[baldwincng]

Devil said:

You still ignore the FACT that NG is the worst GHG of the ordinary fuel sources and is already the most rapidly increasing GHG in the atmosphere. If we were to follow your tenets, it will overtake CO2 in 50 years, by which time we'll probably be frying, anyway.

I do not ignore the fact that methane is a bad gas as far as global warming is concerned - around 20 times worse than CO2. Thats why I want to set fire to the methane that leaks out of landfill sites, burning it in the engines of cars buses and trucks so that it does not leak out. It's not obvious what else you can do to land-fill methane to reduce its global warming impact, other than setting fire to it. Any suggestions?

Methane levels in the atmosphere may be rising but the contribution of natural gas vehicles to that is negligible....I can easily explain why.

There are 15 million cows in Germany, giving out around 800,000 tonnes of methane per year.

There are around 15 OEM produced cars on sale in Germany that meet the EuroIV emissions standard which is very tight on methane emissions (0.2g of methane per km travelled).

I've been told that if all 42.8 Million cars in Germany ran on CNG (at Euro IV), then that would pass 800,000 tonnes of methane into the atmosphere every 8.9 years.

I don't need to check the calculation to know that NGVs can help to reduce the levels of methane in the atmosphere because of landfill emissions (such gas which is not easily injected into gas mains because of issues related to its burning characteristics but it is very easily burnt in car engines). Once CNG vehicles are widespread, the landfill problem is solved.

CNG vehicles can save the planet (at least for a bit)

[Devil]

Sometimes I despair when guys like you are so blinkered that you only see the facts that suit your arguments.

Landfills: $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'n')ot later than 15 years after the date laid down in Article 18(1), biodegradable municipal waste going to landfills must be reduced to 35 % of the total amount (by weight) of biodegradable municipal waste produced in 1995 or the latest year before 1995 for which standardised Eurostat data is available.

[baldwincng]

Devil. $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ometimes I despair when guys like you are so blinkered that you only see the facts that suit your arguments

[Devil]

They will probably do as they are already doing in many towns in Switzerland: incinerating it is thermal power stations. This provides up to about 10% of the electricity requirements of the catchment area and also provides a means of disposing of non-compostable organic waste, such as the plastic bags that it is collected in. This is proven technology. In Lausanne and Zurich, the waste heat is used to provide all the megalitres of hot water (and the central heating in winter) for the Cantonal University Hospitals and some other neighbouring buildings. The only waste going to landfill is the ash.

I'll grant you that the incinerators are equipped with scrubbers and precipitators to remove any toxic or otherwise undesirable elements in the flue gases and this is relatively costly, but the electricity generated is sold and is profitable at standard rates. I forget the exact figure, but the total generating capacity from household waste in the country is somewhere near 250 MW the last time I looked, and this is not negligible.

[baldwincng]

I think Switzerland is great when it comes to the environment, they are really making an efort to introduce CNG and are aligning it with their biogas programme too.

Take a look at www.biogas.ch to see what is happening in relation to biogas

The Swiss Gas & Water Association (SVGW) has ambitious plans for their NGV developments, part of which will be motivated by a change in the Swiss fuel tax regime for natural gas that is anticipated by 2007. Currently there are 59 CNG buses on Swiss roads, 299 light commercial vehicles and 856 natural gas passenger cars. Fifty-one fuelling stations are open publicly to support the planned growth, with another 20 stations planned to be constructed this year.

Biogas, which is injected into the natural gas grid currently is untaxed by the Swiss authorities, however, natural gas continues to be taxed at a higher rate than either diesel or gasoline. But the Swiss gas and NGV industries have been lobbying to change that and anticipate that a tax reduction will be awarded for natural gas, although not before 2007. This should help spur the market, coupled with NGV product entries from Germany (the Mercedes E2000 NGT), from Fiat, with a range of passenger cars (Multipla, Doblo, Punto), and Opel (Astra and Zafira).

The plans, according to SVGW, are to see a steady growth of NGVs between now and 2010, when they are targeting 30,000 NGVs of various types. The growth plan shows a steady rise: 2000 NGVs by the end of 2005; 3500 by the end of 2006; 7000 by the end of 2007; 12,000 by the end of 2008; and 20,000 by the end of 2009. Given the strength of the current fuelling infrastructure, these targets certainly would be achievable with the right mixture of government and industry support. Continued use of biogas also is planned, along with natural gas, making the Swiss program one that intends to overcome the 'chicken and egg'.

