
Residual fuel oil:
~189,662,030 bbls: ~300.454 TWh of stored energy
Naphthas:
~83,674,425 bbls; ~120.411 TWh of stored energy
Petroleum coke:
~306,806,255 bbls; ~402.601 TWh of stored energy
Waxes:
~5,578,295 bbls; ~5.543 TWh of stored energy
Other oils:
~39,048,065 bbls; ~62 TWh of stored energy
Lubricants:
61,361,245 bbls, ~98.853 TWh of stored energy
Asphalt and road tar:
133,879,080 bbls; ~258.922 TWh of stored energy
Still gas:
245,444,980 BOE (bbl of oil equivalent); ~431.492 TWh of stored energy
Misc other products:
27,891,475 bbls; ~20 TWh of stored energy
Some of these products – especially the still gas – are simply re-consumed at the refinery… while others are sold. The refineries consume ~1% of the LPG, most of the still gas, 1/3rd of the petroleum coke, and ~10% of the “other products”… along with ~750 billion cubic feet of additional natural gas.
Until recently, the amount of electricity generated just from the petroleum coke far exceeded the total amount of electricity required by refineries… The 200 million bbls or so of coke produced/year would generate far more than 120 TWh of electricity if it was co-fired in coal plants. But now the demand for petroleum coke is so high (carbon fiber industries, electronics, etc…) that most petroleum coke is sold to higher value markets instead.
That doesn’t render the comment that “the electricity consumed by the refineries could run EV’s farther than the fuels would run ICE’s any less stupid.
The energy content in just the liquid fuels: gasoline, jet fuel, kerosene, and distillate fuels is almost 7 PWh, while the electricity input is only ~46.3 TWh.
If an ICE runs at only 25% efficiency (the Prius runs >40%), while the EV runs at ~80%, then the total amount of work done by ICE’s in this scenario would be ~1.75 PWh, while the total potential work done by EV’s could only be ~37 TWh…
That’s 47 times as much work done by ICE’s than done by EV’s, and that’s completely ignoring the total energy of the LPG’s, naphtha, residual fuel oils, petroleum coke, waxes, other oils, lubricants, asphalts/tars, and misc other products from the refineries.
The fact that EV’s are significantly heavier for similar sized vehicles will result in far less distance for equal units of work…
The statement that “EV’s can travel further on the electricity used in the refineries than ICE’s can using the refined fuels” is so far beyond a simple lie, or even a egregious lie, that it’s just horrific.
It might just be the single most stupid statement that has ever been uttered.
I hope you’ll tell us how you really feel….
I have a feeling that, if you read my daily email, you’d soon see the error in your last remark. 🙂
Craig,
I’ve signed up for updates, but they don’t occur daily.
I wouldn’t mind being on the daily list as well, but I’m not currently. Could you send me a copy of the e-mail in question?
I was kidding. I was referring to my overall daily email, some of which, trust me, is pretty asinine.
The value quoted included not only refinery electricity, but electricity used in the extraction process, and came from reports from people who worked within the petroleum industry. Yes, there are other products coming from the refinery, and they are also used in the extraction process as well as the refining process, and in transportation of the raw and refined products. From a purely energy standpoint the bottom line is the EROEI (enery returned on energy invested), and that is getting very low these days, espescially for non-conventional sources. From an environmental standpoint total emissions skyrocket as the EROEI drops, as it is comprized of the total of emissions from extraction and from use. A similar dramatic increase in other environmental damage also results. Whatever the exact figures we put on this it’s still insane.
The irony is that the carbon dioxide we dump in the air is itself a viable commercial commodity that can be used for making synthetic lubricants and fuels and in other industrial uses.
