Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Solar & Bio hydrogen

What do ya'll think of these nano structured hydrogen efforts :

Titania Nanotube Arrays Harness Solar Energy
http://www.physorg.com/news10244.html

Direct Solar to Hydrogen:
Rupert Leach, Director, Newspath Ltd, from the UK posted me about his talking to the Chairman of Hydrogen Solar, Julian Keable http://www.hydrogensolar.com/index.html , saying that they will be well over 10% efficiency in the near future with their Tandem Cell?, technology, and that they had initial issues with scale-up, but these seem to have been overcome and they were sounding rather optimistic a few weeks ago.

OR: BIO Hydrogen:

Venter is back from his ocean cruse with the bugs he hopes will make all our fuel:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/26/AR2006022600932.html

And this company:

http://www.nanologix.net/index.php

"NanoLogix is a nanobiotechnology company that engages in the research, development, and commercialization of technologies for the production of bacteria, disease testing kits, alternative sources of fuel"

The NanoLogix breakthrough came about when the Company?s researchers were tinkering with its proprietary biological-based diagnostic and remediation technologies, noting that one of its patented bacterial culturing methods could produce byproduct gas surprisingly rich in hydrogen.

The implications are staggering - the world?s sustainability must increasingly rely upon biomass-based technologies because these processes use renewable resources. Unfortunately, biomass-based systems increase production of organic-matter wastewater. If treated by conventional waste treatment plants, this organic waste represents a costly economic and environmental liability.

?However, this same wastewater can also be viewed as an important potential resource for next-generation energy production,? says NanoLogix?s McClelland.

?The NanoLogix methodology for hydrogen generation is being developed for the limitless production of hydrogen from organic waste and wastewaters. Once fully proven, this has the potentiality for solving the world energy crisis through the limitless production of hydrogen from any waste organic byproduct, including sewage, and agricultural and food manufacturing waste.?

The bioreactor approach is scaling up.

Last year NanoLogix announced the results of a study that confirmed laboratory proof that its bioreactor system generates hydrogen in high yields via the use and adaptation of its intellectual property. In this study, the bioreactor produced biogas consisting of 50% hydrogen by volume, ?without any trace of methane.?

?Part of the breakthrough was the absence of methane, which eliminates an additional costly step. If methane were present it would have required additional separation and hydrogen harvestation,? says McClelland.

McClelland believes that NanoLogix has discovered the most likely method for low cost production of massive quantities of hydrogen.

After last year?s study results were revealed the Company signed a feasibility study with the Department of Environmental Science and Engineering of Gannon University in Erie, PA to develop a bioreactor that utilizes NanoLogix's intellectual assets. The project team compromises a distinguished cohort of scientists and university professors who share a common vision.

In July of last year NanoLogix signed an agreement to generate hydrogen from a ?scale-up? bioreactor system installed at Mobilia Fruit Farms in rural Pennsylvania utilizing waste organic matter from the farm?s Arrowhead Wines unit.

An even bigger scale-up agreement, to install a hydrogen generation system using Welch Food's waste organic matter, followed shortly. Welch, of course, is the world's leading producer of grape and other fruit-based food products, giving NanoLogix virtually unlimited scale-up access to the waste-organics that McClelland believes will ultimately become the unlimited energy source of tomorrow.

McClelland is hopeful that these first scale-up installations will provide valuable data for engineering future systems. "We are clearly excited with the opportunity to demonstrate conclusively that the microbial production of hydrogen is efficient, inexpensive and can meet the increasing demand of both the industrial and commercial marketplaces," states McClelland.

Indeed, NanoLogix is the company to watch ? they own the germs of a really big idea.


Efficiency is also good:

The Energy Blog: Sleek Aptera Hybrid Designed for 330 mpg
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2006/01/accelerated_com.html

Buncha crap. You cannot obtain more solar-derived energy than arrives at the surface. The average solar constant at any given latitude at any given date is well known. It's a giant boondoggle begging Federal subsidy.

Area necessary to generate 1 GW electrical, theoretical minimum

Area Modality
mi^2
====================
1000 biomass
300 wind
60 solar
0.3 nuclear

Photosynthesis is very optimistically equivalent to producing 15 bbl/day-mile^2 of diesel fuel while ignoring all energy inputs. Eastern Montana is thousands of square miles of thick coal seams within 20 feet of the surface.

Let's do a little arithmetic:

[(1000 mi)(5280 ft/mi)]^2(15 ft)(0.0283168 m^3/ft^3)(1346 kg/m^3)(1 tonne/1000 kg) = 1.6x10^13 metric tonnes of bituminous coal.

