BLACKSBURG, Va., April 4, 2013 – A team of Virginia Tech researchers has discovered a way to extract large quantities of hydrogen from any plant, a breakthrough that has the potential to bring a low-cost, environmentally friendly fuel source to the world.

“Our new process could help end our dependence on fossil fuels,” said Y.H. Percival Zhang, an associate professor of biological systems engineering in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and the College of Engineering. “Hydrogen is one of the most important biofuels of the future.”

Zhang and his team have succeeded in using xylose, the most abundant simple plant sugar, to produce a large quantity of hydrogen that previously was attainable only in theory. Zhang’s method can be performed using any source of biomass.

The discovery is a featured editor’s choice in an online version of the chemistry journalAngewandte Chemie, International Edition.

This new environmentally friendly method of producing hydrogen utilizes renewable natural resources, releases almost no greenhouse gasses, and does not require costly or heavy metals.  Previous methods to produce hydrogen are expensive and create greenhouse gases.

The U.S. Department of Energy says that hydrogen fuel has the potential to dramatically reduce reliance on fossil fuels and automobile manufacturers are aggressively trying to develop vehicles that run on hydrogen fuel cells. Unlike gas-powered engines that spew out pollutants, the only byproduct of hydrogen fuel is water. Zhang’s discovery opens the door to an inexpensive, renewable source of hydrogen.

Jonathan R. Mielenz, group leader of the bioscience and technology biosciences division at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, who is familiar with Zhang’s work but not affiliated with this project, said this discovery has the potential to have a major impact on alternative energy production.

“The key to this exciting development is that Zhang is using the second most prevalent sugar in plants to produce this hydrogen,” he said. “This amounts to a significant additional benefit to hydrogen production and it reduces the overall cost of producing hydrogen from biomass.”

Mielenz said Zhang’s process could find its way to the marketplace as quickly as three years if the technology is available. Zhang said when it does become commercially available, it has the possibility of making an enormous impact.

“The potential for profit and environmental benefits are why so many automobile, oil, and energy companies are working on hydrogen fuel cell vehicles as the transportation of the future,” Zhang said. “Many people believe we will enter the hydrogen economy soon, with a market capacity of at least $1 trillion in the United States alone.”

Obstacles to commercial production of hydrogen gas from biomass previously included the high cost of the processes used and the relatively low quantity of the end product.

But Zhang says he thinks he has found the answers to those problems.

For seven years, Zhang’s team has been focused on finding non-traditional ways to produce high-yield hydrogen at low cost, specifically researching enzyme combinations, discovering novel enzymes, and engineering enzymes with desirable properties.

The team liberates the high-purity hydrogen under mild reaction conditions at 122 degrees and normal atmospheric pressure. The biocatalysts used to release the hydrogen are a group of enzymes artificially isolated from different microorganisms that thrive at extreme temperatures, some of which could grow at around the boiling point of water.

The researchers chose to use xylose, which comprises as much as 30 percent of plant cell walls. Despite its abundance, the use of xylose for releasing hydrogen has been limited. The natural or engineered microorganisms that most scientists use in their experiments cannot produce hydrogen in high yield because these microorganisms grow and reproduce instead of splitting water molecules to yield pure hydrogen.

To liberate the hydrogen, Virginia Tech scientists separated a number of enzymes from their native microorganisms to create a customized enzyme cocktail that does not occur in nature.  The enzymes, when combined with xylose and a polyphosphate, liberate the unprecedentedly high volume of hydrogen from xylose, resulting in the production of about three times as much hydrogen as other hydrogen-producing microorganisms.

The energy stored in xylose splits water molecules, yielding high-purity hydrogen that can be directly utilized by proton-exchange membrane fuel cells. Even more appealing, this reaction occurs at low temperatures, generating hydrogen energy that is greater than the chemical energy stored in xylose and the polyphosphate. This results in an energy efficiency of more than 100 percent — a net energy gain. That means that low-temperature waste heat can be used to produce high-quality chemical energy hydrogen for the first time. Other processes that convert sugar into biofuels such as ethanol and butanol always have energy efficiencies of less than 100 percent, resulting in an energy penalty.

In his previous research, Zhang used enzymes to produce hydrogen from starch, but the reaction required a food source that made the process too costly for mass production.

The commercial market for hydrogen gas is now around $100 billion for hydrogen produced from natural gas, which is expensive to manufacture and generates a large amount of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. Industry most often uses hydrogen to manufacture ammonia for fertilizers and to refine petrochemicals, but an inexpensive, plentiful green hydrogen source can rapidly change that market.

