HYDROGEN and Its USES Carbon can be made into fibers that are ten times stronger than

steel. Carbon fiber reinforced tanks can store hydrogen at 250 atmospheres and are available in light-weight composite designs that will safely provide 100,000 cycles from full storage pressure to empty pressure, withstand the blast of a full stick of dynamite, withstand an attack with a .357 magnum pistol, and withstand 700 C surface temperature in a bonfire test. The American Hydrogen Association has used such tanks for fifteen years to safely store hydrogen Several other new proprietary approaches may provide hydrogen energy volumetric densities on par with gasoline. The American Hydrogen Association has an experimental investigation concerning production of hydrogen by electrolysis at sufficient purity to directly load such dense energy storage systems. Hydrogen has been shipped in low-alloy steel cylinders with 2,640 in3 volume under psi. pressure since 1898. Such cylinders are painted red to signify hydrogen as flammable gas. The author has such cylinders that were first pressure tested and stamped for approved service in 1916 and 1917 and which have routinely passed every safety test with 5/3 hydrostatic pressure (at 3360 psi) to prove the strength and resilience characteristics. These cylinders were in service for more than 20 years before the infamous Hindenberg fire and have passed every safety test in their 80 years of faithful service. Such steel cylinders can remain in service so long as they pass visual and hydrostatic safety tests. In addition to having very safe storage cylinders, the industry has adopted standards for preventing over-pressurization due to filling errors, fires, and other heat source exposures, and mechanical impact. Cylinder control valves are equipped with pressure relief devices (PRD) which relieve pressure if the tank is exposed to a fire or other heat source. In most instances that steel cylinders are removed from service it is because of corrosion of the steel or other damages to the outside surface. Another reason that cylinders are removed from service is because the threaded bore in the neck becomes damaged or enlarged due to over tightening of the control valve. TRANSPORTATION AND STORAGE OF HYDROGEN IN NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS: Successful long term storage of hydrogen in steel cylinders suggests that many existing natural gas pipelines could be used to transport and store hydrogen. In many instances hydrogen has been found to be a substantial constituent of natural gas which has been transported to market for many decades through natural gas pipelines. Utilization of depleted natural gas formations to store hydrogen will enable long-term storage at a very low cost. Transportation to and from such storage can be by existing steel pipelines. CONCLUDING REMARKS: Europe has opted for importation of liquid hydrogen which has been produced in areas with surplus renewable energy (Canadian hydro and Saudi solar). European transportation equipment including cars, trucks, buses, and air planes will have weight-reduction advantages based on liquid hydrogen.

