But natural gas vehicles already exist.
Sure, [for] many of the long-haul trucking companies. Navistar announced it's going to be making [liquefied natural gas, or LNG] trucks. I was at the Port of Long Beach and we saw the LNG trucks there. Clean Energy Fuels is putting in the infrastructure for LNG and putting it every 200 miles along major trucking routes. That is fantastic. Their cost is going to pay for itself in a few years, and the truckers' cost is going to pay for itself in a few years because they are running 100,000 miles a year.
But that is not true for light-duty vehicles—passenger cars—so that's where the gap is. It is very expensive to put that infrastructure like that all over. So home refueling is something of a long shot, and it's risky. If someone can come up with a technology that can do that, I think it could have a major impact on our transportation sector. It could reduce oil imports significantly if you got mass adoption of natural gas vehicles.
The same kinds of suggestions were made about hydrogen fuel cell vehicles a few years back and, of course, hydrogen can be made from natural gas. So why not hydrogen?
It's the same thing. People always talk about storing hydrogen. The best way to store hydrogen is in a hydrocarbon. In natural gas, for every atom of carbon, you've got four atoms of hydrogen. That's a hydrogen fuel. Even if you do a hydrogen-based thing, which I think is worth considering, the question is: Where does the hydrogen come from? It comes from natural gas. Well, why not just use directly the natural gas?
Now natural gas is all the rage. Five years ago we were enamored of the hydrogen economy, and in five years maybe we'll go back to nuclear. How do we implement a sustained and consistent approach to the energy problem?
We have to be clear by what we mean by a hydrogen economy. If you talk about where the hydrogen comes from, it can come from natural gas, it can come from nuclear. It can be used directly in engines, it could be used in fuel cells. One of the advantages of hydrogen is that if you were to use fuel cells, the overall system efficiency could be quite high. That's a great advantage. You can use proton exchange membrane fuel cells. You don't have to go to high temperatures.
The challenge with natural gas and fuel cells is you have to use solid oxide fuel cells. [For] solid oxide fuel cells you've got to go to high temperatures, and there are other issues for the transportation sector. I think a fuel cell is a viable option for transportation. The DoE is doing [research and development] in [its Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy division], and ARPA–E is very supportive of that. We need to do that R&D, bring down the cost and provide that option. Our job is to provide options for the nation. Our job is not to decide what the business should do, that's business's role. The government's role is to provide options and create competition. And that's what we are trying to do.
What about algae? The federal government has a long and tortured history of research in algae but is, at present, back into that research.
In biofuels you have to have a portfolio approach. It started off with corn to ethanol—fine. Now there is talk about cellulose. Before that even, there was sugarcane to ethanol—great. Then there was cellulose to sugar, okay, and then to ethanol, and now to drop-in fuel. Fine, that's another approach. It's all plant-based. Algae directly to oil, that's another approach.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
36 Comments
Add CommentSounds like a real neat idea, working 3 years then giving it up to some new blood. That should keep the interest up on going into and coming out of a program.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess my first question is why do places that seriously address the energy questions get so little attention but mention religion and you get over 100 responses in days. Hamradio thank you for posting, hopefully you will have responses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy response to anything dealing with energy are three fold.
1) Carbon in the forms of graphene, graphite,nanotubes, buckeye balls, carbon composites and the growth and farming of synthetic diamonds. Carbon continues to show conductive, semiconductive and nonconductive properties and in the form of graphene it has been shown to tunnel 100% of the time. Carbon is easy to mold into new products and we have a lot of it. Today we burn it, waste it and are killing ourselves with the stupidity of these practices.
2) Cynobacteria is able to poop H2 and O2 prolifically and sustainably allowing the creation of a H2 based society. Germany is currently laying down an infrastructure of H2 delivery systems in the to fuel cells and H2 as fuel. Gee wiz, when you oxidize H2 you get water. Last I checked it is not a green house gas.
3) In 2006 Sciam did an amazing article on a scientist from MIT who was custom tipping viruses to create nano devices at will. She had demonstrated successful creation of batteries (DARPA is currently implementing this) but also of any other electronic device you can imagine. Picture a computer imbedded in your clothes. This was real science and she won scientist of the year that year and now you have to buy the original article.