Addenda:
Glenn, in relation to the issue of refinery consumption, I have not time to review in detail your data and references right now, but will mark them for later study. It is possible, of course, that the source I relied on, which seemed legitimate, has been regarded as legitimate and repeated on many blogs, and has been seen in print at least as recently as the November 2011 issue of the Electric Automobile Association’s newsletter, is in fact bogus, or the original source has been misquoted. Until I have satisfied myself on that, I will not use that source again, as it may need to be taken with several truckloads of salt. I do not work in the industry (nor do I wish to), so have to rely on second hand information. I do try to verify my sources.
David,
My frustration is not with you, but from the original sources. What frustrates me about them is there is absolutely no justification for the claim. There’s no way that the actual numbers can be mis-worked in such a way that the statement can in any way be excused as anything other than made-up nonsense. They simply manufactured a “fact” and manufactured false numbers to defend it… and now it has become a runaway internet myth.
Thank you for noting that CO2 can be used to synthesize fuels and other petroproducts. We’re working steadily towards that goal, and eventually every ICE will be fueled with carbon-neutral WindFuels.
G-Max Power Place is on the forefront of Hydrokinetic Energy. Creating electricity without carbon emmisions is proven and available throughout all tidal waters.
As do present means of Electric production, Fossil, Dams,etc, based on ones geographic region, Tidal, Wind, Bio, fusion, magnetics, Geo,wave, Solar, etc will also, all have their place eventually, in society.
Presently, Academia,Governments, and private business who invest time and money towards various ventures, are the forward thinkers of our time, and take all the risk.
The arm chair critics will always be there to evaluate with sometimes, fair & unfair opinions, some based on scant reserch, some well meaning, and some truly interested.
Fact is.. “The Road To Success is Always Under Construction” Can we as forward thinkers have patience, and temperence to share our visions with the uninformed & unwilling”?
When we do succeed, I’m anxious to hear what they will have to say then?
Because it always makes me grow up a little bit more.
Paul DiMaggio – G-Max Power Place
seems like you touched a nerve with the people who know this stuff. I would love to see yo address some of the points brought up.I suppose the next big break could come from anywhere.
Paul,
You are so right, or should I say, correct, as to not incite a riot. I have people all day long tell me na-sa stuff they hear on TV about “Green” this or that…Do they mean well? some do. Some are droids sent by the other side to keep the status quo. Do the “Droids mean well? some do. When the issues hit these people clearly and costly, they will get a bit more educated and less assumptive. At this point for most this is a hobby or pet subject or even a paycheck search, but it is not what they seek truth in. Most find truth on TV and magazines that are skewed. The more I learn the more I see how much we dont know and at the same time see how much more there is to know about what is already working. The whole yes/no thing is driven by price not viability in Earth terms or people terms. Cost in dollars I mean to say, you know that fantasy paper that to these standards discussed here would not cut the mustard! So when do we get real? when it comes to our personal reality? The us dollar would not pass a Physics test that this conversation is forcing on the “Green” power.
Garth, I agree and the human equasion that most of us need to make a living justifies your last sentence, albeit the system is often abused.
Publicly funded research belongs to the public with royalties returned to the pot.
One way that I,ve seen business done these days is to first form the corporation then purchase the patent/idea, sell shares on the speculation, get public grants, spend alot of money and maybe develope something that works, maybe even efficiently. Bass ackuards, but it serves the business for awhile.
Craig,
You point up an interesting phenomenon – the darkly purposeful sabotage/discrediting/derailing of viable renewable solutions using meritless or fatally flawed “solutions”.
However, I note that you state:
“But, where a hydrogen fuel cell can be 40%+ efficient, and thus enjoy some reasonable power density, the feeble rate at which electrons are emitted from whole organisms results in power densities that are ridiculously small. Can they be improved with more work and funding? Sure, but it’s tough. There are obvious limits to which we can increase the temperature (something we would do with inorganic fuel cells), as doing so would harm the organisms.”
Obviously this estimation has struck more than a few nerves, and it may be useful to defend it with some specific numbers and sources on the efficiency. While I agree firmly that such biotech seems particularly vulnarable in desert areas where sun-heated temps rise to triple digits and above the habitable zone of most organisms, it would be interesting to note the die-off temp for the organism in question.