Cosnervative area of the coal deposit times its thickness (Avoiordupois) for volume, then to cubic meters and times density.

Uncle Al says, "16 trillion metric tonnes of coal is bigger than any projected technology that would not work anyway. Cheaper, too." If you want hydrogen like an Eco-idiot, do the water gas shift reaction.

Properly make that 1000 mi^2 instead (conversion factors are correct as stated) to give 1.6x10^10 metric tonnes of coal. 16 billion metric tonnes of bituminous coal give the same unavoidable conclusion.

Burn the coal, liquefy it, or high-temp react with water to synthesis gas. Syngas to methanol to ZSM-5 C8 aromatic gasoline. Syngas through Fisher-Tropsch to diesel cuts. No BS, currently operating technologies, good thermodynamics, competitive economics if petroleum exceeds $(US)50/bbl.

Modern automotive diesels give at least 35 mpg city/42 mpg highway unless you are driving a giant pig wagon.

Dear Uncle Al:
Your logic and math are impeccable, However you seem to ignore the macro energy equation.
All fossil and nuke fuels ultimately add to the heat load of the biosphere while most of the solar / wind / thermal conversion technologies (except geothermal) recycle solar energy instead of releasing sequestered solar energy. This is the goal and definition of sustainability, not over loading the dynamic equilibrium of the biosphere.

At least you seem not to take account of this, and I feel you dismiss the rising curve of increasing efficiency for PV, direct solar to hydrogen, wind and thermal conversion to electricity.

The point is right now I could pay $20 K for a 12% efficient PV array to end my electric bill, in effect prepaying my electric bill for twenty years. If the nano developments in PV's, or direct thermal/electric or photoelectrochemical direct conversion to H2, can double the current efficiency while cutting the price in half, then we are talking $5,000 to be bill free.
Hydrogen Solar sent me their current Tandum Cell numbers @ 10.2% efficiency: $1.50/LB for H2
And they say that a theoretical efficiency of 35% is possible, and a 22% efficiency is realistically achievable, i.e.,... $0.75/LB of H2 which equals $0.049/KWhr equivalent. From what I understand of the direct solar to hydrogen fabrication technology, it is a much greener process, and cheaper that silicon based PVs.

I also found some tech-specs for the suncone, They claim a 50 MW array will produce at $. 046/KWhr !! This is the lowest costs I've seen for solar technology near commercial release.
Sustainable Resources, Inc. - The Suncone Solar Power Generator
http://www.sriglobal.org/suncone_intro.html
And the nano-dot approach to PVs also promises full spectrum conversion efficiencies along with clean production processes. ( UB News Services-solar nano-dots http://www.buffalo.edu/news/fast-ex...rticle=75000009

So I'm thinking in kW not MW. If Bio or Solar , etc., can deliver at these prices, my roof will become a fraction of your 60 square miles, and my septic tank will become a bioreactor and I'll actually start using my garbage disposal to help fuel my car not using any of your 1000 square miles.

Another big plus is decentralization. Distributed power networks are inherently more stable than MW based systems. The flywheel technology that Beacon Power has installed for New York and California http://yahoo.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?storyID=urn:newsml:reuters.com:20060301:MTFH76507_2006-03-01_20-54-57_N01399291&type=comktNews&rpc=44 Also contributes to the advantages of both distributed and centralized power sources. All the while adjusting to near perfectly conditioned power, and protecting from threats like this:

According to NASA and the National Science Foundation, the next 11-year sunspot cycle could be up to 50 percent stronger than the present one. That cycle will begin in late-2007/early-2008 and peak around 2012. The phenomenon is a big deal because it can disrupt satellites and knock out power grids. The details are in a story by the Los Angeles Times.

Welch's is buying the H2 Bug Farts:
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/060313/20060313005750.html?.v=1
SHARON, Pa., Mar 13, 2006 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- NanoLogix, Inc. (Pink Sheets:NNLX) announced today that the Company has completed the construction of its first commercial hydrogen bioreactor facility at a Welch's Food plant in North East, Pennsylvania. The company also announced that the facility will begin hydrogen generation from Welch's waste organic matter on or about the first of April 2006.


Also in reply to your Stats:
The surface area of the sphere at the Earth's orbital radius is 1.81 E16.
The surface area of this sphere intersected by the Earth is 2.01 E08
The portion of the sun's output interesected by the Earth is 1.11 E-08
The sun converts 4 billion tons of mass to energy per second
In one year it converts 1.46 E12 tons
The Earth intercepts the energy of 1.46 E12 x 1.11 E-08 converted tons: 1.62 E04
The amount of this incident energy required to meet US energy needs is 0.007%.
Even if I am out somewhere by a factor of 100, then the needs would be met by less than 0.1% of the energy falling on the Earth

WOW!! Thanks Erich for the science to back up what I have been trying to say to Uncle Al.

