Researchers Convert Biomass To Hydrogen Using Sunlight (rdmag.com) 106
New submitter omaha393 writes: Cambridge chemists have developed a new catalytic approach capable of converting biomass into hydrogen gas using only sunlight as an energy source. The method converts lignocellulose, one of Earth's most abundant biomaterials, into hydrogen gas and organic byproducts when in a basic water and in the presence of the cadmium sulfide/oxide nanoparticle catalysts. The new method, published in Nature Energy, offers a relatively cheap fuel alternative that researchers are looking to scale up to meet consumer demands at the industrial level. Per R&D Magazine: "'With this in place we can simply add organic matter to the system and then, provided it's a sunny day, produce hydrogen fuel,' says joint lead author David Wakerley. 'Future development can be envisioned at any scale.'" In addition to lignocellulose, the team was also able to produce hydrogen gas using unprocessed material including wood, paper and leaves. Further reading: New Atlas; ScienceDaily
Re:Hmm.. (worst fuel out there) (Score:5, Insightful)
You can stop most of that shit by attaching it to carbon. I know, crazy talk...
Re: (Score:3)
Add an oxygen here and there and you're back to CO2. Might as well just burn the stuff like we started out to do. No need for the Rube Goldberg stuff.
Cut, kill, dig, drill.
Re:Hmm.. (worst fuel out there) (Score:5, Informative)
Hydrogen is not only applicable to hydrogen cars (where you're correct, it doesn't make for a very good fuel choice). It's an incredibly important chemical in industry. As one example among countless, it's one of the two feedstocks (the other being nitrogen) in the Haber process for producing ammonia, which forms the root of all industrial production of nitrated products on Earth (particularly fertilizers). Right now Haber process hydrogen almost exclusively comes from natural gas reforming (CH4 + H2O -> 1 CO + 3 H2; CO + H2O -> CO2 + H2).
Re: Hmm.. (worst fuel out there) (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll just take the shed load of money and convert that into useful energy. Easy peasy.
What happens to the carbon? (Score:2)
Article is very short on details. How much hydrogen can they extract per ton of biomass? What's the cost of the active ingredients?
Not only that, what do they do with the carbon that is left over after the reaction? Biomass tends to be rather heavy in carbon and it has to go somewhere.
Re:What happens to the carbon? (Score:5, Informative)
According to the paper, all CO2 generated by the photooxidation of lignocellulose enters the basic solution as carbonate ions. So it's up to you as to what you want to do with them after that - industrial feedstocks, reaction and sequestration, or even simple exhaustion as CO2, with the knowledge that at least it's a closed fuel cycle (CO2 taken in during growth being released back to the air).
It's a shame that the process doesn't generate CO rather than CO2. CO + H2 = syngas = great source for synfuels and other petroleum products (CO is relatively stable at normal temperatures and pressures but highly reactive at elevated temperatures and pressures, to the point of even spontaneously breaking down to C + CO2 - so when you have hydrogen in the mix, you have the stage set for the formation of hydrocarbons of varying lengths depending on your environmental conditions). Of course, I guess if they wanted syngas they'd just partially oxidize the lignocellulose directly under heat. In fact, as the paper mentions, that what's already done in biomass gasifiers. They just want the hydrogen.
Not a closed fuel cycle (Score:2)
So it's up to you as to what you want to do with them after that - industrial feedstocks, reaction and sequestration, or even simple exhaustion as CO2, with the knowledge that at least it's a closed fuel cycle (CO2 taken in during growth being released back to the air).
It's probably NOT a closed fuel cycle. You're not considering the entire fuel cycle. Most industrial scale biomass is really a conversion of diesel fuel to the biomass. Farmers use tractors and fertilizers which get their energy from oil pumped from the ground. Sure there is some photosynthesis in there too but the oil derived hydrocarbons are a non-trivial percent of the total carbon footprint. So the fuel cycle isn't closed because the carbon doesn't go back into the ground.
