Ethanol To Power The Future Of Hydrogen Fuel Cells

[JohnWxy]

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/energy-tech-04v.html

Palo Alto - Mar 30, 2004

Hydrogen fuel cell technology's potentially strong future as a fuel for automobiles and various other applications is likely to be weakened by issues regarding its availability and the expenses involved in storage. Bio-based products such as ethanol are expected to open up new areas for research.

Hydrogen fuel cells reduce pollution by emitting water vapor in place of carbon dioxide. However the prevalent method of producing hydrogen from hydrocarbons, though economical, creates pollutants at the manufacturing site.

"Biomass material-based fuel cells are a better solution than power fuel cells since hydrogen is expensive and dangerous to handle," notes Technical Insights Analyst Al Hester. "More research should be devoted to ethanol since it is environmentally friendly and based on renewable resources."

Conversion of biomass materials such as ethanol into hydrogen is a more cost-efficient method to power fuel cells. Researchers believe that inter-metallic compounds could be used beneficially in fuel cell electrodes to oxidize ethanol. These materials are not alloys but have ordered structures wherein atoms are very specifically arranged.

...

Electrolysis of water using hydroelectric or nuclear, wind, or solar power also produces hydrogen. However, in the present economic condition, these methods may not prove to be cost effective.

The need for cheaper and more efficient means to power fuel cells has resulted in investment in extensive research. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), for instance, awarded Cornell University $2.25 million over three years, to devote research efforts to cells based on other fuels, including ethanol.

Research should also be extended to resolve technical problems so that systems that can handle the explosive gas are developed. Safety is a non-issue while considering ethanol in fuel cells.

the use of ethanol as a source of hydrogen means that fuel cell technology once thought to be 2 to 3 decades away from being practical could now be only a decade away!

[Skink]

1. At an Exxon I noticed it is no longer gas but a fuel product.

[JohnWxy]

3. I guess they don't want you to know they're using ethanol.

OF course fuel cell application is totally different than internal cumbustion engines app.

[leveymg]

2. This was posted yesterday. Why are you pushing ethanol fuels?

I've seen numerous similar postings for months at DU. Are you a corn farmer or just an ethanol fan?

[JohnWxy]

4. no, Just very interested in any technology that will help with our

dependence on fossil fuel, which cannot be allowed to continue.

The links I referenced yesterday are not the same as in this post.

The key to these more recent posts is that these pertain to FUEL CELL technology. As I said in my posts Fuel Cell technology hasn't been considered to be practical for a couple of decades because of hte technical problems to be overcome with handling free hydrogen.

The use of alcohol (ethanol ) to supply the hydrogen is actually a revolutionary development in that it solves safety issues and technical difficulties associated with using free hydrogen and may mean that Fuel Cell technology could be practical within a decade. THis is quite important in that Fuel Cell technology is the most promising technology for significantly reducing use of fossil fuels.

If you would look at the articles I provided links to you would see that the technical people point out that there are some significant advantages to using ethanol over gasoline as a hydrogen source for fuel cells. ALso, using a fossil fuel to suppply the hydrogen significantly compromises the benefits (in terms of freeing ourselves from fossil fuel) of fuel cell cars.

Keep in mind there are other uses for fossil fuel (petroleum products) other than fueling cars and trucks.

ANy technology that can help make fuel cells practical and bring them to market sooner is relly important not only in terms of fossil fuel dependence (and the drain on the economy of importing that fossil fuel) but also in terms of reducing GHG emmissiions to help with Global Warming which we need to start addressing immediately - if not sooner.

[Duncan]

5. Ethanol production uses more energy than it makes

I have heard this from several sources. Here is the first one that Googled up just now.



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/06/27/MNG1VDF6EM1.DTL

[JohnWxy]

6. Patzek ad Pimentel are frauds. No real researchers in this field take

them seriously.

US DA study on Ethanol Energy Balance: 1.67 : 1 energy balance

The recent erroneous report prepared by Cornell University's David Pimentel and the University of California at Berkeley's Tad Patzek continue to perpetuate the myth that the production of biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel has no energy benefit. Mr. Patzek is the director of UC's Oil Consortium, which receives funding from the oil industry including Chevron and Phillips Petroleum. Previous partners have included BP, Mobil USA, Statoil and Unocal.