I need to hit the library and get some physics and such books.

Sounds like a good time to invest in solar energy companies!!

It will only get cheaper and more profitable and productive in the future.

Eric's post got me to check on your math.

Solar constant
http://www.bartleby.com/61/36/S0543600.html
0.14W/cm^2
-->1.4kW/m^2

1GW=10^9W
http://www.bartleby.com/61/24/G0122400.html

10^9W/(1.4*10^3W/m^2)=0.71*10^6m^2
0r, 7x10^5 square meters

If I did this correctly, that comes out to a space of 837 meters on a side.

Alternatively, that is 0.29 square miles, not the 60 square miles that you present for solar.

By the way, this site gives the total energy flux as 1.7x10^17 Watts. Or, 1.7x10^8 GW.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant

p.s. If what Eric states is correct and 12% efficiency is a good number, that would make 2.3 mi^2 for 1GW. If you assume 1/2 the time is lost to night, 4.6...you would need a lot more losses to get to 60 mi^2.

J. Arthur God:
Thank YOU!! So Much for doing the work I should have done.

That is the solar constant in space at Earth's orbit, 24/7. At the surface you suffer atmospheric absorptive and reflective losses (at least 50% across the spectrum - especially in the NIR where silicon solar cells absorb), sunlight only averages 50%/24 hrs (another factor of two), and has seasonal variation except at the equator (look it up in the CRC). There is weather (e.g., cloudy days).

How will you keep the flat surfaces of your solar cells normal to solar incidence? If not, you suffer further cos(theta from vertical) loss. You will need two axis rotational tracking: daily sunrise to sunset elevation and seasonal sun rotation along the horizon. What runs the motors? What calculates and verifies real world optimum angle second to second? You will be swiveling square meter panels. You can't swivel an acre unless you have its mount 100 stories above the ground (planar stiffness counts). For that matter, what will lubrication cost? (and its pollution remediation when tens of thousands of joints slightly ooze?)

The best silicon solar cells are less than 25% efficient. GaAs cells are silly. Amorphous silicon solar cells are about 5% efficient. Organic solar cells are about 3% efficient.

You've got to convert high amperage low voltage DC into low amperage high voltage AC. (No, git, you cannot connect solar cells in series and get out something useful - internal resistance). How efficient are power plant-scale inverters? What do they cost? What is their nominal lifetime? Did you know that inverters don't like hugely shifting inputs?

My numbers are correct as stated for a real world installation. Do what you want in theory - but don't expect me to pay for its reduction to practice and the excuses made thereafter.

The first action upon building your solar farm on worthless abandoned desert real estate will be a massive Enviro-whiner lawsuit for shading the ground and destroying a fragile and endangered xerophyte ecology. The essential low (ideally zero) albedo of your solar farm will accelerate global warming. Vertical convection from the huge hot surface will make its own weather - a perpetual radial hurricane contaminating your surfaces with dust. How wll you clean them (without abrasively ruining the half-wave anti-reflective surface coating) to let the sunshine in?

Did you think you dump the things on the ground and magically make electricity for the masses? Are ya gonna do this by faith or Liberal fiat? Somebody must weld steel. The crap then hits the fan.

OOps, sorry Uncle........I missed that being the space constant....guess I should do my own home work.


Here's a reply from Joe Rudmin from the Physics dept at James Madison University:

"Fundamentally, solar power cannot compete with a good wind turbine. With solar power, you start with solar constant --1 kW per square meter. You lose some of that coming in through clear air. How much depends on how much of the spectrum you're using.
Next lose half of it to night time. Less than 500 W/m? left. Next multiplly by the cosine of your latitude--383 watts left in Virginia. Next multiply by the cosine of the longitude averaged over the day--you don't get much at sunrise and sunset --244 W/m? left. Next you lose the cloudy days--typically 10%--220 W/m? left. Next you have conversion efficiency. The best you can do with voltaics is 1/2, provided you use all of every photon (which you can't do) Basically photo-voltaics are the photo-electric effect. If the transition energy you're using is 2.5 eV, then you can't convert 2.2 eV photons, and you only get half of 0.5 eV photons. With expensive multi-layered systems, you'll get 40% at best -- less than 88 W/m?. The electrons which get ionized must have enough kinetic energy left to climb the voltage hill in the PN junction. Half of them are headed in the wrong direction, and some of the rest won't make it. With much less expensive single-layered semiconductors, you'll get about 25% at best, so now you're down to 55W/m?.