This is going to take some work (Score:3, Interesting)
The Photo-catalyst is Cadmium based.
Solar-driven reforming of lignocellulose to H2 with a CdS/CdOx photocatalyst
The nanoparticle is able to absorb energy from solar light and use it to undertake complex chemical reactions. In this experiment, it rearranges the atoms in the water and biomass to form hydrogen fuel and other organic chemicals, including formic acid and carbonate
Yeah can't see heavy metal contamination being a problem with that witch's brew.
Re:This is going to take some work (Score:4, Insightful)
From that example you should know that toxic catalysts don't always end up in the end product - especially since here the end product is a gas.
Re: (Score:2)
t's the word "contamination" in the second sentence. It's worth looking up so you don't miss this sort of thing at other times.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The hydrogen gas is a gas but that doesn't mean there are no solids produced too.
More than just the final product (Score:2)
From that example you should know that toxic catalysts don't always end up in the end product - especially since here the end product is a gas.
Umm you are aware that there will be waste and byproducts from the reaction, right? Not the least of which will be the carbon from the biomass. Just because the toxic stuff doesn't end up in the finished product doesn't mean it isn't a problem or can be ignored.
Re: (Score:2)
Waste streams (Score:2)
So you are shifting the goalposts away from cadmium?
Not remotely. Just pointing out that the argument that just because the toxic stuff doesn't end up in the primary product (hydrogen here) it isn't the end of the discussion. You still have to deal with the waste streams and whatever they contain, whether it be cadmium, carbon, or something else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but what was your motivation for "just pointing out" the blatantly obvious?
You and I might think it is blatantly obvious but there is evidence to suggest that many people do not find it obvious at all. Others simply don't care for various reasons - most of the economic in origin. No offense was intended if it was already clear to you. But I think it's important to keep the issues regarding the waste streams front and center because they matter to all of us sooner or later.
Re: (Score:2)
We turn the carbon into nanotubes, make a space elevator and toss the other stuff into the sun.
You're acting like this is hard or something.
Re: This is going to take some work (Score:2)
No, I don't eat margarine. It's full of toxins. Very unhealthy.
Re: (Score:2)
No. I don't eat margarine. Nothing eats margarine but people. Rats and cockroaches wont eat it. That should tell you something.
Re: (Score:2)
You eat margarine don't you?
From that example you should know that toxic catalysts don't always end up in the end product - especially since here the end product is a gas.
Off your meds again ?
You see if you had of been reading you might have been able to make it to the end of the line
it rearranges the atoms in the water and biomass to form hydrogen fuel and other organic chemicals, including formic acid and carbonate
Now let me ask you make claims of having been associated with mining in Australia ? Just how is it a mining engineer isn't familiar the fact that chemical reactions have byproducts, or at least familiar with the concept of toxic runoff ?
Re: (Score:2)
The funny thing about you is you keep moving the goalposts over and over and over - to what, acid mine drainage now? WTF?
You didn't even try to understand my incredibly simple example did you and seem proud of your failure to attempt it and then you pretended I don't understand some
Re: (Score:2)
I figured you weren't actually an engineer now I have proof. If you can find an actual engineer that will take pity on you they and explain why.
Re: (Score:2)
You really think so spamdoxy?
Pretty thin skinned aren't you spamdoxy?
Re: (Score:2)
See ya poser
Re: (Score:2)
Please show how that is proof.
Re: (Score:2)
So me knowing about a catalyst used in margarine production is proof that I am not an engineer?
Please show how that is proof.
Awwwe I'm not the engineer that's going to take pity on you poser.
Re: (Score:2)
BTW - I changed my sig just for you. Maybe you should take a look at that book - it might help.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope and if you were an engineer you would understand why it's obvious you aren't
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh do grow up. I went back to university and was teaching engineering students part time for a few years back at the time this site started. If you had tried harder at high school you could have been one of my students.