Exciting discoveries are pacing the development of much denser hydrogen storage systems. Composite storage cylinders can be designed and manufactured from carbon, glass, and polymer fibers for even greater corrosion resistance, durability, and safety than provided by the extremely safe steel storage vessels. The present natural gas infrastructure can be utilized for safe storage and transportation of hydrogen. Steel pipeline materials have been found to provide excellent compatibility in more than six decades of continuous exposure to hydrogen. Natural gas formations have been found suitable for storing hydrogen for millions of years. Existing natural gas and electricity grids are able to provide widespread and convenient transmission and/or storage of hydrogen for allowing the U.S. to be converted from a wealth-depletion to a wealth-expansion economy. SAFE and DEPENDABLE HYDROGEN STORAGE - BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. B. Blaster, H. Worms, and J. Schiefer; US. Patent 3,122,417 (February 25, 1964) 2. PA. Giguere and J.L. Carmichael, J. Chem. Eng. Data 7, 526 (1962). 3. DOE, Hydrogen Energy Coordinating Committee. Hydrogen Energy Coordinating Committee Annual Report, Summary of DOE Hydrogen Programs for FY 1983-84; 1992. 4. DOE, Proceedings of the DOE Chemical Energy Storage and Hydrogen Energy Systems Contracts Review; Reston, Washington D.C., 1979? 5. Dutta, Subhash; T-Raissi, Ali; Makbool, Ahmed, A Novel Metal Hydride Compressor Concept, Florida Solar Energy Center; FSEC-CR-233-88, Subcontract No. XK-7-07158, 1989. 6. E:F Technology. Inc. Division of Energy Storage Technology. chemical/Hydrogen Energy Systems. Progress Report ed. St. Johns, MI, 1982. 7. Florida Solar Energy Center, Hydrogen Research, Solar Collector, 1990. 8. Foh, Stephen. Underground Hydrogen Storage, Final Report. Brookhaven National Laboratory, Department of Energy & Environment, New York; 1979. 9. Hampton. Michael D. Hydrogen Storage compounds. Progress Report ed., University of Central florida, Orlando, florida; 1990. 10. Huston, E.L., Sandrock, G.D., Engineering Properties of Metal Hydrides, Journal of the LessCommon Metals. Vol. 74 1980, Presented at the International Symposium on the Properties & Applications of Metal Hydrides, Colorado Springs, CO, April 1980; pp. 435-.443. 11. Libowitz, G.G. Advanced Hydrogen Storage: Modified Vanadium Hydrides. Final Report ed. Morristown, NJ; August 1985; Mezzina, Alessio, Program Manager (Brookhaven National Laboratory). Department of Energy & Environment. 12. Electrolysis~Based Hydrogen Storage Systems, Annual Report ed. DOE Contract No. EY-76-C-02-0016. Upton, NY; April 1979. 13. Mezzina, Alessio; Bonner, Michael, Program Manager Brookhaven National Laboratory. Department of Energy & Environment. chemical/Hydrogen Energy Systems. Annual Report ed. NY; May 1983. 14. Sandrock, G.E., Huston, E.L, How Metals Store Hydrogen, Ergenics, 681 Lawlins Road, Wyckoff,

NJ 07481, Reprinted from Chemtech, 1981, 11, p 754-762. 15. Schwarz, James A. Modification-Assisted Cold Storage (MACS). Brookhaven National Laboratories, Contract No. 186193-S, Syracuse, NY. 16. Swain, M. R., Swain, Matthew, A Comparison of H2 CH4 and C3H8 Fuel Leakage Rates. University of Miami, Department of Mechanical Engineering. 17. Teitel, Robert J., Microcapacity Hydrogen Storage, Final Progress Report ed. DOE Contract No. DE-A002-76CH00016, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Department of Energy & Environment, Presented San Diego, CA, May 1981. 18. Veziroglu. T. Nejat; Takahashi, Patrick K., Editors, International Association for Hydrogen Energy. Hydrogen Energy Progress VIII, Proceedings of the 8th World Hydrogen Energy Conference; Pergamon Press; 1990. 19. Armanrwah, K.A.G., Noh, J.S., and Schwarz, J.S., Hydrogen St orage on Superactivated Carbon at Refrigeration Temperatures, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Vol 14. pp. 437 -447, (1989). 20. Aukett, P.N., Quirke, N., Riddiford, S. and Tennison, S.R., Methane Adsorption on Microporous Carbons - A Comparison of Experiment, Theory, and Simulation, Vol. 30., pp. 913 -920,(1992). 21. Bojan, M.J., Slooten, R. Van, and Steel, W., Computer Simulation Studies of the Storage of Methane in Microporous Carbons, Separation Science and Technology, Vol 27., pp. 1837 -1856, (1992). 22. Carpetis, C., and Peschka, W. A Study on Hydrogen Storage by Use of Crystorage, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Vol 5. pp. 539-554 (1980). 23. Matranga, KR., Myers, AL and Glandt, E.E., Storage of Natural Gas by Adsorption o n Activated Carbon, Chemical Engineering Science, Vol 47., pp. 1569.1579, (1992). 24. Schwarz, J.A., Metal Assisted Carbon Cold Storage of Hydrogen, U.S. Patent #4,716,736, January 5, 1988. 25. N.M. Rodriguez, J. Mater, Res., A review of Catalytically Grown Carbon Nanofibers, 8(12) 3233 (1993) 26. N.M. Rodriguez. A. Chambers, and R.T.K. Baker, Langmuir, Catalytic Engineering of Carbon Nanofibers, in press and private correspondence. 27. Green Cars Go Farther With Graphite New Scientist Vol. 152, Issue 2061 AN EVALUATION OF THE USE OF HYDROGEN AS A SUPPLEMENT TO NA TURAL GAS TID 27747, The Ad Hoc Committee for USERDA, (June 1977). HYDROGEN SUPPLEMENTATION SYSTEM EVALUATION STUDY Public Service Electric and Gas Company in Newark, NJ. for Brookhaven National Laboratory and USDOE; BNL Report 24099 under Contract No. BNL 403024-S (September 1977).