Sure you can concentrate the energy with mirrors, but even mirrors aren't cheap, must be cleaned, and must occasionally be resurfaced. For solar power, it's hard to beat a solar tower-- reflecting the sunlight from mirrors towards a black boiler on a tower. You can convert maybe 35% of the steam energy to electricity, and maybe do something useful with the waste heat.
35% of 220W/m? is 77 W/m? averaged over the year in a good sunny region. If you're competing with windmills, you need to produce this electricity for about 2.5 cents per kWhr, so you might earn $16.80 /m? per year.

If you want 7% return on you're investment, you need build and install your mirrors and motorized computer-controlled aiming systems for less than $240/m?. It better be quite a bit less, because you still need to pay for the tower, the steam handling system, the turbine, the generator (used less than half the time), buy the land, pay your staff, and pay your taxes and depreciation from that $240 too. A much safer and easier way to get 7% is to invest it in US Savings Bonds. Inflation-indexed treasuries are paying 7%. Photovoltaics starting with 55 W/m? are worse than the solar tower.

In contrast, with a windmill, you can get 500W /m? average power through the blades almost anywhere. With a big system--500 to 1000 feet up--you can get 1 to 2 kW/m?, depending on the quality of the site. The theoretical maximum conversion efficience is 56%, but almost any reasonable well-engineered system will get 40 to 45% of the windpower passing through the disk swept by the blades. AND THE BLADES THEMSELVES CAN BE A SMALL FRACTION OF THE SWEPT AREA. So you pick up a factor of, say, 10 and get 450% of that 1 to 2 kW PER SQUARE METER OF BLADE AREA. The blades don't need to be kept clean, and they can be made of inexpensive materials including aluminum, wood, plastics, or even canvas or nylon sails.

For centuries wind pushed sailboats around the ocean with sails on masts up to 180 feet high, and if you can put that mast on a boat, you can put it on axle. We can even do better with modern materials. All this without even trying to be clever about energy conversion and storage. If all the energy used in the contiuguous 48 states were produced with wind, we'd be harvesting about 2 or 3 per cent of the available wind energy.

The atmosphere is a huge convection system converting temperature differences to kinetic energy in the wind. Because the visconsity of air is quite low, a large fraction, probably most, of this energy, is dissipated through friction in a relatively thin area near the ground or sea-surface. This concentration of energy is why the available wind power exceeds the solar constant.

The answer, my friend is blowing the wind. The answer is blowing in the wind."

Which is not what you stated..

So, I missed a factor of two for absorption. That's the advantage of not saying stupid things like "check my arithmetic".

When you say "theoretical minimum" I assume that there is at least a factor of 10x to get to a real world situation. Now, I hear that you are already assuming a real-world situation. You have the advantage of not presenting your assumptions, so you can change them on the fly.

Keep in mind that the best experimental PV cells are at 25% efficiency. Commercial is lagging by a lot.

P.s. Don't don't don't pretend that you give a [content deleted] about the environmental impact.

Perhaps you should have read the intelligent post preceding your usual faith-based initiative.

Uncle Al says, "Faith is rotted optimism."

Ah, quit your sqirming Al. I read your post (intelligent?). You quote 60 mi^2 as a "theoretical" min, and you are now using real-world scenarios. Go ahead and waffle.

I love it when you put on the mantle of the "can do guy". Welding metal and all! Aren't you the same guy who proposed a simple project for an undergrad independent project and then claimed it was beyond your abilities?

There is a very good discussion on NNLX here:
http://www.nanalyze.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1253


I Called the CEO:
The CEO of NNLX was very tight with the data I wanted, Said things like, I was asking the Wright brothers how much transatlantic air fares were going to cost. He did admit to the potential of it's upward scalability, saying that they have gotten their bugs to double every 23 to 44 minutes!

I was nervous, and don't think I got across to him what I've done with other companies like Borealis, Electron Power Systems, and Coolerado Cooler, and could do for him if I could just get some ballpark figures on installed costs, Efficiency numbers at different scales, and Lbs of H2 production / KWh energy inputs. I got nothing but non-discloser, non-discloser
He wouldn't give me his email, but took mine saying he would send tech updates as alouded.

(An Example of the benefit of high lighting these Companies technologies: My " New Manhattan Project for Clean Energy" article, on the sites that count viewing's, has been read by over 100,000, science savvy, self selected, folks.)

I tried..........