Try and try again poser. You see there is a big difference between knowing a little about a field and actually having been a professional in the field.
It's really obvious you never were.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you attempting to displace your own failure onto myself Crashdoxy?
Re: (Score:2)
How un-selfaware. You seem to have the obsession with proving you're an authority
. I went back to university and was teaching engineering students part time for a few years back at the time this site started
Now who is insecure poser ?
Re: (Score:2)
No. Like everyone else I'm an authority on things that I am good at - no more, no less. You yourself know enough about the topic being discussed to know that you should not have written your pathetic Fear Uncertainty and Doubt post, but you clearly did it just because you saw something that in the right light looked a bit "green" and it offended your politics.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Like everyone else I'm an authority on things that I am good at
Looks up thread, oh yeah you're Mr. Margarine Catalyst LOL
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
High school level chemistry Crashdoxy.
Nickel is non toxic and isn't in solution. Which just proves your stupid and ignorant.
Stupid for talking about something of which you know nothing.
Ignorant for not even understanding you are stupid.
You could still be both and be an engineer, but the fact you don't understand why makes you a poser.
Re: (Score:2)
It's kind of irrelevant since it's high school chemistry yet you brought it up as part of your pathetic doxxing attempted bullying.
CATALYST
Your only "correction" of your dozens of attempts you got right was due to moving the goalposts from Western economics to Chinese Communism - just give up. It's pathetic.
Oh, and read that book. You may as well be one of the examples in it, but either way you'll find it both funny and informative. Techy type
MSDS for Nickel (Score:2)
Do not eat.
http://www.sciencelab.com/msds... [sciencelab.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So sad poser
Toxicological Data on Ingredients:
Nickel metal LD50: Not available. LC50: Not available.
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell
From your own site
Toxicological Data on Ingredients:
Cadmium: ORAL (LD50): Acute: 2330 mg/kg [Rat.]. 890 mg/kg [Mouse]. DUST (LC50):
Acute: 50 ppm 4 hour(s) [Rat].
Re: (Score:2)
CATALYST
Your only "correction" of your dozens of attempts you got right was due to moving the goalposts from Western economics to Chinese Communism - just give up. It's pathetic.
LOL you can't even realize other people corrected you on your embarrassment there.
I have to ask are you some sort abuse gimp poser boy ? You never get shit right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean you didn't already know? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The point you made is you don't know the difference between toxic and non toxic and catalysts that are suspended in solution and those embeded in a matrix.
Good job poser.
What did you teach janitorial studies ?
Re: (Score:2)
Keep on digging.
Re: (Score:2)
So - what point has your dozens of errors in all your "corrections" made?
Why do you keep on trying and failing to come up to the bar that you insist that all others pass?
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong, that's just you pretending I do not for the sake of being insulting
LOL poser boy
Who are you trying to convince because it sure isn't me ?
Re: (Score:2)
I pointed out your shit and you went for me with doxxing and other ways to attack the man and not the ball, so I did not let that stand.
Also why should I be trying to convince you of something that you already know but choose to lie about?
Re:This is going to take some work (Score:5, Informative)
Well..... it depends on the process ;) Some catalysts are highly stable and last for years without renewal (or even indefinitely), while on the other end of the spectrum some disappear quickly and end up in the product by design (plastics are particularly bad about this, to the point that it blurs the line between catalyst and initiator).
That said, industry constantly uses toxic catalysts in huge quantities. Acting like this is some sort of new horrible development is just silly. Where toxicity might be a concern, the rate of entrainment into the product is measured, and if it's too high for safety, either a new catalyst has to be found, the previous catalyst has to be better stabilized / retained, or you have to add a post-processing step to recover the catalyst from the product.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the whole "pooling under overhangs", "seeping into pipes and following them to their destinations" and "igniting with 1/10th the ignition energy of natural gas, a level of spark suppression of which common electronic devices are not rated for" aspects are not exactly desirable in a fuel for consumers. Although I'd be more worried about leaks from piping and fittings than from the tanks and the engine (if combustion based) or fuel cells (if PEMFC based). And yeah, COPV failures are not common, but th
Re: (Score:3)
Catalysts are not necessarily used up in a process though. They may be completely recycled as part of the process, or they may have to be "scrubbed' periodically as they saturate.