[Duncan]

9. Pretty much every university gets corporate funding. However...

Pimentel's claim would expalin why Bush supports crop fuels, this and big agribusiness.

I'm not saying I "believe it", Just pointing out this side of the issue.
I also notice that lots of republicans are pushing ethanol as a solution, this makes me suspicious.
Can you give me a link to someone debunking Pimentel's or Patzek's claims?
Who are the "real researchers" you mention, and who funds them?

[poopfuel]

10. try here for multiple researchers

http://www.newrules.org/agri/netenergy.html

In 1982, Jack Anderson outed Pimentel as a Mobil shill in a report he presented where he favored methanol from coal over alcohol fuel.
Barry Commoner did landmark work in the early 80s showing with proper crop rotation and sustainable agriculture. we won't take any food from anyone(most of our corn goes to animals anyway, that and corn syrup).
Pimentel and Patzek were not named but were ridiculed in the recent UC Berkeley report in Science magazine.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060126194250.htm

What did Pimentel say in reaction? he said oh, those people are pro ethanol. Most of us who are (NOT from corn alone, folks, let's get that straight, plenty of other more productive options) thought the UC Berkeley folks blew it by not examining numerous possibilities that would make the production of alcohol almost fossil fuel free.

Thanks to Pimentel, ethanol has gotten a bad rap from a gullible press. It's possible to do ethanol wrong, as Commoner once said. But why not do it right?

[JohnWxy]

11. Ethanol Research links

HEre are some links to Ethanol research. Note the link to Science Jouurnal Jan 2006 re Pimental and Patzek

My thanks to Mr. pFuel for his answer. He has some links I wasn't aware of. HE has done a great job of answering your questions. I;ll just make a couple addditions of my own.

Argonne National Laboratory Study - Dr. Michael Wang

USDA Study - Shapouri

This report estimates the net energy balance of corn ethanol utilizing the latest survey of
U.S. corn producers and the 2001 U.S. survey of ethanol plants. The major objectives of
this report are to improve the quality of data and methodology used in the estimation.
This paper also uses ASPEN Plus, a process simulation program, to allocate total energy
used to produce ethanol and byproducts. The results indicate that corn ethanol has a
positive energy balance, even before subtracting the energy allocated to by products.
The net energy balance of corn ethanol adjusted for byproduct credits is 27,729 and
33,196 Btu per gallon for wet- and dry-milling, respectively, and 30,528 Btu per gallon
for the industry. The study results suggest that corn ethanol is energy efficient, as
indicated by an energy output/input ratio of 1.67.

Ethanol Research

Science Journal, Jan 2006


(All emphases are my own__JW)

Ethanol Can Contribute to Energy
and Environmental Goals

Alexander E. Farrell,1* Richard J. Plevin,1 Brian T. Turner,1,2 Andrew D. Jones,1 Michael O’Hare,2
Daniel M. Kammen1,2,3

To study the potential effects of increased biofuel use, we evaluated six representative analyses
of fuel ethanol. Studies that reported negative net energy incorrectly ignored coproducts and used

To better understand the energy and environmental
implications of ethanol, we surveyed the
published and gray literature and present a
comparison of six studies illustrating the range
of assumptions and data found for the case
of corn-based (Zea mays, or maize) ethanol
(11–16). To permit a direct and meaningful
comparison of the data and assumptions across
the studies, we developed the Energy and
Resources Group (ERG) Biofuel Analysis Meta-
Model (EBAMM) (10). For each study, we
compared data sources and methods and parameterized
EBAMM to replicate the published
net energy results to within half a percent. In
addition to net energy, we also calculated
metrics for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
and primary energy inputs (table S1 and Fig. 1).


Two of the studies stand out from the others
because they report negative net energy values
and imply relatively high GHG emissions and
petroleum inputs (11, 12). The close evaluation <=(studies 11 & 12 are by Patzek & Pimentel__JW)
required to replicate the net energy results showed
that these two studies also stand apart from the
others by incorrectly assuming that ethanol
coproducts (materials inevitably generated when
ethanol is made, such as dried distiller grains with
solubles, corn gluten feed, and corn oil) should
not be credited with any of the input energy and
by including some input data that are old and
unrepresentative of current processes, or so
poorly documented that their quality cannot be
evaluated (tables S2 and S3).

