Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Solar Thermal Energy Thread (merged)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Unread postby EnergySpin » Tue 02 Aug 2005, 17:46:39

gnm wrote:Don't they mean "Methane" ? Methanol is wood alchohol not natural gas....

Solar to Methanol -- Natural Gas

Another process that the company is capable of involves a method of producing methanol from carbon dioxide and hydrogen. This technology is already developed and in existence elsewhere, but their apparatus will make it more economical, to the point where methanol could be made available at approximately the same cost as gasoline.

The UV energy from the sun will split CO2 (carbon dioxide) into CO (carbon monoxide) and O2 (oxygen). Then the CO along with hydrogen (H) bubbles through a catalytic unit containing copper and zinc powder suspended in a kind of oil. The CO and H combine into CH2OH (Methanol). The H is released through electrolysis from water.

The catalytic process requires about 600 psi, and 500ºF. The heat from the solar collectors initiates the process, and once it takes off, it generates excess heat, which can then be used to turn the turbine, to create more electricity by which they can run the electrolysis.

The IAUS concept is to produce methanol fuel using carbon dioxide -- a primary greenhouse gas -- from the environment -- at a cost comparable to gasoline. The CO2 could come either from ambient air, or from a smoke stack, to help clean it up the atmosphere.

Being a very small molecule, methanol, or natural gas, burns much more cleanly and efficiently, resulting in less emissions when it is used as a fuel.

This method solves the Hydrogen transport problem as well. The solar panels generate electricity to split off hydrogen from water, and rather than having to then ship the hydrogen, which is problematic, IAUS runs the hydrogen through this process to convert it to methanol, which can easily be contained and shipped.



I'd be more interested in details about thier "turbine"

I dunno man, I'm suspicious - this smacks of pump it and dump it!

-G


Synthesis of methanol (CH3OH) from CO2 feedstocks. Reported in
K.W. Jun, W.J. Shen, K.S. Rama Rao, K.W. Lee, Applied Catalysis A: General, 1998, vol. 174, 231238 CuZnO catalyst employed
Research in Japan
http://www.iaea.org/inis/aws/htgr/abstr ... 67245.html

The first step is generation of carbon monoxide from carbon dioxide and subsequent reduction of carbon monoxide to methanol.
Catalytic photoreduction of CO2 and H2O to water using visible light reported in PNAS back in 1982.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/79/2/701
The components of the technology are well known .. the question is does the whole contraption work?
Methanol and ammonia synthesis is also one of the ways to convert Ocean Thermal Energy to a chemical (liquid) form. Both of them can be burned in IC engines.
Will not comment on the self-sustaining nature of the reaction ... have no idea about the ΔG of the reaction
Cheers
"Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
User avatar
EnergySpin
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2248
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2005, 03:00:00

Unread postby gnm » Tue 02 Aug 2005, 18:32:01

Yeah I realize you _can_ synthesize methanol but why are they referring to it as natural gas ( a small molecule as they say) - somebody didn't do thier homework?

-G
gnm
 

Unread postby Caoimhan » Tue 02 Aug 2005, 19:35:24

I think it was probably a misunderstanding on the part of the writer. I could see an engineer telling him, "Small molecules, such as methanol or natural gas, burn cleaner," and what he heard was, "Small molecules such as methanol, or natural gas, burn cleaner." Oh the difference a comma can make, especially since the writer probably knows that natural gas is mostly methane, which sounds like methanol.
User avatar
Caoimhan
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 557
Joined: Tue 10 May 2005, 03:00:00

Unread postby Caoimhan » Tue 02 Aug 2005, 19:51:18

gnm wrote:I'd be more interested in details about thier "turbine"

I dunno man, I'm suspicious - this smacks of pump it and dump it!

-G


From the company's website... info about the turbine:

http://iaus.com/turbine.htm

They already have their funding, and are going into manufacturing mode within the next month, according to the article.

I guess we'll see soon if it's vapor-tech or not.

Caoimhan
User avatar
Caoimhan
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 557
Joined: Tue 10 May 2005, 03:00:00

Unread postby MicroHydro » Tue 02 Aug 2005, 20:07:46

Caoimhan wrote:I guess we'll see soon if it's vapor-tech or not.

Caoimhan


It is a criminal fraud See Link:

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic10497.html
"The world is changed... I feel it in the water... I feel it in the earth... I smell it in the air... Much that once was, is lost..." - Galadriel
User avatar
MicroHydro
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1242
Joined: Sun 10 Apr 2005, 03:00:00

Unread postby Caoimhan » Tue 02 Aug 2005, 20:55:37

You don't know that. All you have is an SEC complaint. If you can find the records of what actually ended up happening with that case, I'd be happy to take a look. The fact that they're not in jail and are still in business seems to be an indication that they were not found guilty of wrongdoing...