“It really doesn’t make sense to use non-renewable natural resources to produce hydrogen,” Zhang said. “We think this discovery is a game-changer in the world of alternative energy.”

Support for the current research comes from the Department of Biological Systems Engineering at Virginia Tech. Additional resources were contributed by the Shell GameChanger Program, the Virginia Tech College of Agriculture and Life Sciences’ Biodesign and Bioprocessing Research Center, and the U.S. Department of Energy BioEnergy Science Center, along with the Division of Chemical Sciences, Geosciences and Biosciences, Office of Basic Energy Sciences of the Department of Energy.  The lead author of the article, Julia S. Martin Del Campo, who works in Zhang’s lab, received her Ph.D. grant from the Mexican Council of Science and Technology.

References

Breakthrough in hydrogen fuel production could revolutionize alternative energy market
http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2013/04/040413-cals-hydrogen.html

High-Yield Production of Dihydrogen from Xylose by Using a Synthetic Enzyme Cascade in a Cell-Free System

 

 

- Hydrogen - efficiency

- The Hydrogen Economy

- Iceland, the world's first hydrogen society

- The Hydrogen Economy - effective policies needed

- Breakthroughs open door to Hydrogen Economy

- Who (almost) killed the Hydrogen Car?

- Hydrogen cars

- Boeing succussfully flies hydrogen plane

 

I hope this might give you a laugh. we are wrestling, here in Virginia, with a highway bill that the Republicans are struggling to get through the General Assembly. they want to fix a problem that they themselves created: that ere is not enough $ being dedicated to road repair and construction here.

The plan here is sort of a classic bait and switch- look, we are getting rid of the gasoline tax!!! yeah, but there will be an increase in the sales tax, and hybrid car owners will be slapped with  $100 per year charge. yes, let's get rid of the VISIBLE tax, and replace it with an invisible one, and while we are at it let's nail the greenies cuz we hate them and they do not vote for us. In fact, it is a net increase of revenue. Think about it. If you don't have enough money to pay for something you want, well you need to dig into your pocket and get more money. it is not rocket science. I object to the plan because it would actually encourage people to drive more, and it would discourage people from buying hybrids, plug ins, and other fuel efficient vehicles. how is that good? it is pretending that air pollution and global warming do not exist.

But Ken Cuccinelli will have none of it. Cooch,  a Tea Party darling who wants to be Governor next year, wants us to give up on the highway bill and trash it. Why? Because it does not actually produce enough revenue to fix Virginia's roads? NO. actually Cooch wants to trash it because it is a tax increase.

Holy Toledo. the problem is that there is no money. How you gonna fix roads without money, Cooch? Oh, I get it. You are not going to fix any roads. because none of that matters nearly as much as keeping taxes low.

The Tea Party is killing this country, that is how I see it.

Tûranor PlanetSolar in Hamburg

The MS Tûranor PlanetSolar has successfully completed its journey around the world powered only by solar energy.

After traveling a distance of 37,300 miles (60,023 km) over a period of 584 days, the solar ship arrived in Monaco on May 4, 2012, where it had departed on September 27, 2010.

The ship has 5,780 ft² (537 m²) of photovoltaic panels, rated 93.5 kW with an efficiency of 18.8%, and carries 6 blocks of lithium-ion battery.

The ship is 20 ft (6.1 m) tall, 115 ft (35 m) long and almost 50 ft (15 m) wide. When flapped out, the solar panels add 4 meters to the back and 4 meters to each side. The ship weighs 95 tons and displaces 85 tons.

The ship needs a crew of at least 4 people and while Wikipedia says that its hull is capable of hosting 200 persons, the official site says that the number of people that can go on board is 40. The hull is built from a foam core sandwiched between layers of carbon fiber and resin.

The motors have a maximal power of 120 kW and consume on average 20 kW of electricity (26.8 HP).

The ship cruises at 7.5 knots (13.9 km/h; 8.6 mph) and can reach a maximum speed of 14 knots (26 km/h; 16 mph). The cost of the ship is €12.5 million.

The image below shows the ship when it arrived in Monaco on May 4, 2012.

Sources:

PlanetSolar newsletter
Wikipedia PlanetSolar
Gizmodo

More posts by Sam Carana:

Solar Impulse makes its maiden flight
Green Flight Challenge
Five Electrifying Transport Ideas

End Polluter Welfare Act of 2012

On May 10, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) introduced legislation to end billions of dollars in oil, coal and gas subsidies.

“Big oil companies alone make more than $300 million every day but the oil, gas, and coal industries still have their hands in the taxpayer’s pocket,” said Rep. Ellison. Why should Americans prop up these companies with tax dollars and have to pay ridiculous fuel prices?