Sensitivity analyses with EBAMM and

Notes/REferences (note studies 11 and 12 are those by Patzek and Pimentel__JW)

11. T. Patzek, Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 23, 519 (2004).
12. D. Pimentel, T. Patzek, Nat. Resour. Res. 14, 65 (2005).

The serious researchers really haven't been interested in wasting time on Pimentel and Patzek. They prefer to do real research. However, I think scientists have lately realized because of the prevalence and damage done by so much disinformation on various subjects some have started to step up , lately and start shootiing down the clowns.

I have to sign off now but this is what i have for you so far. hope this clarifies this issue for you.

NOTE: the original post I put here pertains to using ethanol as supplier of hydrogen for fuel cell cars . This is going quite beyond ethanol use in an internal combusion engine. Ethanol in Int Comb engines we should pursue right now, for it;s practicality. For the future though, we must pursue research on Fuel cell cars and ethanol can make fuel cell cars practical much sooner -- it appears.

[4dsc]

13. What a WASTE!!!

Even an energy output/input ratio of 1.67, that would mean that last year, the US produced 4 billion gallons of ethanol, but it took 3 BILLION units of energy to produce that amount!! I also believe the 1.67, if taken from the Dept of Ag, were results from field with optimal yields for corn.. That field with marginal yields did not and could not produce an EROIE of 1.67..

Corn based ethanol is a BIG waste of TAX dollars and FOOD resources!

[JohnWxy]

15. Actually the USDA study I referred to used a NIne state weighted average

for corn production. See what happens when you commment on something you haven't even read. You end up looking like an dim-wit! Now, you don't want to look like an dim-wit do you? (or maybe you don't care. LOL)

From the United States Dept of Agriculture Study (emphasis my own):

"we used a 3-year average yield instead of the average yield for the survey year. The 2000-02 weighted average corn yield in each State was used to convert farm inputs from a per acre basis to a per bushel basis (2001 Crop Production, NASS). Table 1 shows the nine-State energy input data per acre of corn and nine-State weighted average for the 2001 ARMS."

[NickB79]

19. That's still not very good though

You have to admit that using 2.5 billion gallons of ethanol to create 4 billion isn't much of a return when we use 140 billion gallons of gasoline a year in the US. Unless there is a sizable increase in yield from ethanol (cellulosic production?), ethanol doesn't seem to be able to replace more than 10% of US oil demand.

[wuushew]

23. I have no problem with that

the energy needed for the whole process could come from wind, solar or nuclear. The liquid ethanol produced would significantly more than that burned by the tractors and tanker trucks.

The real question is does the U.S. have enough cropland to produce a net amount of ethanol equal to annual gasoline consumption.

[eppur_se_muova]

7. Bush is a great president. I've heard that from several sources.

But that doesn't mean I believe it. Don't listen to shills for the energy companies.

[Skink]

8. The food corps need the corn so we don't have to buy sugar from Castro

Mmm corn syrup it does a body good. If of course the goal is diabetes.

[eppur_se_muova]

12. There you have it. And Cargill's corn syrup is heavily subsidized.

[Odin2005]

14. Another poster posted that switchgrass EtOH has a EROEI of around 4.

Much bettwe than corn.

[JohnWxy]

16. Cellulosic ethanol is better than corn. Now in the 6 years it will take

to get cellulosic ethanol commercially viable (then it will take several more years to get the production volume up to several percent of gasoline demand), we of course don't want to sit around with our heads up our rears. Corn ethanol which is curreently commercially viable will reduce our dependence on imported fossil fuels in the mean time.

We should be trying to double our production and availability of ethanol that we are producing right now in about 4 years. That will give us some protection against teh coming oil disruption (have you checked out teh news lately, Saudia Arabia, Nigeria, Iran ). There will be a disruption of the oil supply of 5% to 10% within the next 3 to 5 years. Without reducing our dependence on oil by a similar amount in the next few years we will suffer a recesssion when the oil disruption comes.

That's something we will want to avoid. Of course any oil we do not import but replace with domestically produced ethanol will be good for our economy. Imported oil represents 35% of our negative balance of payments.