[Andy]

Baldwin

I think promoting NGV vehicles is a waste of time. Remember, we want to utilize fuels with absolute efficiency. Now, A NG engine's thermal efficiency is about the same as the best Otto cycle engines (i.e our plain old gasoline engines) getting about 37 - 38%.

We can use biogas mixed with natural gas in a combined cycle power plant (in the future in SOFC/turbine power plants) at > 50% heat to electricity efficiency. It is better to pipe the natural gas to the power plant or use it in a cogeneration mode in stationary facilities, home etc. and get much higher energy utilization per btu of available gas.

Wasting it in ICE powered vehicles does not make sense. There is also the problem of short range, storage tank weight etc.

[baldwincng]

Andy

I have responded to your comments on the CNG thread and partially agree with you - certainly making hydrogen and gasoline from natural gas are both incredibly inefficient processes and should be illegal.

There are no significant issues with CNG as a vehicle fuel. Trucks in the UK can now run 500 miles between fills and modern tanks are not made of steel but composite materials.

CNG gives lower overall CO2 emissions (well to wheel, taking account any methane losses), much lower NOX and particulates, quieter engines, keeps oil back for premium uses.

I have seen the future, its the Honda Civic CNG (+ hybrid version) http://automobiles.honda.com/models/mod ... +GX&bhcp=1

[amorando]

I am been befuddled over hydrogen because most of it seemed to eminate from using fossil fuels, but recently I read of the possibility of getting hydrogen from bacteria degradation of waste or rotting organic materials. I don't know the details of this, whether these are particular bacteria, if the degradation needs to be done anearobically or what, but this is the kind of hydrogen sourcing we need.
It looks to me like much more experimentation will have to be done before we know if hydrogen will be the main replacement of petroleum.

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('amorando', 'I') am been befuddled over hydrogen because most of it seemed to eminate from using fossil fuels, but recently I read of the possibility of getting hydrogen from bacteria degradation of waste or rotting organic materials. I don't know the details of this, whether these are particular bacteria, if the degradation needs to be done anearobically or what, but this is the kind of hydrogen sourcing we need.

[BiGG]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', '
')
They are specific bacteria, genetically engineered, and the production of hydrogen is too low to be usable. But they are working on it.

[BiGG]

Big news for Coal-to-Hydrogen Production! Very Cool,!

275 Megawatt Coal-to-Hydrogen Plant

PITTSBURGH — Taking a step closer toward its vision of ultraclean, highly efficient power generation, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) will collaborate with a Colorado firm on a $15 million advanced research project to further develop coal-to-hydrogen production technology supporting DOE’s zero-emissions FutureGen plant of tomorrow.

Eltron Research Inc., of Boulder Colo., will conduct scale-up and advanced research on metal, alloy, or ceramic-metal membranes to separate hydrogen from carbon dioxide in a stream of synthetic gas produced in coal gasification. Based in part on materials patented by Eltron, the membrane technology is significant to FutureGen because hydrogen derived from the process can be used to increase the efficiency of fuel cells and to fuel future hydrogen turbines, while, at the same time, separating carbon dioxide—a greenhouse gas—from the plant’s gas stream. DOE’s cost share of the project is just over $12 million. The project will be managed for DOE by the National Energy Technology Laboratory.

Building on membrane work first funded by DOE in early 2000, Eltron will conduct its research in three phases over 5 years. Initially, Eltron will strengthen its membrane to improve hydrogen flux and carbon dioxide sequestration potential. In phase 2, Eltron will scale up its membrane and impurity management system. In phase 3, the company will use a prototype system to separate an estimated 200 pounds of hydrogen per day, not unlike a commercial-size separation unit. All phases are expected to lead toward the design of a pre-commercial-size unit capable of separating an estimated 4 tons of hydrogen per day.

Eltron will be joined by an industrial partnership that includes Praxair, Tonawanda, N.Y.; CoorsTek, Golden, Colo.; Emery Energy Company, North Salt Lake, Utah; and Noram Engineering & Construct, Vancouver, Canada. Praxair will provide economic analyses and coal gas feed impurity management, CoorsTek will explore the cost-effective commercial-scale fabrication of membrane composites, Emery Energy will host field testing of membrane modules, and Noram will address engineering design and construction issues related to commercialization.