Hydrogen has been shipped in low-alloy steel cylinders with 2,640 in3 volume under psi. pressure since 1898. Cheapest Available Fuel CNG is the cheapest alternative to petro gasoline. While it requires a higher volume to store, users who find a good source of fuel can pay as little as 80 cents per gasoline gallon equivalent or 80 cents per 3.82 gallons of CNG. Since CNG is not ever in a liquid phase, it is usually priced per lb or volume at 1 atmospheric pressure. This can cause a lot of confusion with the actual cost so some converting may need to be done to find actual cost. Rememeber that for 1 gallon of gasoline, you need 5.66 lb of CNG. If you are using a compressor at home to store and use your natural gas for your vehicle, it takes 126.67 cubic feet at 1 atmospheric pressure (standard pressure for pricing natural gas at home) to make 1 gasoline equivalent, or 5.66 lb of CNG. SGI ECU VERSUS Gas injection controller is the IV generation device fulfilling rigorous standards regarding fuel dosage and performance quality. Constructor's team has worked out control algorithms of CNG injectors based on control signals of gasoline fuel injectors where real- time corrections are calculated for every injector separately. Thanks to it is needless to prepare the map of CNG injectors (as it was in older constructions of controllers) and to use OBD emulators. A great advantage of the controller VERSUS is the possibility of mapping of CNG injectors expenses towards gasoline fuel injectors during calibration drive, which simplifies and shortens the time of device installation in a car and respectively raises the quality of control and reduces fuel consumption. It increases versatility of the controller assembling and calibration processes are irrespective of type and brand of a car as well as of used mechanical components (reducers, injectors). It is possible for assemblers, who are accustomed to older generations of devices to calibrate controller in a traditional way by manual modifying the composition of mixture. Advantages of ECU VERSUS: Supply of the CNG-AIR mixture to the cylinders in the optimal phase of the engine cycle - corresponding with the cycle used by the injection of gasoline Simplicity in service, configuration and diagnostics of the system Compatibility with EOBD The system can be adapted to fit engines with Sequential, Half-sequential and non sequential Injection system. The system can be fitted to Turbo-charged engines Properly calibrated system allows to get the same driving dynamic on CNG as on Gasoline Sophisticated software. "Creating map" allows precise calibration of the engine supplying with CNG Diagnostic/assistance tools in the software Environment friendly - complies with exhaust emission standards EURO 2, EURO 3, EURO 4 Clear, simple, user friendly interface allowing for time efficient service. Fully automatic operation including automated switching from CNG to petrol when the CNG tank is empty Eliminates Backfire and possible consequential damage of intake manifolds, air filters and housing or flow meters Availability for 3,4,5,6,8 - cylinder Engines. This Compressed Natural Gas injection system is added to the existing gasoline fuel system of your vehicle by adding injectors for Compressed Natural Gas to the intake manifold and using an advanced Electronic control unit to manage the Compressed Natural Gas injection. The existing gasoline system is used for cold startup and the system switches to Compressed Natural Gas when warm enough for heating the liquid Compressed Natural Gas to make it into a gas. When Compressed Natural Gas runs out, the system switches back to gasoline. This is a dual fuel system.

Natural gas burns cleaner, emitting about 20% less CO2 per mile than gasoline, and producing about 25% fewer greenhouse gases than coalbased electric vehicles of the same size. And because the United States is rich in natural gas sources, using it means supporting US industry and the economy. Natural gas is also cheaper than gasoline, so your fuel costs are lower. And with expected Federal government subsidies, you may benefit from Federal Tax Credits too.