“We need to get off the fossil fuel bandwagon that keeps us dependent on oil and contributes to climate change.  The $113 billion in taxpayer handouts that oil, gas, and coal companies receive should be used to invest in green jobs. It’s time for this corporate welfare to end,” Rep. Ellison added.

The measure would do away with tax breaks, financial assistance, royalty relief, direct federal research and development and many loopholes that benefit the fossil fuel industry. Under current law, more than $113 billion in federal subsidies would go to oil, coal and gas industries in the coming decade.

When we have a $15.6 trillion national debt, we cannot afford it. When the five largest oil companies have made over $1 trillion in profits in the last decade, they don't need it. When some of these same polluters have, in a given year, paid zero in federal income taxes and actually received IRS rebate checks worth millions, they don't deserve it.  When fossil fuels are the number one source of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, creating a planetary crisis of global warming that is already causing devastating extreme weather disturbances, we can't ignore it.

Stop the Nuclear Industry Welfare Program

On April 16, 2012, Sen. Bernie Sanders and Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, spoke out against the corporate welfare going to the nuclear energy industry.  According to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, since 1948 the federal government has spent more than $95 billion (in 2011 dollars) on nuclear energy R&D. That is more than four times the amount spent on solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, biofuels, and hydropower combined.

But federal R&D was not enough; the industry also wanted federal liability insurance too, which it got back in 1957 with the Price-Anderson Act. This federal liability insurance program for nuclear plants was meant to be temporary, but Congress repeatedly extended it, most recently through 2025. Price-Anderson puts taxpayers on the hook for losses that exceed $12. 6 billion if there is a nuclear plant disaster. When government estimates show the cost for such a disaster could reach $720 billion in property damage alone, that's one sweetheart deal for the nuclear industry!

R&D and Price-Anderson insurance are still just the tip of the iceberg. From tax breaks for uranium mining and loan guarantees for uranium enrichment to special depreciation benefits and lucrative federal tax breaks for every kilowatt hour from new plants, nuclear is heavily subsidized at every phase. The industry also bilks taxpayers when plants close down with tax breaks for decommissioning plants. Further, it is estimated that the federal costs for the disposal of radioactive nuclear waste could be as much as $100 billion.

Even with all of those subsidies, the private sector still will not agree to finance a new nuclear plant, so wealthy nuclear corporations recently secured access to $18.5 billion in taxpayer-backed loan guarantees. Maybe the Wall Street banks agree with the Congressional Budget Office, which estimated the risk of default on nuclear loans at above 50 percent.

Shift to clean energy

As Sam Carana has long pointed out that, apart from ending these perverse direct subsidies, there are further indirect subsidies to be eliminated. Polluting energy comes with a huge cost to our health, the balance of payments, local job and investment opportunities, energy independence and security, and the cost of policing the associated global transport. All these costs are currently not incorporated in the price of fossil fuel. Moreover, global warming inflicts damage that has huge costs and this cost is threatening to rise to incalculable levels.

Instead of subsidizing polluting industries, energy policy should facilitate a shift to genuinely clean energy. Feebates work best and they can be implemented locally, as illustrated below.

Sources

Sanders, Ellison Introduce Bill to End Fossil Fuel Subsidies
Rep. Keith Ellison And Sen. Bernie Sanders Announce Bill To End Fossil Fuel Subsidies
Remarks: End Polluter Welfare Act
Stop the Nuclear Industry Welfare Program

More by Sam Carana

Tax package - another missed opportunity to get things right
Republicans reject budget cuts!!!
Ten Reasons why America can win the clean energy race
1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015
Clean Energy Standard?
Policy option: Feebates

So why all the flap about keystone?

I wrote a few weeks ago that Tesla Motors founder, Elon Musk, has said that an affordable 300 mile range, lithium ion battery is likely to be on the market by 2015.

Sam Carana has brought to my attention another company, which has already achieved 400 Wh/kg in a lithium ion battery, and has the stated goal of a 300 mile range at affordable prices. Envia Systems' battery installed in a Nissan Leaf would extend the Leaf's range to approximately 170 miles.

Of course, if you're one of those folks, who is used to paying upwards of $60K for a car now, you should look at the Tesla S, which already has a 300 mile range.

As many of you will know, I bought a Chevy Volt in July of last year. I have been very happy with this mostly electric car (I drive about 95% on electric energy at about 20% of what a gas car costs). But with EVs advancing as rapidly as they are, in the back of my mind a nagging question is emerging - did I jump too soon? Perhaps not. By the time I'm ready to trade the Volt, it looks like I'll be able to afford that 300 mile EV.