DOE initially expects to build a 275-megawatt prototype plant to serve as a large-scale engineering laboratory where clean power processes, carbon capture, and coal-to-hydrogen technologies can be tested. Advanced membranes, such as those under development by Eltron, are essential to reduce the cost of hydrogen production. As hydrogen becomes more affordable, it will increasingly find its place in the transportation sector, including hydrogen-driven cars; central power stations; and distributed power units.

The ultimate goal would be a decrease in the nation’s reliance on imported fuels and an energy-producing infrastructure emitting no greenhouse gases or other pollutants.

[DomusAlbion]

This is good news but what is the time frame for the envisioned prototype plant?

[Egon_1]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')OE initially expects to build a 275-megawatt prototype plant to serve as a large-scale engineering laboratory where clean power processes, carbon capture, and coal-to-hydrogen technologies can be tested. Advanced membranes, such as those under development by Eltron, are essential to reduce the cost of hydrogen production. As hydrogen becomes more affordable, it will increasingly find its place in the transportation sector, including hydrogen-driven cars; central power stations; and distributed power units.

[ArimoDave]

Let's see:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')OE initially expects to build a 275-megawatt prototype plant to serve as a large-scale engineering laboratory where clean power processes, carbon capture, and coal-to-hydrogen technologies can be tested. Advanced membranes, such as those under development by Eltron, are essential to reduce the cost of hydrogen production.

[jockc]

I'll answer for everyone. Please choose a response below:

1. This will never scale.
2. There isn't time to build enough of them
3. This only adds to the problem
4. Hydrogen is a joke
5. Hydrogen is an energy carrier!!!
6. It is morally wrong to use so much energy
7. it has a negative EROI
8. it costs way too much to build maintain and decommission
9. the economy is doomed anyway
10. ...?

[ArimoDave]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jockc', 'I')'ll answer for everyone. Please choose a response below:

1. This will never scale.
2. There isn't time to build enough of them
3. This only adds to the problem
4. Hydrogen is a joke
5. Hydrogen is an energy carrier!!!
6. It is morally wrong to use so much energy
7. it has a negative EROI
8. it costs way too much to build maintain and decommission
9. the economy is doomed anyway
10. ...?

[parainwater]

275 megawatts is equal to about 261,000 BTU per second.
I am not sure I understand their hydrogen production process
but normal electrolytic production of hydrogen runs about
70% efficiency. This would give 182,000 BTU per second of
hydrogen thermal energy equivalent. At 60,000 BTU per lbm
of thermal energy content for hydrogen this equates to about
3 pounds per second of hydrogen being generated for a 275
megawatt input. 3 lbm per second is equal to 259,000 lbm per
day. A gallon of gasoline has a thermal energy content of about
124,000 BTU per gallon. So 259,000x60,000/124,000 equals
125,000 gallons of gasoline equivalent per day. Considering
a typical coal fired power plant thermal efficency of 40%.
One must release 652,000 BTU per second of coal combustion
energy to produce 275 megawatts. Wyoming coal has a heating
value of around 12,000 BTU per lbm. So a 275 megawatt powerplant
must combust 54 lbm per second of coal = 2.33 kilotons per day. So in a nutshell one is using
652,000 BTU per second of coal energy to produce 259,000 BTU of
hydrogen energy. Or 2.33 kilotons of coal per day to produce 130 tons of hydrogen per day. This is first order calculation and can be further
refined for somewhat greater accuracy.

[MicroHydro]

And the CO2 will go where?

[0mar]

if something has a fossil fuel input, it is by definition not sustainable. Using coal exacerbates global warming more-so than any other fossil fuel. Hydrogen has been shown to be one of the worst transportation alternatives because any means of self-sufficency is impossible without building solar panels the size of Alaska or covering every viable part of the world with windmills. Hydrogen needs fossil fuels to be competetive. Other alternatives do not, however, even those alternatives lack the versatility and scalability of oil.

[BiGG]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jockc', 'I')'ll answer for everyone. Please choose a response below:

1. This will never scale.
2. There isn't time to build enough of them
3. This only adds to the problem
4. Hydrogen is a joke
5. Hydrogen is an energy carrier!!!
6. It is morally wrong to use so much energy
7. it has a negative EROI
8. it costs way too much to build maintain and decommission
9. the economy is doomed anyway
10. ...?