Author Topic: This is how we are going to get hydrogen (Read 1430 times)

AquaShrimp · « **on:** September 15, 2006, 06:22:50 PM »

From ScienceDaily
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060913100628.htm

Put a certain type of bacteria in a vat, heat the vat to 150-180 degrees, and feed them pure glucose.

So really, all that will be required is glucose. Glucose, a hexose sugar, has 12 hydrogens for every 6 carbons. Cellulose, the Beta form of glucose, is the most abundant organic compound on earth. If the U.S. could find a cheap way to convert B-glucose into A-glucose, we would be overflowing with cheap energy. And even if that weren't feasible, its still very easy to obtain glucose in mass quantities.

I really think this is the way the U.S. is going to obtain its hydrogen for the future. It appears to require alot less energy than electrolysis.

Debonair · « **Reply #1 on:** September 15, 2006, 06:31:00 PM »

nurd.

rofl:rofl

Angus · « **Reply #2 on:** September 16, 2006, 03:51:09 AM »

You'll have to create the glucose though. Through plants.
That's close to what the Brazilians already do, using excess plantmass to make alcohol, which the burn in car engines.

Furball · « **Reply #3 on:** September 16, 2006, 04:20:14 AM »

No blood for glucose!

Angus · « **Reply #4 on:** September 16, 2006, 04:25:09 AM »

Ahh, this:
"If the U.S. could find a cheap way to convert B-glucose into A-glucose"

B glucose is available in big quantities, i.e. straw.
Straw can be converted to digestable form for ruminants by applying ammonium. Not sure of the chemical formula though.

Squire · « **Reply #5 on:** September 16, 2006, 10:13:05 AM »

Can I try it in my bathtub?

Angus · « **Reply #6 on:** September 16, 2006, 10:20:55 AM »

Well, making ethanol should not prove too difficult...

Goomba · « **Reply #7 on:** September 16, 2006, 10:58:38 AM »

Now that's a promising find.

I've always been a big proponent of US energy-independence via hydrogen, but it's always been held up by the difficulty in producing, on Earth, the most abundant element in the Universe (well, second most abundant after Stupidity). Ironic, ain't it?

If this pans out, and the economics hold up (that'll be key), it would be a major stride forward. Would be nice of farmers grew stuff, instead of getting paid not to.

Cross your fingers...

Mini D · « **Reply #8 on:** September 16, 2006, 11:28:53 AM »

It doesn't look to be an energy source if you have to heat it to obtain the hydrogen. The question, I guess, is how much energy it takes to make hydrogen vs how much you can obtain from the hydrogen.

Hawker25 · « **Reply #9 on:** September 16, 2006, 12:05:26 PM »

I am very interested in the hydrogen idea because it i believe will be the technology that names the next world power. Whoever can implement this will be in position to stop depedemcy on foreign oil. THis means that the wackjobs we are currently forced to fund will be up ****e creek with out a paddle. I believe that i saw Toyota was working on a station that could convert water to hydrogen using solar energy. Was wondering if anybody else had seen that.

Hornet33 · « **Reply #10 on:** September 16, 2006, 02:57:01 PM »

Anyone heard of the new electric drive motors the army is playing with? I've seen a little about them. Apparently the motors also have an electrical generator that is geared in such a way as to generate more electricity than the motor uses when operating. I understand that the ultimate goal is to create a vehicle that has one of these motors as the drive motor for each wheel, with a small deisel engine to provide additional power when needed. I heard that the prototype was going over 300 miles cross country and only using 5-6 gallons of deisel to do it.

Imagine if this technology is perfected for the civilian market. An all wheel drive car that makes more electricity than it uses. A small engine to provide additional power. You could drive coast to coast on a tank of fuel.

Blooz · « **Reply #11 on:** September 16, 2006, 03:00:02 PM »

I would think methane would be an easier gas to produce than hydrogen.

Then again. If you put a couple lumps of uranium together it makes it's own energy all by itself.

vorticon · « **Reply #12 on:** September 16, 2006, 04:17:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
It doesn't look to be an energy source if you have to heat it to obtain the hydrogen. The question, I guess, is how much energy it takes to make hydrogen vs how much you can obtain from the hydrogen.

just put these things in the cooling system of a nuclear power plant...

x0847Marine · « **Reply #13 on:** September 16, 2006, 06:42:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Blooz
I would think methane would be an easier gas to produce than hydrogen.

The methane congress produces in a day could power a city for weeks.

Making energy is great and all, the real question is what kind of new alcohol do we get?

AquaShrimp · « **Reply #14 on:** September 16, 2006, 07:13:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
It doesn't look to be an energy source if you have to heat it to obtain the hydrogen. The question, I guess, is how much energy it takes to make hydrogen vs how much you can obtain from the hydrogen.

The reactors will create enough energy to heat themselves. Think about it, if a reactor couldn't produce enough hydrogen to heat itself to 150 degrees, it would be producing too little energy anyways to be of any use.

So glucose is the most abundant compound on earth. It comes in two forms, as sugar, and as cellulose. Wheat, potatoes, and most grains and tubers are actually just made of enormous amounts of glucose molecules linked together into starch.

The cellulose form is what grass, trees, and leaves are made of.

So what we will have a is a closed vessel, with low oxygen levels, a temperature around 150-180 degrees F, and higher than normal pressures. Dump a bunch of glucose in, and hydrogen is produced. A little bit of that hydrogen will go to heat the reactor, the rest will be free to use as fuel.