February 18, 2004
IF YOU RAISE GAS TAXES IT WILL COME:
One step closer to hydrogen economy? (Mark Clayton, 2/1/04, The Christian Science Monitor)
President Bush touts a future hydrogen economy, while environmentalists decry it as a red herring to avoid addressing global warming today. But new research may add a fresh angle to the debate.From the wintry climes of Minnesota, Lanny Schmidt, a University of Minnesota chemist, and three colleagues of his have discovered a process that could leap several of the hurdles facing the hydrogen economy: the high cost of making hydrogen, the impact on global warming of burning hydrogen, and the safe and efficient use of hydrogen in cars.
The new approach, reported in the journal Science last week, offers hope for the cheapest and most efficient method for extracting hydrogen yet.
Because the gas is typically found in compound form, it must be extracted from other elements to be used. The new process extracts the gas from corn-based ethanol using rhodium and ceria, exotic metals needed in the catalytic process.
Currently, extracting hydrogen from natural gas costs $3.60 to $7.05 per kilogram, even with the best technology, a new National Research Council (NRC) report said last week.
But this new technique - confirmed late one night while the scientists waited for a pizza to arrive at the lab - could produce the gas at $1.50 per kilogram. That would put it in the ballpark even with ultracheap conventional sources like coal, Dr. Schmidt says.
Just have faith in our capacity to innovate. Posted by Orrin Judd at February 18, 2004 11:01 PM
The article only mentions corn as a fuel source, but other sources can be used to derive the ethanol needed, including mostly any biomass, like wood pulp, if I am not mistaken.
I read an article earlier last year about a startup company that has developed a process for converting animal remnants from meat processing plants directly into petroleum. The good thing about these processes is that they solve two problems, energy and waste disposal. At some point in the forseeable future we will be re-using everything, landfills will be a thing of the past.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at February 19, 2004 1:27 AMRobert:
I believe the company you are refering to is here: Changing World Technology. They can not only convert animal waste, but any waste containing carbon, which would include most of our garbage.
Posted by: jd watson at February 19, 2004 3:17 AMThe Kyoto crowd wants the world to give up trillions of dollars in GDP creation in order to delay (not avoid) a (potential, i.e., model predictions) rise of a few degrees by a few years a century into the future. What kind of thinking would assume that in that time frame (and with that kind of a budget!) we will not have changed the technological status quo to render the debate moot? Remind me of who are the fuddy-duddie conservatives and who are the optimistic revolutionaries?
Posted by: MG at February 19, 2004 8:12 AMThey also fail to mention that a waste product of the process (using "cerium", not "ceria", by the way) is the production carbon dioxide. That should make the so-called "global warming" hysterics happy.
Let's see 'em scale it up.
I watched 31 years ago as 20 gondolas of Newark garbage ("most typical garbage in America") was converted to high-quality fuel oil.
Worked fine though a bit smelly and left a yucky residue that combined the worst properties of vomit and superglue.
Luckily, they couldn't scale it up.
Give me God's Natural Fuel -- petroleum -- any day.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at February 19, 2004 2:25 PMI say skip the catalyst. Put the ethanol in wood barrels let it age, drink it neat.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at February 19, 2004 7:07 PMMr. Judd;
Why support high taxes on oil? Just have faith in our capacity to innovate (one notes that this research is proceeding without those taxes).
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at February 20, 2004 12:10 AMBecause there are so many reasons to make its use less attractive.
Posted by: oj at February 20, 2004 9:42 AMOj-
You've got a bit of the social engineer in you, I'm surprised. Economic viability will decide the winner. Not Al Gore or you. Just let it be.
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at February 20, 2004 11:14 AMTom:
Everything is socially engineered. The free market is a myth.
Posted by: oj at February 20, 2004 12:33 PMYou haven't heard of the law of supply & demand, have you?
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at February 20, 2004 1:00 PMNo matter how much supply you have the government can reduce demand via taxes.
Posted by: oj at February 20, 2004 3:34 PMThat doesn't vitiate the law.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at February 20, 2004 8:19 PMJeff:
The law is a lie if government intervention, which is omnipresent, renders it useless.
Posted by: oj at February 20, 2004 9:17 PMOJ, you seem to have an inability to think of dynamic relationships such as supply and demand along a continuum. Either we have a pure market mechanism at work, or it is all central planning. Even the least intrusive government regulation renders the free market a farce, so lets just opt for full-bore central planning.
Have you ever reviewed "The Fatal Conceit" by Hayek, or "The Future and its Enemies" by Postrel?
Posted by: Robert Duquette at February 21, 2004 2:08 PMHaven't heard anything about CWT since the turkey gut project was dedicated last year in Missouri.
Scaling up problems?
Posted by: Genecis at February 21, 2004 4:14 PM