Biomass might be practical, after all...

...especially as a way to produce large quantities of cheap hydrogen.  This would make me quite happy indeed.

Imstead of trying to burn the biomass substances directly, they can be first converted to bio-oil (via GeekPress).

The biomass is converted into bio-oil through a process called pyrolysis, in which the organic scrap materials are finely ground and heated at 400 to 500 degrees Celsius, without oxygen. In just two seconds, about 70 percent of the material vaporizes and is condensed into bio-oil -- a dark liquid resembling espresso that contains more than a hundred organic compounds.

Now, you could just use this stuff in place of petroleum...

But bio-oil can be converted into a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen known as "syngas." And syngas can, in turn, be processed into a high-grade hydrocarbon fuel, such as automotive diesel.

Alternatively, the syngas can be combined with steam to produce pure hydrogen. In fact, Iowa State's Brown believes that bio-oil gasification may be the most efficient means of producing large quantities of hydrogen, should the element ever catch on as a major energy source.

DynaMotive is bullish on the syngas route because the technology and infrastructure are well-established. Germany used gasification to convert coal into synthetic diesel fuel during World War II. And South Africa used synthetic fuels as a substitute for petroleum imports during Apartheid-era economic sanctions. Today, gasification is seen as a way to reduce pollution from coal, because the process removes much of the carbon dioxide and other pollutants, such as sulfur.

Last September, DynaMotive announced that researchers in Germany had succeeded in converting its bio-oil into syngas using existing gasification facilities.

The main objections I read against the idea of building cars that run on hydrogen (H) is the difficulty and expense of producing and distributing large quantities of the stuff, which, ironically, is by far the most plentiful substance in the universe.

And there's no downside to burning H.  The only by-products are heat and water, and we're not about to "destroy the planet" by littering it with insidious water deposits.  In fact, there may be a way to use the water in the H engine's cooling system.

Unless the conspiracy theorists (who say that Big Oiiiiiillll™ would never allow such a thing to come to pass) are correct, and I don't see how they could be, this development could be the beginning of the end of our dependence on Middle-Eastern petroleum.  Petroleum from any source, in fact.

Oh, sure, there'll always be a need for some petroleum, because its uses are legion (making plastics, lubricants, flying model airplanes, etc.), but our days of relying upon it to fuel our economy just might be numbered.

Maybe.

I'll tell you this:  when Ford or Toyota or whoever rolls out its first production vehicle designed to run on hydrogen, I'll be strongly motivated to buy one just on the principle of encouraging the widespread use and distribution of the substance.  And, unlike the current generation of hybrid vehicles (which cost more to operate and produce additional toxic waste products in the massive batteries that must be replaced every few years), it will be one so-called "green" initiative that will actually deserve widespread support.

UPDATE:  Via Instapundit, it's begun in Japan.  Mazda has delivered the first street-legal hydrogen/gasoline hybrid.

ANOTHER UPDATE:  My congressman, Rep. Bob Inglis, wants the federal government to award an "H Prize" to the person who invents breakthrough hydrogen-automotive technology.

Comments

[rob]

Being mexican, Chevy and the number 454 weigh heavily in my life. but lately I've been strongly motivated to build an electric car. I only work about a mile away from where I live so at most I drive 4 miles a day if I come home for lunch. If I drive like a granny I can strech a tank of gas out over a month. In fact, I refuel so rarely when I went and gased up one of my cars this weekend there was a hornets nest behind the fuel cover. If I could get an old car and electrify it and get some solar cels to charge the batteries, that would solve 90% of the driving I do.

[Obi-Wan]

Good on you for wanting to do that, Rob, but how do you plan to do it?

The basic problem you face is one of energy: it takes a certain number of horsepower-hours of energy to move your vehicle, its energy source, and yourself the mile between your home and your office.

After replacing the gasoline engine in your car with a suitable DC motor, then replacing your fuel tank with (presumably) an array of rechargeable batteries capable of powering that motor at a suitable speed and torque, the remaining, more difficult problem is keeping those batteries charged.

Unfortunately, solar cells aren't very efficient at converting solar energy to electricity, or we could all dispense with our local utility company, not to mention the corner gas station. Hopefully future solar cells will be more efficient, but for now we're stuck with what we've got.

So not only do you have the cost of batteries, you have the cost of electricity to charge them, and the inevitable efficiency losses whenever power is being converted from one form to another. And batteries have a limited number of charge-recharge cycles before they must be replaced, bringing two problems: the cost of replacement (distressingly high), and the disposal of toxic heavy metals in the batteries themselves--lead, nickel, cadmium, or whatever is in the particular batteries you choose.

This is why current technology offers less of a real advantage than it does the illusion of economy created by a very real decrease in gasoline use. By the time you factor in the cost of the batteries amortized over their lifetime, plus the cost of keeping them charged, plus the cost of disposing of the hazardous materials in them, much of the bloom is off of the electric-car rose.

