This is Alain's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Alain's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Alain
Recent Activity
This is if you want to use conventional "organic chemistry". When the depolymerisation of cellulose is done with enzymes or microorganisms instead, the use of those massive amounts of dangerous formaldehyde is not necessary. what about all the highly polluted wastewater? I would still prefer a biochemical approach over this "old fashioned" organic chemistry with a lot of dangerous solvents and waste products.
I suppose they like cheap frying oil
Why would the cost stop dropping after 2023? More plausible it keeps dropping, blowing all fossil alternatives from the table. Cheap (nobel metal free) electrolyzers and ever cheaper solar energy is around the corner.
Electrolytic conversion of CO2 tot CO and of H20 to H2 is also comming, putting them back in business.
Toggle Commented Jun 14, 2018 on BASF invests in LanzaTech at Green Car Congress
In the last paragraph, they mention the need for "the supply chain for the proprietary anode and cathode material" They are also lost in the process it seems. I wonder what these are. I hope it is not platinum.
Using the waste heat for high temperature electrolysis of H2O to H2 and of CO2 to CO could improve conversion rates further with relatively low electricity use. Even now, those are impressive results to convert waste to fuel. Not only forestry waste but also municipal waste should be converted.
CCS will be needed in the future to reduce atmospheric CO2. While fossil fuels will be abandoned soon by virtue of marked forces, these CCS technologies will be usefull. There are gigatons of garbage, biomass and sewage sludge that are being incinerated or composted now and will be in the future. The CCS can be used there. Biomass growing and transformation to H2, combined with CCS could also capture gigatons of CO2/year while producing carbon negative fuels. There won't be any excuse for burning fossils soon, but industrial scale CCS technology must be developed. Go on !
Coal will be obsolete, but many of these technologies could be usefull. Supercritical CO2 as a working fluid could also be beneficial in nuclear plants. Carbon capture from biomass or waste incineration or pyrolysis could provide carbon negative H2 and carbon extraction from the atmosphere.
Apart from any use in cars, our industry uses huge amounts of H2. So very large scale of renewable H2 production must come on-line as fast as possible. Whether the electricity will come from nuclear, solar or wind doesn t matter. And whether it will be used in cars or fertilizer or chemicals or food production will depend on future developments. One thing is clear: we need verylarge scale renewable H2. This is a good start
Atomic weight Lithium : 7 Atomic weight Magnesium : 24 Mg may have 2 valence electrons, but is still heavier per unit of charge. Li is abundant in seawater (Mg even much more) so will never be scarce. It is best to have both technologies. Depending on the application, one of them is preferable, as is H2, or Na.
That's insane. It would inevitably involve unseen habitat destruction. Better produce efuels from solar and wind. Will eventually be much cheaper and much less destructive
For coal plants, it will be obsolete by the time it would become operational, bu the technology may become very usefull to make carbon-negative H2 from biomass or waste, and should provide a source of CO2 for synthetic fuels and chemicals.
Regardless of the competition between BEV and FCV, at this moment already, huge amounts of H2 are being produced for all kinds of industrial applications. Producing this from renewables instead of natural gas will require huge P2G capacity, and permit stabilisation of the grid.
This is obviously very inefficient. "Metric doubles if you consider... exothermic reaction" So, oxidation of Al + H2O --> AlO3 + H2. Results in 50% H2 chemical energy and 50% heat. Then the H2 needs to be oidized in a fuelcell to produce electricity. Then the AlO3 needs to be reduced again to Al + O2, then the Al needs to be transormed to the nanomaterial again. This all has to be organized so that a custommer can return the AlO3 and buy the regenerated Al powder..... Good for military or other "single use" applications. Never for cars...
@Harvey, The amount of O2 produced is minimal and the O2 is consumed to H2O again when the H2 is used. When burning fossil fuel, O2 is taken out of the air and turned into CO2 and H2O. Nevertheless the O2 in the atmosphere has hardly decreased (even after a century pf burning fossils).
Superb. This could be an alternative for steel in many applications. Among those reinforced concrete. We have to be carefull though. I dont know how these CNT's behave in the biosphere. They have properties in common with asbestos : fibrous, catalytically active, chemically very inert. This should be evaluated before.
E-P, a battery is not single-use. If this one factory produces 1 million home batteries per year, then in less than10 years, this one factory can deliver a home battery to every household in australia ! This is much more than a joke ! Combined with cheap solar and smart grid, this will make the energy transission cheap and easy.
Superb. This is extremely imprtant for so many green applications.
These will be needed to upscale 3rd generation biofuels and chemicals production and future food production. Immagine when all animal feed en fish feed could be produced locally by bacteria fed with H2 and CO2: the only input is water, air, electricity, and a very small amount of minerals (extracted from seawater).
That's great. But they can start with "mining" the megatons of existing coal ash first. When that is done within a few decades, we can have a next look
Very nice. But it would even be better if Mg was still produced from seawater (MgCO3) as used to be the case untill a few decaded ago...
I doubt that it would be very expensive. Since mass-produced standardized H2-containers are used, it could be quite cheap, and it permits to produce the H2 locally when electricity is cheap and abundant and sell the H2 when the cardrivers want to. It even permits producing electricity and selling back to the grid at peak-hours (if the electrolyser also operates as fuelcell). Any H2 filling station of the future will have to have a buffer in order to be able to quickly fill the cars, but make H2 continuously (or even preferably at cheap electricity hours). With electric cars, there is hardly any possibility to buffer, except by stockpiling huge battery packs. H2 certainly has this "volumetric" disadvantage compared to liquid fuel, but if the containers can be made cheap enough, the convenience of local H2 production may be greater than this disadvantage. The filling stations will have to do the math, but at least now there is an option. The only alternative is huge electrolysers, which will most probably be much more expensive. Because these are fibre-reinforced polyamides, it should in principle permit very economical mass production.
@E-P, this is for storage, not particularly for transport. An advantage of H2 is that it can be cheaply produced locally using electricity and water. But production is relatively slow and continuous, or during off-peak periods, while H2 filling of vehicles or H2 consumption is at other moments. You should compare it with battery packs: they are made for storing electricity, not for transporting electricity. This is a great solution: mass production of standardizef H2-containers will make them very cheap. Assembling a bunch of these in a large (also standardized) assemblage is a very economical solution for buffering H2-production in H2-stations.
Nitric acid an sulfuric acid is bad for health. When it reacts with ammonia, it forms ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate, which is also bad for health (although already less) But ammonia is not at all toxic at low concentration. Our body makes ammonia and we exhale some. Healthy peaple exhale about 700 ppbv ! As such, NH3 is of no concern. CO2, acids and sooth are what should be focussed on