However, TFA doesn't make it clear which is the case.
Re: (Score:2)
It is catalyst, I suggest to read on wikipedia what the word means.
So: no they don't get used up.
However you could imagine situations, e.g in cement or concrete where you add a 'catalyst' for whatever reason, and when it has hardened out, you obviously can not remove the catalyst anymore.
Re:This is going to take some work (Score:5, Informative)
Rather than spending your time reading Wikipedia, I suggest you spend some time learning about real-world processes. At least read Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry or something similar. In the real world, catalysts do get used up, and frequently even entrained to varying degrees into the product. In fact, it's relatively rare that a catalyst lasts indefinitely (there are some processes where the catalyst does, but most do not). Some processes have a relatively simple step to renew their catalysts. Others require complete replacement of their catalysts with newly produced ones. Sometimes the catalyst is lost by design.
The way in which catalysts become "used up" varies greatly. Sometimes, analogous to your "concrete", it's lost by design into the product stream, such as with most plastics polymerization. So for example, with polyethylene, you may get something like 5000 grams of PE per gram of catalyst, but then the catalyst is gone. Usually there's no recovery step. In some processes, catalysts are lost by being poisoned, either by impurities or by side reactions. Catalysts can be "gunked up" and lose their reactive surface area - for example, by coking in petrochemical refining. Catalysts can also erode - for example, in the Ostwald process for making nitric acid, there's almost always a catalyst recovery stage downstream, because platinum and rhodium are very expensive, and erosion rates are high. Even the process of erosion varies - for example, in some cases it might be substrate attack, or active surface attack, or formation of dendrites which break off, or all sorts of things.
In general, in industry you call it a catalyst if it catalyzes a significant number of reactions, rather than being used up in the first reaction (the latter being considered a feedstock). There is no requirement that it be able to catalyze an infinite number of reactions. Technically things which catalyze a "small number" of reactions should be called initiators, and those which catalyze a "large number" should be called catalysts, but the distinction isn't always clear, and the language overlaps.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What pile of biomass? The whole point of the process is to eliminate the biomass, turning it into hydrogen and CO2. It's an oxidation reaction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, imho if it really gets used up in the sense that it reacts with other chemicals participating in the reaction, then it is nto a catalyst.
Catalysts can also erode - for example, in the Ostwald process for making nitric acid, there's almost always a catalyst recovery stage downstream, because platinum and rhodium are very expensive, and erosion rates are high. Even the process of erosion varies - for example, in some cases it might be substrate attack, or active surface attack, or formation of dendrites
Re: (Score:2)
Without reading Wikipedia, I can tell you exactly what a catalyst is, at least in the realm of chemistry. It is a substance or material which provides an intermediate state to a chemical reaction, lowering the overall energy required by that process and increasing the reaction rate.
Most chemical reactions have an intermediate stage, which is not always shown when we right the simplified reaction. For example, we might write a chemical reaction like this:
A + 2B => Z
What this implies is that 3 (1 A and 2 B
Uses toxic Cadmium (Score:2, Informative)
"The system operates under visible light, is stable beyond six days and is even able to reform unprocessed lignocellulose, such as wood and paper, under solar irradiation at room temperature, presenting an inexpensive route to drive aqueous proton reduction to H2 through waste biomass oxidation."
It uses Cadmium compounds in water. With the use of such an environmental toxin, I sincerely hope it's stable for a lot longer than six days.