CNG does not contain any lead, thereby eliminating fouling of spark plugs. CNG-powered vehicles have lower maintenance costs than other hydrocarbon-fuel-powered vehicles. CNG fuel systems are sealed, preventing fuel losses from spills or evaporation. Increased life of lubricating oils, as CNG does not contaminate and dilute the crankcase oil. Being a gaseous fuel, CNG mixes easily and evenly in air. CNG is less likely to ignite on hot surfaces, since it has a high auto-ignition temperature (540 C), and a narrow range (515 percent) of flammability.[10] Less pollution and more efficiency: CNG emits significantly fewer pollutants (e.g., carbon dioxide (CO2), unburned hydrocarbons (UHC), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx) and PM (particulate matter) than petrol. For example, an engine running on petrol for 100 km emits 22 kilograms of CO2, while covering the same distance on CNG emits only 16.3 kilograms of CO2.[11]

CNG is essentially methane (CH4), which has a calorific value of 900 kJ/mol. This burns with oxygen to produce 1 mole of CO2 and 2 moles of H2O. By comparison, petrol can be regarded as essentially benzene (C6H6) with a calorific value of about 3,300 kJ/mol, which burns to produce 6 moles of CO2 and 3 moles of H2O. From this, it can be seen that per mole of CO2 produced, CNG releases more than 1.6 times as much energy as that released from petrol (said another way: for the same amount of energy, CNG produces nearly 40 percent less CO2). The corresponding figures are 78 and 25.8 grams, respectively, for nitrogen oxides. Carbon monoxide emissions are reduced even further. Due to lower carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides emissions, switching to CNG can help mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.[10] The ability of CNG to reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the entire fuel lifecycle will depend on the source of the natural gas and the fuel it is replacing. The lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions for CNG compressed from California's pipeline natural gas is given a value of 67.70 grams of CO2-equivalent per megajoule (gCO2e/MJ) by CARB (the California Air Resources Board), approximately 28 percent lower than the average gasoline fuel in that market (95.86 gCO2e/MJ). CNG produced from landfill biogas was found by CARB to have the lowest greenhouse gas emissions of any fuel analyzed, with a value of 11.26 gCO2e/MJ (more than 88 percent lower than conventional gasoline) in the low-carbon fuel standard that went into effect on January 12, 2010.[12]

CNG-powered vehicles are considered to be safer than gasoline-powered vehicles.[13][14][15]

s opposed to carbon capture projects, research with algae aims to find methods that can convert CO2 into the necessary food to generate energy: as if trying to emulate the "cradle to cradle" concept, waste would become food. It's tough to refute an economically viable method to fight against greenhouse gases while generating clean energy and oxygen as waste. The company Ternion Bio, for example, claims to have developed a cost-effective bioreactor process to capture CO2 from power plants or industrial sites. The gases could be subsequently used to grow algae, which would become biofuel. The process would eliminate polluting gases and would generate oxygen and biofuels. All from the use of gases that cause climate change. With projects like that of Ternion Bio ready to be exploited and businesses' and governments' need to fight emissions, increasingly more investors are following the example of Vinod Khosla and, despite the international economic crisis, they are asking if algae can save the world "again" (as Reuters asks in their suggestive title). Algae have numerous attributes especially useful for the development of biofuel:

Using terrestrial cultivations to produce vegetable fuel is an activity falling under increasing scrutiny for its environmental consequences (destruction of forests, traditional crops, and habitats; promotion of monoculture), economic (increase in the price of basic cereal crops) and social (food crisis in the poorest countries). Algae, on the contrary, grow in uninhabited places and are not destined for mass consumption. Various types of algae can grow from 20 to 30 times faster than traditional crops. It is scientifically viable -and relatively as simple as inexpensive- to identify what strains of algae will produce the most oil, capable of absorbing at the same time the greater amount of CO2. The need to use a CO2 source for nutrition has raised interest from industrial factories anxious to provide algae with their exhaust rich in carbon dioxide.

