Sun GasSun Gas Do you havae any ideas about ”sun gas”?
This is a discussion topic or guest posting submitted by a Stock Gumshoe reader. The content has not been edited or reviewed by Stock Gumshoe, and any opinions expressed are those of the author alone.
Sun Gas Do you havae any ideas about ”sun gas”?
This is a discussion topic or guest posting submitted by a Stock Gumshoe reader. The content has not been edited or reviewed by Stock Gumshoe, and any opinions expressed are those of the author alone.
We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to set cookies.
More Info
I believe you mean hydrogen fuel cells, not using hydrogen-burning engines. There were many problems. Here are the main ones I remember:
1. Low temperature startup
2. High cost of non-corrosive electrodes necessary (platinum, palladium)
3. Use of a gas as fuel
4. They do not increase or decrease quickly for changing power drains, and the efficiency goes down if not operated at their optimally-designed power transfer rate.
There were other problems I don’t remember as much. I think the proton exchange mebrane, which is basically a solid electrolyte would degrade and need replacing after time. There was also a high cost in machining the fuel channel passageways in the wafers on both sides of the PEM. These also had to be of a material that could withstand a high acidity environment. Some companies tried using coatings on stamped-metal parts. You are probably speaking about the problem I listed as number 4 above, which is not such a big problem if you feed the electricity to an intermediate storage for quick usage such as a battery. Then the fuel cell can operate at a fairly constant rate to recharge the battery. I think the biggest problem of all was the usage of hydrogen, which is a gas. You can’t store no where near as much energy in a gas as you can a liquid, and when storing as a gas, you have to use high pressure tanks, which are dangerous when in an accident, and they still can’t store enough energy to get the vehicle that far – kind of comparable to the ranges of full-electric cars, although battery technology has improved a lot since then, making full electrics more practical that fuel cell electrics in my opinion. Some work was done with a methanol (liquid) fuel cell, but these clog up the PEM with the carbon that gets released from the methanol. On-board reformers to extract hydrogen from liquid hydrocarbons were also investigated, but these are extra expanse and complication, and wastes energy, and the reforming process produces as much CO2 as burning the liquid hydrocarbon. I see no benefit in your idea of an electrical square wave generator. Fuel cells produce DC current. If you power an AC motor, you can turn process the signal to get AC, but how would this improve the efficiency of the fuel cell itself any or allow it to provide quick changes in power demand?
Let the industry decide. There are many ways to produce hydrogen. For transportation, delivery, the CNG is the precursor. For storage, look QTWW.
Fuel cells are just fine. BMW and the likes have had cars running on H2 since the turn of the century.
In California, Honda has been selling H2 cars for several years, and in Japan, entire town bus fleets run on H2.
Fracking shws more and more weaknesses. it is not the panacea, not for the long term. Some estimates that fracking will end by 2020.
Hydrogen will have risen by then.
ETOGAS, a private German company, has succeeded in converting renewable electricity into synthetic natural gas, thus enabling it to be stored. The ETOGAS power-to-gas method converts green electricity into CO2 neutral, renewable natural gas. Review this press release.
http://www.etogas.com/en/the-challenge
Elaborating on my earlier blog, ETOGAS is a viable process for converting CO2 reacting with low electrolytic hydrogen made from water and low cost electricity into natural gas or methane for use in current gas distribution systems. But methane as fuel is less feasible for powering cars or trucks requiring costly and hazardous liquefied storage of methane, best via fuel cells. In contrast the proposed SUN GAS process presumably involves formation of a liquid fuel like methanol from CO2 and hydrogen as used in racing cars. Even if feasible, methanol has low energy content, about 50% of isooctane gas, about 65% for pure ethanol biofuel, and 100% for methane. And most of the hydrogen used in both processes using CO2 regenerate water as steam, 50% for ECOGAS methane and 33% for SUN GAS if methanol.
The energy utilization clearly look dismal using more energy than producing it!
If DiGeorgio is behinded, it probably will smell like gas because he believes to be an expert on many things. He’s pedeled foreign coins,carton cells,and is a silver expert I wan’t be supprised if he can turn cow flop into silver.