I've been searching for more info about this on the web, but am not finding anything definitive.
User avatar
Caoimhan
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 557
Joined: Tue 10 May 2005, 03:00:00

Unread postby Googolplex » Tue 02 Aug 2005, 22:49:20

I like where this is going! Sounds like a very simple and reliable technology that would be FAR easier to manufacture, maintane and repair post-peak then any photovoltaic or nuclear solution.

The only question now is whats the EROEI? If its positive, this is BIG news.

I don't want to be overly optimistic though. We'll see in time what comes of this...
User avatar
Googolplex
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon 11 Apr 2005, 03:00:00

Solar energy project promises to advance hydrogen fuel

Unread postby Graeme » Thu 04 Aug 2005, 11:04:28

Solar energy project at the Weizmann Institute promises to advance the use of hydrogen fuel

4-Aug-2005
Hydrogen, the most plentiful element in the universe, is an attractive candidate for becoming a pollution-free fuel of the future. However, nearly all hydrogen used today is produced by means of expensive processes that require combustion of polluting fossil fuels. Moreover, storing and transporting hydrogen is extremely difficult and costly.

The new solar technology tackles these problems by creating an easily storable intermediate energy source form from metal ore, such as zinc oxide. With the help of concentrated sunlight, the ore is heated to about 1,200°C in a solar reactor in the presence of wood charcoal. The process splits the ore, releasing oxygen and creating gaseous zinc, which is then condensed to a powder. Zinc powder can later be reacted with water, yielding hydrogen, to be used as fuel, and zinc oxide, which is recycled back to zinc in the solar plant. In recent experiments, the 300-kilowatt installation produced 45 kilograms of zinc powder from zinc oxide in one hour, exceeding projected goals.


Fourth item here:

http://www.eurekalert.org/bysubject/earthscience.php
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Unread postby Raxozanne » Thu 04 Aug 2005, 11:07:21

How available is zinc oxide, anyone know?
Also I take it that it is mined somewhere.
Hello, my name is Rax. I live in the Amazon jungle with a bunch of women. We are super eco feminists and our favourite passtimes are dangling men by their ankles and discussing peak oil. - apparently
Raxozanne
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 945
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: UK

Unread postby Devil » Thu 04 Aug 2005, 12:04:43

This has already been discussed. Please do not make new threads of old subjects :)
Devil
User avatar
Devil
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 816
Joined: Tue 06 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Cyprus

Unread postby Graeme » Thu 04 Aug 2005, 12:28:07

Sorry Devil. You are quite right. I was discussed briefly in this thread:

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic9506.html
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Unread postby backstop » Thu 04 Aug 2005, 12:31:14

Graeme -

I'm puzzled as to why anyone (apart from zinc-mine shareholders) should want to go through so convoluted a process, with its entropy costs at every transfer, simply to get a storable feedstock fo hydrogen.

As I understand it, the process uses both embedded solar energy (in the trees used for the charcoal) and current solar energy in the reactor. I'd say outright that there's nothing wrong with harvesting trees on a sustainable basis - how else are we going to restore and raise the profitability of tree-planting ?

But.
Making charcoal dumps the majority of the wood's potential energy, and around half its carbon, and all of its hydrogen content, into the atmosphere. That's one huge waste of potential - a "major process inefficiency" in the jargon.

Beside the solar reactor energy, the energy required to control, mine, refine, transport and store the feedstock zinc is another area that carves into overall Eroei, particularly since zinc ore is not very widely available and massive new demand may well mean multiplying present mine output.

It's not clear whether the zinc powder would be reacted to yield Hydrogen at the refinery, at the garage or in the road-vehicle, but, in the event of fuel-call vehicles going mainstream, whichever route was chosen the outcome is still only of Hydrogen-on-demand at an exorbitant energy-investment cost.

With the goal of providing a sustainable liquid fuel for fuel cell vehicles, a simpler (long established) route offers far better Eroei as well as maximizing potential ecological and social gains. It is that of producing Methanol for FCVs from sustainable coppice woodland, at a rate of around 1gl per 10lbs of dry wood, or 500gls per acre per year.

The key question IMO is the fraction of the retail price that gets back to the forester, who's waited at least several years for a first sustainable harvest from new coppice. However, the value of (a permanent half of) his carbon-banking is likely to assist cash flow in this period.