So my point is that we have a lot of technology in place that works, has been tested and has then been put back on the shelf so we can continue to kill our selves using fossil fuel. If you are interested in section 2 and 3 of this comment follow these links. As I said the one that actually dealt with the science of custom tipping viruses now is for sale only but you can dig through the chaff and get the dirt on most of it.
H2 and O2 pooping Bacteria http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=hydrogen-production-comes-natu&posted=1
Custom tipping viruses scientist http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2006/sciam-belcher.html
Also of interest
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scientific-american-50-re
So take a minute and scratch your head, like I have and ask why are we waiting to implement these technologies. One hint I will give you is on the cynobacteria there was a Shell Oil ad posted on the site for several years. Interesting, very interesting but stupid!
I liked the questions better than the answers. Questions about nuclear energy were bypassed. ARPA-E funds no such research. Questions about hydrogen production ignored the obvious (to nukes) high temperature dissociation of water using a copper-sulfate catalyst process to make hydrodgen with a 50% thermal/chemical conversion efficiency.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we built housing closer together and used public transportation we could get to where we want to be faster then with any other method ..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe whole idea of Government innovation is itself an oxymoron. It is right up there with "military justice" or "Central Intelligence". I challenge readers to supply examples of innovation that was funded by or created by our government.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29 I lived a few miles away from the work. George Dyson wrote a great book on it to honor his father Freeman Dyson. JFK killed it with the NPT but it was a winner and we would have been to our first star by now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot to mention the internet. Research, proof of concept and early use was through DARPA.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome work similar to Angela Belcher's fantastic research in 2006 has raised its head again. http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nnano.2012.69.html?utm_source=io9+Newsletter&utm_campaign=d3e6553fe3-UA-142218-29&utm_medium=email The day will come, hopefully soon when big oil will be like Tammany Hall to government.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy not Arun Majumdar did research on very small unit of wind solar and water energy project.In India some NGO did wonderful project on these energy. Every project is very small only provide to village energy by water, or wind or solar system.Expenses are limited., field are limited.Wasting money on big project I think if Majumdar spend his energy on small unit he can give more result to society
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy not Arun Majumdar did research on very small unit of wind solar and water energy project.In India some NGO did wonderful project on these energy. Every project is very small only provide to village energy by water, or wind or solar system.Expenses are limited., field are limited.Wasting money on big project I think if Majumdar spend his energy on small unit he can give more result to society
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAT LAST?????
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisODEANOGENIC POWER: http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-654397
Hydropower, super clean, cheap, efficient, and now, enough. The same that moves the oceans: the earth's rotation around its own axis, and the force of gravity, mainly between the earth and moon.
The possibility of loss due to thermodynamic reasons, can we dismiss this, as only the movement of
the oceans is causing this type of wear and is
many "illions" of times larger than the energy used by mankind.
Sorry:Is OCEANOGENIC POWER
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSounds interesting. Distribution issues but they may not be that hard to overcome. I like it better than putting turbines in the gulf stream which was discussed several years ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would hope an ecological study is done to make sure we are not killing or decimating feedback systems to tap this but on the surface it has a lot of merit.
Dear friend, what you say is true, but to reach the levels of generation that US and the world needs, the current control technology allows to ride the wave that it will form in the interoceanic "spillway" entries, varying its height according to the energy needed, and in resonance with the lunar cycle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, this hydropower, because it involves a field of turbines, is unique in that, for maintenance, you can stop a turbine while another replaces its service, and sustain profitability. This will allow put appropriate filters or ecological barriers for the control of species, again for the first time, while remaining profitable.
We are smarter than the fish, we only need water to generate energy, and we talk of a sea bed, totally artificial. For land animals, we may well do ecological bridges.
Sorry and please, this is for experts, who also want to solve the ecological problem of rising prices, that peak oil production is causing, and which is killing already by starvation both men and women, at least in Panama.