Here's the thing, though - if an affordable, 300 mile electric vehicle is "just around the corner," why in God's name are we "debating" an oil pipeline from Canada to Texas?

When my wife and I bought a Chevy Volt last July, I began posting articles about my experience with driving electric. For the most part, responses and comments to those articles were positive and inquisitive. However, a few were decidedly and consistently negative, giving me the impression that there is a "negative branding campaign", designed to quash development of electric vehicles (EVs).

Some - but not all - of the "negative branding points" included the following: EVs are too expensive, so they will not sell. They really do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions. And if everyone bought EVs, the tremendous demand for electricity would collapse the grid.

A recent article in Politico presents EVs in a far different light, however. "Our industry is growing fast, adding jobs throughout the supply chain and selling more vehicles and components than ever. The future is bright, but you’d never know it from some of the commentary," says Brian Wynne, president of the Electric Drive Transportation Association.

Sales of hybrids and EVs are actually good. More than 250K were sold in the U.S. last year, and by 2015, an estimated 10% of all vehicles sold in the U.S. will be either hybrid or electric.

When I ran the numbers, I found - based on $3.50/gallon gas - that over the life of my Volt's battery, I will save approximately $12K on gas-not-bought. The Politico article confirms my numbers, stating that at $4/gallon gas, a typical family will save $1400 per year. They will pay 2 or 3 cents per mile driving on electricity, instead of 15 or 16 cents per mile, driving on gas. Is it any wonder, then, why hybrids and EVs are gaining ground on gas cars, despite the efforts to pre-define them as a lost cause?

The other criticisms of EVs are just as baseless as the sales misinformation, and I will address them separately in subsequent posts. The Politico article asks some pertinent questions about this "negative branding campaign", however. Why, for example, do politicians and "right wing" pundits criticize an fledgling industry, which creates jobs, contributes to energy independence, spurs economic growth, reduces pollution and promotes innovation? I suspect it might have something to do with all those campaign contributions from fossil industries. What do you think?

Read the Politico Article here:

Stop bashing electric cars

Mitt Romney in early April 2012:

"I'm not sure America was ready for the Chevy Volt," he said. "I mean, I hope it does well -- I don't want to disparage any product coming out of Detroit. But I think instead of having politicians tell us what kind of cars we ought to make, we ought to let the people who are trying to understand the market make that decision."

Between now and May 16, PBS stations across the U.S. will be airing a 90 minute program, "Plan B: Mobilizing to Save Civilization". It doesn't really matter if you "believe" in climate change or not - for 2 reasons: 1. whatever is happening with the climate doesn't care if you "believe", and 2. there are any number of other reasons - from national security and economic, to public health and air quality - to "mobilize to save civilization". Any number of problems require the same solution: ridding ourselves of our addiction to pervasively and inherently destructive fossil fuels. It's one of those "pay me now, or pay me later" propositions.

For further information:

Check Your Local Listings

Plan B: Mobilizing to Save Civilization

Plan B: Mobilizing to Save Civilization

A current ad for the Jaguar XF, though a bit creepy in that it implies that a machine is alive like us (only more so), boasts that the car "roars", as the engine revs. Of course, the announcer's voice is deep and scratchy (is he a smoker?), kind of like the revving engine. For me, however, the ad is silly, because it is actually using one of the Jag's technological liabilities as a selling point: inefficiency. You see, a "roaring" gas engine is just lost energy.

On the other hand, the Chevy Volt barely whispers - a bit of a "whir" when accelerating - barely audible. Indeed, the Volt is so quiet, you wouldn't even know the motor was on, if not for an audible cue when you press the power button.

So lest you be "seduced" (as the Jaguar ad suggests) by the "roar" of inefficiency, go test drive a Volt - or any number of other EVs currently hitting the market. They don't "roar". And if you really want to see a classy car, check out the Tesla S (notice any "roar"?). I do think we really have a quiet future ahead of us. What about you?

We were on the interstate, my wife and I, when the traffic slowed to a crawl. A few minutes later we passed the burned out shell of a car with a fire engine still squirting water on it. After verbally hoping that nobody was hurt, I joked to my wife that it "musta been one of them thar electrical Voltie cars" and got an answering snort.

To many, our self indulgent humor must be hard to follow. Okay, if you did not find that amusing, here it is: electric cars don't burn. Gasoline, the thing that fuels most cars, is the thing that burns. And when it burns, it burns HOT. So when you get in a crash in your gasoline powered car, sniff for gasoline. If you smell it, get the heck away from your car, if you can. And don't whine about Greenies burning to death in a battery fire, because guess what? Notwithstanding the silly spewing of Rush Limbaugh, that never happened.