Since wood can be processed through raw gas to Syngas (CO + H2) and then to FC Power or to Methanol for FC vehicles, with minor surplus process-heat, the Methanol supply would at best be drawn from village-scale 'CHGM&P' plants, potentially in perpetuity.


regards,

Backstop
backstop
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1463
Joined: Tue 24 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Varies

Unread postby Graeme » Thu 04 Aug 2005, 12:54:29

I'm primarily the messenger here. I will try to make a comment though. My impression is that this technology is still at the experimental stage. The Israelis have had some success in their recent trials which is encouraging. I'm sure they have other tests to do. I expect that there will be a host of competing new technologies to come out over the coming years. In the end, may be the one that is best marketed will be the one that wins, like the battle over Beta and VHS video recorders. People will adapt alternative fuels to their existing vehicles (e.g. ethanol/methanol, gas). Then, when they can afford, buy the new technology (DVD).
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Unread postby backstop » Thu 04 Aug 2005, 13:15:54

Graeme wrote: I expect that there will be a host of competing new technologies to come out over the coming years. In the end, may be the one that is best marketed will be the one that wins, .


Graeme -

Given the attrocious stresses that society faces in a range of forms, not least GW & PO, the above looks a bit like a 'business-as-usual' analysis of energy technology development dynamics.

I'd suggest that it's not "the one that is best marketted will be the one that wins" but rather the ones that are sustainable, that offer local legitimacy, and that have good global relevance, that will last.

Those surely are the technologies worth pursuing as rapidly as possible ?


regards,

Backstop
backstop
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1463
Joined: Tue 24 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Varies

Unread postby Graeme » Thu 04 Aug 2005, 13:41:52

It would be desirable for business-savvy marketers to include PO and GW in their campaigns as these are already reaching mainstream media. Well-informed consumers will be the ones who make the choice. Yes I agree that ideally the technology should be sustainable. Can you pick now what the will be? Hydrogen or battery-powered EV? Perhaps in ten or twenty years we'll know.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Unread postby Antimatter » Fri 05 Aug 2005, 03:58:56

The Ergosphere did an interesting blog on this. The possibilities are intriguing.

http://ergosphere.blogspot.com/2005/06/zinc-miracle-metal.html
User avatar
Antimatter
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 587
Joined: Tue 04 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Australia

Using good old fashioned mirrors for electricity.

Unread postby bentstrider » Thu 20 Oct 2005, 06:47:13

This has been probably been mentioned a few times.
Has anyone ever been out near that solar facility at the junction of hwy 58 and US 395 in California?
I was reading up on it awhile back, and the electricity generation sounded pretty simple.
Arrays of mirrors were taking in sunlight and concentrating it on this tower that held a rock salt.
The rock salt was heated to a pretty high temperature and used to boil water into steam that was being kept near it.
I think it's a pretty easy, simple and good idea.
What does everyone else take on this?
bentstrider
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 375
Joined: Mon 25 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Southern California Desert

Re: Using good old fashioned mirrors for electricity.

Unread postby Doly » Thu 20 Oct 2005, 07:16:26

It's simple, and it works, but it doesn't generate a whole lot of electricity.
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4366
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00

Re: Using good old fashioned mirrors for electricity.

Unread postby SmokinJuan » Thu 20 Oct 2005, 07:21:50

Been around for a while. Doesn't work at night. I don't know why there aren't more of them.

If you like solar, check out the giga-chimneys they're going to build in Australia (think they might've already built a smaller one in spain). a 1 kilometer tall chimney channels hot air into the cooler atmosphere. The air is heated beneath a giant glass structure which doubles as an atrium since the temperature differential on the glass between in/outside makes it "rain" constatnly on the inside.
User avatar
SmokinJuan
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri 18 Mar 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Using good old fashioned mirrors for electricity.

Unread postby Devil » Thu 20 Oct 2005, 07:31:13

SmokinJuan wrote: which doubles as an atrium since the temperature differential on the glass between in/outside makes it "rain" constatnly on the inside.


I don't think so. The RH of air decreases as the temperature increases. As air is constantly being sucked in at ambient temperature, how can moisture condense, even if the glass were at ambient, which is impossible, anyway. No, this seems to be a thoughtless hypothesis. Even if it were true, the evaporation of the "rain" would lower the energy available for useful work. In any case, the "rain" would simply be sucked up the pipe by the ginormous air currents. Sorry, think again.
Devil
User avatar
Devil
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 816
Joined: Tue 06 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Cyprus

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 209 guests

cron