Dear friend, what you say is true, but to reach the levels of generation that US and the world needs, the current control technology allows to ride the wave that it will form in the interoceanic "spillway" entries, varying its height according to the energy needed, and in resonance with the lunar cycle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, this hydropower, because it involves a field of turbines, is unique in that, for maintenance, you can stop a turbine while another replaces its service, and sustain profitability. This will allow put appropriate filters or ecological barriers for the control of species, again for the first time, while remaining profitable.
We are smarter than the fish, we only need water to generate energy, and we talk of a sea bed, totally artificial. For land animals, we may well do ecological bridges.
Sorry and please, this is for experts, who also want to solve the ecological problem of rising prices, that peak oil production is causing, and which is killing already by starvation both men and women, at least in Panama.
Excuse me, do not know what happened: I sent only once
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is a shame we do not tap into tidal pools and use a lock like system that when the tide is in locks and like a ratchet releases the water in a synchronous method allowing us to create hydro electric power.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDuring the inflow of tides we can preform the same operation in reverse and once it is in the tidal pool and locked in so to speak we can control the release of the energy even if it is not the same day. I would imagine with all the inlets that exist especially in designated dead zones where there is no ecological impact we could at least create some proof of concept experiments. I know free energy sounds quixotic but it is not free just smart use of energy that is available.
But then poor poor big oil would not benefit with the commodity based economics that drive non renewable resources. Shame that greed trumps need.
The apex of ecological pyramid is the man. I'm Catholic: every human being.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTherefore, I disagree with a violent change of infrastructure, either by war or by disruptive technologies.But in the second case, the history and logic demonstrate the ability of human creativity, working in peace and quiet, to develop the necessary and make a peaceful transition, and as we need today: friendly with the planet, and for the future in harmony with the Universe.
The latter vanishes fanatical concern for the overpopulation issue directly solved, by some animals, and unconsciously by the Chinese, and even emerge, for fans nervousness: the need for another version in this regard.
What makes Arun?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCivility, nobility, Agappe, or the voices of mater and pater Majumdar?
Perhaps all these things.
We are certainly blessed to have him as a neighbor again, for a time.
Then this is the most obvious answer http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=hydrogen-production-comes-natu&posted=1
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree that hydrogen and oxygen are the solution, even friendly with the current infrastructure, as energy carrier.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut dismissing solutions that can already start production, clean and massive, of hydrogen and oxygen (such as oceanogenic power, and the simple electrolysis of sea water) by others that need more research time, is evidence of harmful manipulation by those who do not really care, find solutions, but unfortunately, have the money that determines who makes the decisions.
And the bad news is worse, if we include that the production of hydrogen and oxygen will be in the same market that will consume them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Melkholy:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe bad news is that, from the origin of our species, in high places taking the worst decisions, and despite much progress, they still seems news: keep doing the same.
I want the patents on O2, H2 and of course H2O and while at it Fe2O3.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd what is your point?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNewton applied for a patent of gravity?
Or Benjamin Franklin by lightnings?
Why not partner in the patent "oceanogenic power"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI fear we do too much damage to the ocean already. Keep in mind 90% of the fresh water in the world is underground and we have a plethora of dead zones where we can do no more wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome one talked about putting turbines in the gulf stream, that would be like leaving a large truck turned sideways on I-95 and walking away. Almost all migratory sea life uses the streams/rivers in the ocean, I would much rather work with places we have already killed and the cynobacterias are a remnant or collateral damage in these areas.
The bacteria research was done in 93, resurrected in 2010 and put back to bed. As the article says it works, it is prolific, it eats chlorophyll, and it creates both gasses somewhat as a just in time method.
Oceanogenic power, uses an artificial spillway. The only place where you can build, is Panama, and is enough for all the world in 200 years and more.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPutting turbines where there are fish, and not be able to put up barriers to protect them, is a worse solution. Although I know a friend who has designed a wind turbine to protect birds.
But these turbines have only 50% efficiency. In case, that I suggest, the efficiency goes to 90%.