I’ll second the above comment about DiGerogio. He will peddle anything he thinks he can ride. I lost a fortune about 7 years ago following his divine wisdom. I read he book, “Peak Oil” and considered his unending rant on how we were going to be out of oil my now. Well, I sure everyone know we have more oil now than at about any time in our drilling history.
Peak Oil, yes, I remember that hyped up story well, and never believed it knowing then that Iraq had billions of barrels in reserves just waiting to be extracted, and given it was sweet crude, not the remaining crap in Saudi Arabia, which is near depleated, sure made for some interesting reading over the years. But now with advances in fracking, never mind Bakken oil reserves being exploited, we have more oil than ever, so forget peak oil story.
As to hydrogen, this is a story which will advance as I see it having worked with hydrogen for years. Sun gas is quite possible, and I do expect someone to break the code to produce hydrogen more efficiently than is now currently available, primarily electrolysis which takes more energy to produce than it is worth. So to find a way to extract the hydrogen from sea water using solar energy source is the most probably solution as I see it. The key to converting water to hydrogen has always been tied to cost, and with current technologies, producing hydogen is not the issue, storing it is not the issue, it is all about cost until more efficient extraction technologies come to light.
Hydrogen as some unique characteristics, and many obstacles to producing enough to power an engine, as example. Used with gasoline has been effective as carrier, and with it, more obstacles, engines have to be modified to perform long term with hydrogen energized gasoline which is a great goal given the environmental benefits of introducing hydrogen to gas since it reduces polution significantly. But as usual, it comes back to cost. We have discovered that hydrogen can be used to power an engine, but it has to be under vacuum and then oxigen becomes the ignition, sort of reverse in how others are trying to eploit hydrogen. Under this reverse use of hydrogen, now you need only a fraction of hydrogen, so an onboard electrolysis device could be efficiently used and since hydrogen under a vacuum remains stable, a closed loop system could be the answer, injecting oxygen only, igniting, and this mixture drives a piston just as with traditional internal combustion engines. This would eliminate need for hydrogen fuel cell issues and safety of storing hydrogen gas.
Of course converting existing engines is not easy as we have been trying for years, so a new design would be needed, rotary motor is what we are now experimenting with. Since hydrogen is one of the lightest gases, it is not practical to try and store it, never mind transport it. Many obstacles, but never the less, very intersting subject, and yes, Sun Gas caught my attention too, so who knows what the future holds for hydrogen, but never say never, we have seen what hydrogen does under vacuum, and it is indeed much more powerful than when exposed at normal atmospheric pressure, so who knows who will break the hydrogen code and reduce the cost of producing enough to be used effectively. It always comes down to cost.
Regarding sun gas, I am finding this discussion interesting because I have worked in some of these energy areas mentioned previously. Hydrogen production by electrolysis is not a cheap task nor easy to accomplish without expenditure of a lot of power, so I find it difficult to buy into the sun gas approach if that is what is being proposed. If the idea is to use solar energy to develop the power for conversion of water to hydrogen (by electrolysis or some other means) and to then make a hydrocarbon fuel by combining it with a source of carbon, then my question is where do you locate the plant where you have both good solar energy (a desert?) and pure water together? Hint, desert like conditions and pure water don’t go together. I am still very sold on nuclear power as a energy source that works with minimal water usage in lots of locations and creates a minimal amount of pollution products other than the spent fuel and warming of the source of water used for the steam power plant. No air pollutants. If I invest in energy, it is going to be in the nuclear field and not sun gas, a technology seemingly way far from being suitable for full scale power plants and very limited in where it might be produced in the US.
WayneA; The location is Kennewick WA. where they produced plutonium for Abombs.
Oregon St. University with PNNL is working on it there, using solar-collectors to generate great heat used in conjunction with catalyst to combine CO with H to make fuel.
What is the Name of the company being promoted ?