Dear Folks:

I had a much better chat with Dr. Felder the CEO of Nanologix, got his email address, and sent him the following post,
I forgot to ask if he was aware of Crag Venter coming back from his ocean cruse with the bugs he hopes will make all our fuel at Synthetic Genomics, inc.
http://www.syntheticgenomics.com/index.htm, and if he had considered a collaboration to gain access to this vast store house of wee beasties? I'll pose this question in my next post.

Cheers,
Erich J. Knight


"Dear Dr. Felder,

Over the past year and a half of doing nano tech research online, I have struck up several collaborations with the following companies. I have posted their technology to many physics discussion forums, and commented on their work to many online journals in their respective technical areas. I also post to the presidents and technical officers of these firms links to pertinent technologies, conflicting or affirming patents and science news stories. These postings have lead to several collaborations between the entrepreneurial physicist who run these companies and interested academic physicist and engineers in the field. What I've done with these companies like Borealis http://www.borealis.com/index.shtml , Electron Power Systems http://www.electronpowersystems.com/ , and Hydrogen Solar http://www.hydrogensolar.com/index.html , I could do for you if I could just get some ballpark figures on installed costs, Efficiency numbers at different scales, and Lbs of H2 production / KWh energy inputs for your Bioreactors. I would gladly sign any nondisclosure agreements.


An Example of the benefit of high lighting these Companies technologies: My " New Manhattan Project for Clean Energy" article, on just the sites that count viewing's, has been read by over 100,000, science savvy, self selected, folks. Including all the other venues that don't count viewers, it's probably in the millions. To get a broad perspective of my activities just Google my full name "Erich J. Knight".


InLight Solutions: I found this company doing research on non-evasive glucose testing for diabetes. They also produce a bio reactor monitoring system using the same ultra-violet spectroscopy. Since I don't know the technical details of your bio reactor systems, I don't know if this will be any help to you; but thought you should be aware of their work.

InLight Solutions - Bringing Light to Life
http://www.inlightsolutions.com/prod-bio.html


Here are some other articles that I feel you would find of interest:


Nature Articles on Anaerobic methane oxidation:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7086/edsumm/e060413-11.html


Washington DC Blue Plains Bio reactors:
"As a byproduct, Johnson says, the process will produce enough methane gas to provide 20 percent of the plant's daily power needs."

I was surprised that they are only getting 20%
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/1010152681.html?dids=1010152681:1010152681&FM...


Regards,

Erich J. Knight "


Thieir latest PR says their new hire for marketing, Bret T. Barnhizer has worked with Chevron, BP, Unocal, and Occidental Petroleum, maybe this will lead to some sort of collaboration or needed infusion of cash?

Their H2 bioreactor is getting 60 to 70% H2 with no methane! The proprietary wee beasties they use can double in population every 44 minutes, i.e., scaling does not seem to be a problem.

Hydrogen has been generated at its first commercial scaled-up hydrogen bioreactor facility at a Welch Food's plant in North East, Pennsylvania

and as promised 60-70% H2 with no methane.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060510/clw505a.html?.v=1

It looks like this has real potential since it has an effect on the bottom line: generation of useful electricity from hydrogen generated from waste streams. Money talks and industry listens. They don't say how much electricity they've made, but it ain't cheap and every little bit helps build the overall picture. I hope more industries will look into this technology that has the ability to turn a waste stream into a profit stream.

there is an old saying. "money talks and bull corn walks", but if they keep working like this, they both might end up talking the same language, and that just possibly might be the language of energy. that would be a nice way of meeting the energy needs of the future.

NanoLogix sold their IP to Nutra Pharma (http://www.NutraPharma.com) -- now NPHC is going to run with it -- most of their IP was in the test kits for TB and NTM.

NutraPharma.com sorry link didnt work before

Dr. Bruce Logan, the Kappe professor of environmental engineering, Pennsylvania State University, and an inventor of the microbial fuel cell.

Contact info: (818) 863-7908 blogan@psu.edu

If you do a search on bacteria hydrogen production this man's name comes up more than any other. He is local here in Pennsylvania and not far from Erie.

Has Nanologix, Inc. made an effort to contact him for collaboration? He works with companies (Ion Power, Inc. for example) and an announcement of collaboration would probably send the stock over $2.50 a share in the short term and over $10.00 in less than 2 years.

I'm sure that NNLX could float a PPO to raise a couple of million dollars to get him. It would be like signing Albert Einstein to your nuclear energy research project or Mozart to write the score for your next movie production.

Even if you could not get him, if you got one of his more senior prot?g?s you would still bump the stock very quickly.