Nevertheless, and despite the clear advantage in the use of algae, Carole Llewellyn, a marine chemistry expert from the Plymouth Marine Laboratory (United Kingdom), believes that various obstacles need to be overcome before biofuels from algae will become a commercial reality. Steve Skill, a biochemist at the Plymouth Marine Laboratory, believes that the race has begun to find viable methods to convert algae into vegetable oil that then can become biodiesel, jet fuel and plastic products. Skill predicts that this new industry, fitting nicely within the booming new sector for clean technologies, will cultivate algae in sufficient quantities for commercial oil production within the decade. Several companies are working on systems to create biofues from algae (in the U.S.: Solazyme, Sapphire Energy, Blue Marble Energy, OriginOil, BioCentric Energy and PetroAlgae; the Brazilian MPX Energy; and the Spanish BFS Biofuel Systems), totally several dozen. Five years ago, only a handful of such businesses existed.

Some companies are perfecting potentially disruptive techniques of cultivating algae and sustainable fuel production: while Solazyme, for example, cultivates algae in the dark and feeds them with sugar, Blue Marble Energy takes advantage of naturally occurring, and harmful, algae blooms. Nevertheless, the great majority of firms use the technology called bioreactors (containers or systems that maintain a biologically active environment). There are especially promising bioreactors, like the photobioreactor developed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

While the companies developing alternative techniques to bioreactors position themselves, the group of firms that believe that these containers are the best way to create algal biofuel are trying to reduce production costs to differentiate themselves from the growing competence. The company Solix Biofuels claims, meanwhile, to have found the secret formula that the entire sector is seeking: how to reduce the production costs of biofuels from algae by 90-95%. The company is setting up a fuel production plant in Durango, Colorado. Here will be housed the firm's bioreactors, whose design favors the passive circulation of CO2 in such a way that there won't be a need for any other mechanism to feed the algae. It would reduce costs dramatically. Other businesses, like California's Amyris, are trying to attract the attention of media and investors by assuring that their technology is a lot more convenient and sustainable than that of biodiesel, ethanol or any gas.

Where is the commercial offering? There still doesn't exist a single center or company that can produce biofuels from algae in industrial quantities and at a price that can compete with the fuels used in cars and airplanes. And there are airlines showing interest in adapting their fleets of airplanes for biofuel use. In January of 2009, both Continental and Japan Airlines flew test flights using biofuels composed of an algae oil blend. Besides, the research department affiliated with the U.S. Army DARPA has hired the firm Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) to develop fuel for airplanes from algae. The American air force wants its entire fleet to be ready by 2011 to fly on alternative fuels, a 50-50 mix of synthetic and petroleumbased fuels. The European aeronautics firms Airbus and Honeywell (along with JetBlue Airways and International Aero Engines) have also announced their own project to supply a third of the fuel required by the aviation industry in the form of biofuel composed from vegetable biomass and algae. Though the project would not reduce the longterm emissions of airlines, explains Keith Johnson in the Wall Street Journal, if the growth in global flights is maintained. Biofuels created from algae and other vegetable matter, as well as more efficient motors, are two of the prescriptions that could allow aviation to cut its growing carbon footprint. Similarly, legislation can help the industry become aware of their problem more quickly: the European Union, through the Environment Commission, is planning to include aviation inside the European system of emissions trading beginning in 2012. The production of biofuels from algae has a promising future, as vouched for by the legendary investor of venture capital Vinod Khosla, the U.S. governments and the United Kingdom and scores of businesses in North America, Europe or Latin America. Any process that promises to consume huge quantities of CO2, to produce oxygen as waste and to convert the resulting product into a fuel capable of replacing petroleum is more than welcome. All this without altering the price of food, nor requiring the use of food crops.

Algas, o cmo convertir CO2 y residuos en biocombustibles

4 years, 9 months ago by: nicolas.boullosa staff comments

Algues, o com convertir CO2 i residus en biocombustibles

4 years, 10 months ago by: nicolas.boullosa staff comments

Two centuries of fuel cells... why now?

4 years, 6 months ago by: kirstendirksen staff comments

Los molinos de viento vuelven a ser gigantes

5 years, 1 month ago by: nicolas.boullosa staff comments

A little background on ethanol

6 years, 2 months ago by: faircompanies faircompanies comments

Solar: present and challenges

5 years, 2 months ago by: nicolas.boullosa staff comments