I guess it is Liquid light. If you go to their website, you will find that their scientific advisors list contains Dr Andrew Bocarsly. He is one of the main guys mentioned in
the research report, who is spearheading the research in this technology
Looks like it might be–thanks. http://llchemical.com/technology
From what I’ve read on the subject progress has been made using a synthetic photosyhtesis method incorporating a focused solar mirror array as a heat source, this method has in fact successfully split carbon dioxide as well as H2o, the rebinding of the atomic structures to create a hydrocarbon atomic stucture in the liquid is the magic formula here and won’t be perfected for industrial cost effective production for 20 or so years, barring some unforeseen breakthrough in the current processes. Still worth keeping an eye on this because some progress has been made quite recently ( last two years). Two areas blocking the perfection of the process still exist.
http://phys.org/news/2013-10-air-sun-ingredients-green-gasoline.html method using a focused solar mirror array as a heat source, this method has in fact successfully split carbon dioxide as well as H2o the rebinding of the atomic structure to create a hydrocarbon stucture in the liquid is the magic formula here and won’t be perfected for industrial cost effective production for 20 or so years, barring some unforseen breakthrough in the current processes. Still worth keeping an eye on this because some progress has been made. Two areas blocking the perfection of the process still exist.
http://phys.org/news/2013-10-air-sun-ingredients-green-gasoline.html
Marc; You are correct but also involves a catalyst bed. Very expensive focused mirrors & 20 years probably minimum. I believe also needs some input of NG.
Sorry about the message repeat, the site prevented my first post because of invalid email site address then piggy backed both posts for some reason after resubmission.
http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/features/air-water-and-sun-the-ingredients-of-green-gasoline
But can the technology make the transition from test-tube to the gigatonnes required for industrial scale-up? “We have to be realistic and a series of true breakthroughs is still required to make our scenario a reality. Even if we have these tomorrow, it will take at least 20 years before we see this type of technology providing the majority of the world’s transport fuel,” cautioned Reisner. “That said, we are confident that renewable syngas, a ‘green gasoline’ technology, will be able to drive our current industry in a sustainable way. – See more at: http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/features/air-water-and-sun-the-ingredients-of-green-gasoline#sthash.klPHBqa5.dpuf
Many good comments, some from pros better informed than I. My bottom line as a hard nosed industrial scientist is that both Sun-Gas and ETOGAS are impractical energy intense processes for producing liquid fuel , Sun-Gas, actually methanol or wood alcohol and methane gas for ETOGAS with little net gain in energy unless derived natural sources in costly conversion devices or via costlier nuclear power plants, ideally based on thorium.
Note that 1 mole Carbon monoxide, CO, requires 6 moles hydrogen, with 4 used in methanol, CH4O, and 2 wasted as H2O or water. And 1 mole methanol is about 1 oz of liquid fuel with about 100 moles per gallon methanol. And starting with CO2, 8 moles of H2 is needed with 4 moles wasted for methanol and 6 moles for CH4 or methane production…..rather dismal process facts …unlikely to be economical in the near future with current technology. The ETOGas process has better economics using cheap renewable energy and using electrolysis of water to form hydrogen in co – gen with natural gas burning power plants with methane syngas being the product, possibly capable of also producing liquid fuel, methanol. Using nuclear fission to produce hydrogen may not be a replacement for electrolysis due to high capital expense and safety issues. Also methanol, though used as clean, racing fuel, has less than 50% of energy per gallon compared to gasoline, and less than corn derived ethanol. Sun -Gas is a nice lab project that is unlikely to go commercial for economic reasons even at $250 per gallon crude oil.
Check out the stock symbol HYSR.
Herman I don’t disagree with anything you said, but process is using very high temp focused sunlight instead of electrolysis. Did you mean $250 per barrel. I think that may be close if not higher.
hi, I have been reading the thread since watching the tout video. I get the gist that replacing Natural Gas in pipes with ETO Gas isn’t economically feasible. The facility at LBL only broke ground in Fall, 2012, and the building opened within a year, roughly, so as the facility has been operating for roughly 9 months, I doubt they have researched to conclusion any breakthrough to tout as a multi-trillion $$ solution to the petroleum age. Then there’s DeGiorgia’s ridiculous verbal delivery. You have to watch this shyte video to believe what a moron the guy is. Maybe he did make a lot of money, but he’s probably never been exposed to the diverse elements of life which would lead him to develop a multi cultural understanding and proper pronunciation of the colorful expressions he uses!