Sadly, this isn’t my area of expertise. I gleaned the basic facts that I presented in the post from other chemists I happened to meet at the show (the American Chemical Society conference).
I followed some of the early research at Penn State on microbial cells. I’m not up on the latest research, but from my understanding of the early work I believe those cells were producing hydrogen, not electricity (although, of course, the resulting hydrogen could be used to do so). In fact, some of the early research involved “tickling” the organism with a low-power low-voltage charge (on the order of 0.5V to 0.8V or so) to increase their output. Early experiments indicated that it might be possible to increase the hydrogen production by up to 800%. This also consumed most of the waste material left behind by ordinary aerobic reduction, greatly reducing the need for after-treatment of sewage water to obtain potable water. This is probably the most viable application for the cells. The hydrogen might be used to generate electricity for the plant. I doubt that this kind of cell is expected to have a major impact on power generation- but every little bit helps.
I don’t know which specific organisms they are currently using, but given that some microbes are known to survive trips through space unprotected, I would suspect that it might not be too hard to find something that could survive in any earthbound desert, if necessary; but in this kind of application I doubt that it is an issue.
I have heard about attempts to use microbes as the catalyst in an otherwise ordinary PEM cell, in place of platinum, but don’t know where they stand currently. In any case, there are many potential inorganic substitutes for platinum that are being worked on. All of these, I believe, are worthwhile pursuits. We might learn something of importance.
Why is all this so overwhelmingly a “supply-side” discussion? Kinda reminds me of ol’ Ronald Reagan days, when we were arguing against “trickle-down supply-side economics”, an argument still going on today. Experts like Lovins and experienced 30-yr players like me still push and achieve big reductions in use, just by applying lots of conservation and efficiency. I’ve cut electricity use in my house by one-third since 1999, using almost no high technologies.
Last week I looked at EIA’s most recent electricity statistics. Use still growing aggressively in residential and commercial, even during the recession. Big new growth in small electronics, small and large appliances. Duh! Yet there is very little discussion about curtailing growth in electric demand or use, which as Lovins says over and over, that’s the lowest-cost and quickest-to-implement solution. Why is it so distasteful?
Is it because the supply-side solutions are always the most profitable so get the most attention from investors, longing profiteers and lobbyists? Even if so, why not at least mention somewhere in all promotions and marketing that efficiency and conservation are still the overwhelmingly lowest-cost, most widely affordable and fastest implementable solutions? Just in case somebody is actually interested in quicker, lower-cost and more broadly accessible solutions…
I believe that as long as we continue to grow our demand for dirty power while having all these arguments about which paths to take, which products to buy or which high technologies to invest in, our actual energy situations will just worsen, making any eventual solutions even more difficult.
I am with you on cutting energy usage. When I moved into this house 9 years ago it used 26+kWh/day and 750 gallons of heating oil a year. Today I use about 13-16kWh/day depending on the season and I went 396 days on 452 gallons of heating oil. I will grant that the heating oil thing is somewhat weather dependant but I have also made improvements that are paying off. There was one electric bill last summer where I used an average of 9kWh/day.
The main driver for the energy reduction efforts was the fact that at the efficiency for the panels of the day and the amount of power I was using required more roof space than I had to meet my needs. I have also always understood that the less energy I use, the less energy making equipment I need. At this point I could meet my worst case needs with 18 panels on the roof.
There are many who speak against renewable energy as unable to meet the “need”. I see many kinds of waste of energy right down to something as simple as leaving the outside light on 24/7. I see parking lot lights on in the daytime. I know people leave things on in the house when they are not being used. It makes me nuts to know and see this.
I have concluded that there is a substantial difference between our “needs” and the waste and wants that makes up our current use and I think renewable energy would stand a much better chance if it only had to meet our actual “needs”.
Semi-random thoughts that (in my mind at least) relate to today’s subject matter.