By the way, I think most of the electricity produced in the US is generated by steam heated by burning fossil fuels, so that our dependence on oil isn't being reduced as much as it first seems on the surface.

However, when we are able to either build highly efficient fuel cells to power an electric motor, or directly burn hydrogen in an internal combustion engine modified for that purpose, then we'll see some very real advantages over the way we currently power our cars.

[Phoenix]

I read a great article about alternate fuels. The bottomline, after all the other current trends had been debunked as actually being too expensive to manufacture, to not have stations to provide the new fuel, ethanol was revealed to be the best prospect. I don't remember all the details, but the fuel you just described, Obi, was not mentioned. I do remember, however, that running diesel fuel was not a good thing for some reason..... I can't remember. sheeeesh... Why am I bothering to comment?? :)

Anyway, ethanol came out at the top.

[Rob]

I've heard that the original reason the US decided not to pursue gasification of coal was the price. The cost of converting coal into oil would be around $10 a barrel. Now, back in the old days that was a bad deal, but now that would be sweet. We've got vast vast quantities of coal in the US.. Seems like that would be the way to go.
My thought on a car would be to get an old VW bug and rip out the engine. Replace it with a 20 HP electric one and add about 6 car batteries and an electronic speed control and I'd be in business. There's plenty of plans on the internet for such a project.

[Obi-Wan]

Well, if you decide to give it a try, let me know. I'd love to know how it turns out, and if you ran into any jams, I might be able to help you out.

[rob]

Cute thing is, the original Beetle had a 20 horse engine. The last bug I had (a 74) had a 67 hp engine and it's funny how much power that actually was. Gas engines only give full hp over a very narrow band whereas electric motors have all the hp available no matter what the rpm.

[TheMasterTimekeeper]

One thing I should like above all else (excluding for the moment things like a new motherboard which doesn't crash my system whenever someone touches the front panel and Jessica Alba doing naked jumping jacks in my living room) is to see a decent, somewhat skeptical and above all *pragmatic* review of bio-oil- the sort of thing Steven Den Beste, bless his anime, was wont to give us. Does anyone have something of the like to link? I've seen plenty of breathless blue-sky articles but a paucity of sober, thoughtful commentary. On the whole I would simply love for this business to be practical, but I'm afraid it'll turn out to be another lemon like ethanol. (A topic which USS Clueless covered at length.)

[Obi-Wan]

Good to see you back, TMK!

I imagine that if I knew everything about everything like SDB apparently did, then maybe--just maybe--I could write that sort of thing. But I don't, and even if I did, I probably couldn't. (This post is as close as I think I've come to doing that.)

You made me laugh twice in one comment, TMK: the second time was your line "SDB, bless his anime..." which cracked me up because it's the sort of thing I wish I had written. (The first one cracked me up because...well, I'm married, so we won't talk about that.)

I still often review essays he wrote years ago, and I probably will for as long as they're still on the web. It kind of turned out that there was plenty about him not to like, but the collection of essays that is USS Clueless is beyond compare on the web. Even when he dipped into politics he did so with a master engineer's analytical and pragmatic perspective.

I haven't searched Tech Central Station for bio-oil articles yet, but you might try there for sober, pragmatic analysis.

[TheMasterTimekeeper]

Thanks, Obi-Wan, it's nice to be appreciated. I took up your suggestion and searched tech central, but only found a passing reference. My fundamental question about bio-oil is thus: How many watt-hours are required to produce a watt-hour's worth of bio-oil? That's the problem with ethanol. You spend more energy in production- especially fossil fuels- than it's worth. I hope very much that bio-oil leaves us with a net gain. I would even settle for minor loss; after all, in theory (theory!) we could be getting the wattage from nuclear or, uh, solar. And then there's the fact that I'm vastly, mind-bogglingly ignorant about this topic. So maybe there is light at the end of the tunnel, and it's powered by turkey offal. But, I dunno, it's doubtful. Regarding SdB- he wrote about bio-oil when it first appeared in 2003 at http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/04/Oilfromgarbage.shtml but his point can be summed up as "I'm skeptical". (What a surprise, neh?) That was three years ago; I assume progress has been made and that's why I'm still searching for some level-headed commentary. I too spend quite a few hours reading his old postings; I stumbled on him in 2004 and felt I'd found a kindred spirit, only to have the rug jerked out from under me when he (rather peevishly IMHO) quit on us. Having read a greater portion of his body of work I still find few things to quibble over. And he contributed in a lasting way by making me seek out pragmatic and level-headed commentary on issues I care about. So, in a roundabout way, here I am.

[ignigouri]

The best laid plans of mice and men are held up in the legal department. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://ebloggy.com/benitoochoauu