Regarding liquid fuel, speaking as an environmental engineer, it will not be methanol. I studied possible use of methanol as a liquid fuel for fleet operations. 2 big problems are that it is both water soluble and highly toxic. NFPA standard 52 consequently set tight limits on the allowable quantities to be stored on a moving vehicle. Methanol is not something that municipalities want to risk being responsible for cleaning up, which is why nobody uses it for fleet operations. Energy density, as noted, is also a range limiting issue.
Hmm. Interesting advances. Like to be kept up to date.
http://www.stockgumshoe.com/reviews/crisis-and-opportunity/crisis-and-opportunitys-breakthrough-technology-turns-air-sunlight-coal-even-water-into-precious-gas/
HYGS
Hank there are 42 gallons in the barrel measure of petroleum = $420+. Otherwise I agree.
I read the whole pitch and came across this. I copied it for here.
Other scientists are working on different designs using different materials … like the Sandia Lab team in New Mexico who estimates that they could make diesel or jet fuel for roughly 10 bucks per gallon.
At 10 bucks per gallon, that’s over $500 per barrel. It looks like a non-starter to me.
History looking to repeat itself.
Small Natural Gas company signs letter of intent for farm-in of Pinedale field well locations in Wyoming.
There’s a lot more behind that seemingly basic headline.
Ultra Petroleum (NYSE:UPL) founded and financed on the Toronto Venture exchange ultimately found great success and traded to a pre-split share price of $200/share. Currently, it trades at a post-split share price of $27/share.
Ultra was one of the biggest, if not the biggest oil and gas success stories to ever graduate from the Toronto Stock Exchange
The largest shareholder of Outrider Energy was one of the original founders and largest financier of Ultra in its early years.
He was also the original financier and founder of Pennaco Energy which was acquired by Marathon Oil for $445 M.
The Company has been able to attract one the best Advisory boards for a company this size, in fact, some of the top Energy Investment Bankers in the U.S have joined. They obviously have high hopes and foresee good things ahead.
The Companies recently signed LOi has numerous highlights which include:
Assets are 95% Natural Gas
The Operator, Ultra Petroleum is the #1 operator in the basin, and one of the Lowest cost producers of Natural Gas in North America
Allows for participation in a legacy gas field
Optionality of the deal – call on Natural Gas recovery prices.
$15 million dollar program = 15 BCF/gas gross
Bolt on growth opportunities in and around surrounding areas.
Stable, long–‐life production – proved producing properties
Mature, low risk repeatable drilling
Buying Reserves in the ground for $1.59/MCFE.
We are at the beginning stages of this companies life cycle, and if previous history is any indication of success then Outrider Energy (CSE:MCF) should see great growth in the years to come and a handsome return for investors at today’s share price.
Ok, that previous message looks like a shameless pump and dump advertisement (by someone trolling) for a company which has nothing to do with the subject of this threat – sungas.
So nobody bought this sun fuel report so we can share the name of the ticker. Me I cannot buy it because I don’t have a credit card because I cansel it after been victim of fraudulent billing.
Im currently looking for stock to buy, do you got suggestions? I recently bought capstone turbine (cpst) at 2.05$ and bally technologies at 63.00$. I have the feeling that there is better buying opportunity out there but im new to it so I cannot find great ones. Im 52 years old and those are the first stock I never bought. Wist I bought tesla shares last year but I was not of the stock market and today in 2014 all shares stock seam to be pricy. Im interested in solar panels so it will probably be my next buying.
I found the ticker, it’s an Australian company call greenearth energy and the ticker is ger on the Australian stock market (asx) . Is it possible to buy the stock in Canada? ger is the parent company of newco2fuel http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/01/20140126-ncf.html
http://www.newco2fuels.co.il/about/
Ask a chemist or anyone that remembers high school general science. It takes more energy to split water than you get back from the hydrogen. Next they’ll be touting a perpetual motion machine.