1) A long time ago I accidentally participated in a project that got referred to as the Arpanet. Part of the idea was that we would do long distance heterogeneous machine to machine communications at 56 kilobits. Some people seemed to think there were too many ‘trekkies’ roaming about.
2)I’ve attended many of Amory Lovins’ lectures. He never ceases to engage me. Trekkie thing, I suppose. No one yet knows how to do vehicle to grid (V2G)in a manner that doesn’t accelerate the demise of the battery in question. Amory may talk of such things, and they may not yet be possible, but hey, its still an interesting idea. We talk of distributed generation, so why not distributed storage?
3) No one yet knows how to build a billion dollar (or so) gigawatt traveling wave reactor. Doesn’t mean I won’t listen to Bill Gates and Terrapower about it.
4) Corn ethanol has proven to not satisfy the requirements for which it was posited as a solution. Doesn’t mean that there isn’t considerable possibility in a cellulosic or bacterial approach to the creation of sugars.
I could easily go on. My point is that these are the things I think about when Obama and others talk about “all of the above”. Don’t ever give up too soon.
I agree with arlene, sometimes we don´t see the potential, but it´s there, some ideas end up being breakthroughs, so we never know where these ideas will take us. The thing is, I remember 4 years ago, giving away all those 700 billion dollars to project with no real aim, just spread the wealth ( which wealth?) don´t know… Polititians give away money that is not theirs, they always do that, that is the problem: The thing is if all that money isn´t theirs, then they don´t really care how it is used. You know?
Craig Sheilds, and 2Energy put forward a great forum of ideas and results that get to the heart of where alternative energy is going worldwide, in most sectors.
This information is valuable to those who are seriously committed within their own projects.
Scattered thoughts of the uninformed, and ideas with no serious reserch, time committment, Money committmnet, and no personal committment, may not receive a viable well thought and timley answer, or responce at the whim of their questions, while the focus of 2Energy is gathering very valuble information in their tracks”.
I hope 2Energy can stay the course, and keep focusing on the things that show great promise from the things they do, and offer us.
Craig Shields appears to be suggesting that we should all make snap judgements and promptly reject any idea that isn’t an obvious winner and only support those ideas that already have traction. If we follow that advice then we will be doomed to a future in which new ideas will be smothered – it would be like smothering babies because they aren’t able to take care of themselves.
Wow, that’s quite an analogy, Ron.
Craig: The comment is based on experience. I live in Canada where I design systems that use the cold winter air to chill the ground. Most people think that is a ridiculous idea and almost no one takes the trouble to follow the rationale, partly because their first reaction is that it is a dumb thing to do and partly because they have never heard of such a practice.
We waste enormous amounts of energy in our buildings. We use a lot of electricity to pump the heat out our buildings in the summer, then we use fossil fuels to heat them in the winter. If we instead use the ground to store cold and/or heat from one season to the time when it is needed then we can reduce the annual electricity consumption by a very large factor and we can eliminate the use of heating fuels altogether. Most of Toronto’s largest buildings already use this practice (using lakewater rather than the ground for storage) so the idea is beginning to have some traction but it is still being ignored by most energy gurus.
Oh, I’m a huge fan of geo-exchange / geothermal heat pumps.
Hi Ron;
We met a couple of years ago at Vitesse, when Roy Joseph, Robert Chisholm, and myself were giving a green energy presentation- Robert on heat pumps, and myself on hydrogen and fuel cells (remember my fuel-cell powered model train?), mediated by Roy.
Your idea is a good one, but as it relates to buildings, there is still a lot of inertia out there in the building trades. I watched an eight-unit 3 story townhouse going up beside mine. I watched shoddy workmanship, no heating or cooling innovations whatsoever. No heat pumps of any description, an architectural design that gave no thought to providing a useful surface for mounting solar panels (not even a thought as to whether it may be shading my roof and reducing my potential for harvesting solar energy), in a complex that was going for upwards of $500,000 a unit.
It takes time, a lot of pushing, and a lot of patience.