[4dsc]

17. More BS??

Sorry to burst your little bubble Johnnie, but ethanol will not REDUCE our DEPENDENCE upon foreign oil. Ethanol is being produce to supplement our wasteful way of life..

Only conservation will reduce our dependence upon foreign oil IMHO..

[JohnWxy]

18. So you expect to conserve your way to 100% reduction of demand for oil?

NOw THAT's what I call an optimistic scenario (actually delusional - talk about a bubble!?). How much do you think you can reduce the demand for oil by conservation alone?

By the way, I am in favor of anything that works. Designing greater efficiency into transportation and appliances (air conditioners, anything running on electricity) should be pursued. There is quite a lot that can be gained from improving efficiency of auto/truck engines and electical appliances (some say as much as 25% savings of energy!).

The long term solutions is just one consideration.. The other matter is the oil supply disruption we will (probably) experience in 1 to 5 yrs from today (If you haven't noticed the news lately, almost daily it's reported about events in Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Iran, which could result in oil supply disruptions.) There are short term as well as longer term considerations here. See?

If you are going to take on the challenge of getting people to dramatically change their way of life to not be so wasteful (before events force them to) my hat is off to you. Do you want to start with all those SUV buyers? Well, you've got your work cut out for you but, I applaud your efforts.

MEanwhile I'm think it's worth it to work on practical solutions that will help the situation (and might solve the problem - in time). This of course does not preclude someone like you leading society to a more enlightened way of living. I'll praise your efforts but I don't think it's smart (or necessary) to turn away from efforts at technical improvements. Please note, conservation is helped along by development of more efficient technologies.

If you had read the link in my initial post you would have read that Fuel cell cars are 4 times more efficient than internal combustion engines(note that fuel cell technology is entirely different than internal combustion engines). And that if you use a hydrocarbons to deliver the hydrogen you might be able to make fuel cell cars practical in a decade (I think that's a little optimistic but they will be made practical sooner than using the free hydrogen approach). Personlly, I think 4 times more efficient sounds encouraging.

But please, while you are preaching don't run down the efforts of those trying to find practical improvements (and even solutions to the problem).

[NickB79]

20. The sad thing is that ethanol has not reduced our oil demand so far

It has in fact increased it in an ironic sort of way.

GM and Ford are the two biggest manufacturers of flex-fuel vehicles, and as such get large tax breaks from the government for making "green" vehicles. Sadly though, the vast majority of flex-fuel vehicles are fuel-inefficient SUV's and trucks. Thus, it is very profitable for them to put gas guzzling vehicles on the road, increasing our demand for foreign oil far more rapidly than we can produce ethanol for them to use as an alternative.

This isn't the fault of ethanol production; it is the fault of bad government policy and greedy CEO's at GM and Ford. If they were to produce a small car that had flex-fuel ability and promote the hell out of it, that could very likely cut back oil useage.

[JohnWxy]

22. Yeah, I know, but they are producing more FFVs as sedans too, now.

They are selling Impalas that are FFVs now. I don't know about Ford. I think if ethanol (even just 15% or Gasahol 10%) were more available people would start buying it and that might have an effect on the auto manufacturers to make more different vehicles FFV. Bt GM is really kindof jumping on the bandwagon now though. They are even (Ford also) helping independent gas stations with the cost of offering a pump with Ethanol 85. (until volume goes up,gas stations aren't interested in devoting a pump to E85). http://www.iags.org/n033104t2.htm

Any car that runs on gas can use Ethanol 15% or Gasahol (10%) and you would be instantly helping to reduce gas consumption WITHOUT BUYING A NEW CAR.

We should be trying to double ethanol production in say four years an then double it again. we are very likely going to expeeriencde an oil supply disruption in the next year to 5 yrs or 5 - 10%.
Thsi will cause gas prices to shoot up and could result in a recession. If we had ethanol up to 55 to 10% of the gas supply that would provide protection against just such a scenario.

[NNadir]

21. Of course, this matter could effect the output:

Someone wrote today about dustbowls. I am now reading a 1994 book on global climate change (that by the way, remarked on the 1988 drought, when barges were stranded in the Mississippi. That sort of thing will become more regular of course.