Re: Wonderful, so we can turn food into fuel (Score:2)
Lignocellulose is only considered a food if you're a termite.
build in a timer (Score:1)
Re:Getting Hyrogen from Water (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, if I were going to get hydrogen from water I would take a solar panel and hook it up to a floating platform sitting in the ocean. Underneath there would be two gold or platinum plated electrodes, one of which I would leave free and the other of which I would put in a vertical tube. On top I would have a small pump (also run by the solar cell, or maybe powered by a small wind turbine since there is usually a wind over the ocean) that compressed the hydrogen into a collection tank. That would produce hydrogen at a very, very predictable rate, fully compressed and ready to use. A small hydrogen powered boat (powered indirectly by the same solar cells) could make the rounds every week or so to replace the tanks and bring the tanks ashore for use. The rafts themselves would attract fish and de facto cool the ocean underneath. And best of all, they would produce the hydrogen for only four or five times what the electricity that produced it was worth!
Now to patent this, get a government grant, and fight the NIMBY battle with all of the boaters and fisherpeople who don't want to see the oceans and sounds scattered with floating platforms covered with solar cells and hydrogen gas tanks. I'll be rich!
Oh, wait. You mean that this idea has been around for over forty years now?
https://books.google.com/books... [google.com]
You mean that it is developed to the point where one could produce hydrogen peroxide, or release the CO2 in the ocean water and capture THAT at the same time we generate the hydrogen (for an even larger multiplier for the actual value of the electricity)? You mean that even a patent troll would have a hard time locking this one down? You mean that there really are some people, somewhere, who have heard of the second law of thermodynamics or the first law of economics (that in business, one's product has to sell for more than the cost of production)?
So what? As long as we have a government, these will not be obstacles...
rgb
Re: (Score:2)
While you are correct in that Cadmium is a Nasty Chemical, it is also something used for a variety of industrial processes and thus represents well known technology. Yes, you can screw things up - and mining / production of cadmium and other light metals needs to be rethought and closely monitored - but in an of itself it is something that we should be able to handle.
Murphy was an optimist......
Ugh (Score:1)
So they set up a mulch pile.
Re: (Score:2)
So they set up a mulch pile.
Minus the methane. Even more Kaboom per cubic millimeter (or inch or your volume measurement of choice).
How much does the biomass cost? (Score:3)
The new method, published in Nature Energy, offers a relatively cheap fuel alternative that researchers are looking to scale up to meet consumer demands at the industrial level.
Whether it is cheap or not depends on how expensive it was to create the biomass. Since most biomass used commercially is basically a conversion of diesel fuel to biomass, it's not immediately clear whether or not this technology would actually be cheap. Perhaps as a means of using excess/surplus biomass that would otherwise be wasted it could be useful but even then it's not entirely clear. WAY too much glossing over details and naively optimistic future projections in the article.
I would also be curious what they do with the carbon in the biomass since that is a nontrivial component of any biomass. Conveniently they do not mention that little detail
Devil is in the details (Score:2)
Most biomass is either trash destined for a landfill, a byproduct of growing food, or the end product of sewage treatment. Converting it into a clean fuel to generate electricity is a win-win.
In principle yes but it's not so easy in practice, primarily for economic reasons. Details matter when it comes to this stuff. This isn't our first rodeo with this waste stream energy reclamation or supposedly miracle bio-fuels. I wouldn't dismiss any of it out of hand but I'm not going to get excited without a LOT more details.
Re: (Score:2)
The ability to do this with bulk lignin might be the key here. Presumably all you would have to do is chop things up to get more surface area (faster! faster would be better!). Most other biomass conversion processes need other Nasty Chemical pretreatments or dumping the stuff in vats of weird enzymes.
We'll see.....
Where we're going we don't need no roads! (Score:2)
The best line, imho (Score:2)
Future development can be envisioned at any scale.
How many past discoveries were advertised as the solution to [insert problem] only to be found that in fact they did not scale.
So ... (Score:5, Funny)
The research team used different types of biomass in their experiments including pieces of wood, paper and leaves
Let met guess... (Score:3)
Check this out. Been done before. (Score:1)