But the other major ecological problem, my friend Russell, is that if we do not produce enough clean energy, oceans, atmosphere, and land already are being destroyed, at least, in the surroundings of the gigantic current generation of dirty power.And we must add the ecological damage, by the wars that have already begun, for the last drops of oil.
Again it seems that arguments without sufficient review by the right people, but very well financed and marketed in the media, are trying to block real solutions.
I myself am proof of this: I inform you that in Panama, the friends of these procedures have me fired from my job because of my discovery: oceanogenic power.
You may enjoy this. http://energy.gov/articles/fish-friendly-turbine-making-splash-water-power DR
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExactly. This is to outsmart the fish. And besides this solution, oceanogenic power, to maintenance or even for fishing, can completely stop a turbine of any size without ceasing to produce a single watt of all power demand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisImagine the cost in Hoover dam to clean alleged ecological barriers or filters: At some point would have to stop serving by weeks, up to 130 MW to change these filters. This is inconceivable to this project, but not in the case of oceanogenic power.
I think an array of solutions is required. Economy of scales so to speak. I think that if the government would fund a find wasted energy project we could come up with enough extra joules and watts to make a difference.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree, but we go back to the above: the jealousy of the scientific advisors of our leaders, who have managed to be advisors for not spending their time, to discover and nurture the hen that lays the golden eggs, or have chosen to make a quick buck, selling soup made with that hen, not expecting to lay eggs:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCAN NOT AND DO NOT WANT TO RECOGNIZE GOOD IDEAS WHICH ARE NOT OF THEM.
You would love Lee Smolin's book 'The Trouble with Physics'. It is one of the better works on the evil of group thought I have read in ages. I read 'The True Believer' by Eric Hoffer when I was 7 or 8 and have always been wary of group thought etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHydrogen Peroxide is very useful and again not a terrible waste product. I have seen the formula and arrangement. I think the only by product to be wary of is O3 and that is at our low level, it is a benefit in the higher levels of the atmosphere but lung burning and almost caustic at sea level.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf someone sees an article that is a must see then please send to dcota@aol.com. Make sure you mark it from as relating to the article and I will check it. That goes for any other contributors. I love the give and take and yes we have some clowns but we also have some great minds that can see the elephant from a different vantage point. One of my favorites is a gentleman whose tag is Carlye and he is from Australia. He is more conservative than I and makes me have to think a lot harder but the conversations I have had with him are very enlightening.
Regarding the waste product H2O2, I have used it on occasion but never to dye my hair.
I would be interested in finding a solution to creating an output that creates tritium that may be useful in the search for fusion. I still have doubts on fusion but a lot of money and pride is on the line. Freeman Dyson warns of projects such as that in Gaia and Eros but still countries like to spend money on big guns, trucks and other things that make you think something else is lacking.
My self is a Carbon fan but not of burning it. I love that two Nobel prizes were awarded for graphene research and I think the future is in nanotubes, synthetic diamonds, graphene as a conductor, nonconductor and semiconductor and as a building block for nanotubes which may drive the need for rare metal back to the stone ages and provide much better efficiency in products coming down the road.
Also Angela Belcher did wonderful work several years ago by custom tipping viruses but only DARPA has picked up on this scientist of the year's work in 2006. And my favorite from 2010 is the little bug that poops O2 and H2 and only needs chlorophyll to start the engine running.
What I do think is exciting is that at the end of the 19th century scientist were pretty sure everything was found and only the details needed filled in. We started the 21st century realizing we know nothing yet. Carry on Schultzy, carry on.
Thank you for confirming what I have been trying to get out now. By the may Demons are what Satan uses. Daemons are used by UNIX as back ground processes. Kind of the magic part of the computer. I am thrilled that Hell is Catholic about being Hell and not just for certain cultures.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee you in Dec with my deep boots on.
Right David, but Truth is also universal, or Catholic. I speak not of the catholic religion, but of Catholic truth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs written so far, upper and lower case have meaning.
If we are honest or we fear the truth, the division of religions is because we all want to manage the collection of money. That is, we want power. And this is because we do not want to be crucified.
The good news is that current advances in communications, are evidence that we are walking to the unit by the beauty of Truth.