Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Freeing Hydrogen From Glucose

Posted by timothy on from the schweet dept.

tarawa writes: "This story at CNN reports that researchers have developed a new and easy way to extract hydrogen from a glucose solution that could provide a clean, environmentally safe fuel for our cars in the future." Stay calm, though -- ""We are not talking about spooning glucose into your car to make it go. That is 'Back to the Future' stuff."

40 comments

  1. Burn it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That will get the hrdrogen out of glucose.

  2. Wait... by Dr.+Bent · · Score: 2, Funny

    I thought sugar in your gas tank was a BAD thing...

    1. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it still is.

    2. Re:Wait... by Tycho · · Score: 1

      Well I guess sugar in the gas tank is kind of bad for the car, but not for the reason you think. Read this link.

      --
      Impersonating Tycho from Penny Arcade since before there was a PA.
    3. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They put alcohol in gas, which will dissolve the sugar and send it on it's way to do whatever it does to the motor.

    4. Re:Wait... by Tycho · · Score: 1

      Which is still nothing.

      --
      Impersonating Tycho from Penny Arcade since before there was a PA.
  3. More efficient is more CO2 by E1v!$ · · Score: 2, Funny

    Fixed ratio of H2 released to CO2 released.

    I suppose no one, or thing, would have been interested in consuming the Glucose before it completely degraded... (cows, cats, ants.... uhuh)

    1. Re:More efficient is more CO2 by norton_I · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except that glucose would be made by photosynthesis, which is a C02 consuming process. So this would not release any "fixed" CO2.

    2. Re:More efficient is more CO2 by Sgt+York · · Score: 1

      And thereby release the CO2 themselves through normal metabolism.....

      --

      There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.

  4. Um.. by camelrider · · Score: 1

    The source for glucose is..?

    1. Re:Um.. by Sgt+York · · Score: 1
      Plant material.

      That's the beauty of it, we can get H2 from a easily renewable resource. Apparently, the only waste product that is even marginally dangerous is CO2, which will be used up by all the extra plants we would have growing for fuel. It fits right into the earth's carbon cycle.

      One really good way they could do it would be to use food waste; apple cores, orange peels, etc. These all contain lots of cellulose, which is just a polymer of glucose. Cellulose can be purified from these sources, and it can't be too hard to do, they sell ultrapure cellulose pretty cheap.

      The glucose can be liberated enzymatically (or possible otherwise...chemists?) and then used to make H2

      --

      There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.

    2. Re:Um.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do plants that produce the most O
      eat up as much CO2 ? like lettuce ,, I read a long
      time ago that lettuce produces more O per acres
      next to Pot, dont know if this it true but hey
      the second choice I think may be better !
      any Info out on the 0 to Co2

  5. In-depth scientific explanation by benjamindees · · Score: 2, Insightful
    experimenting with fuel cells powered by hydrogen which produces a lot of energy and whose only by-product is water.

    Can't beat CNN for a detailed scientific description of new technologies. Has anyone found a paper or press release or anything?

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    1. Re:In-depth scientific explanation by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you look at the bottom of the article there are a number of associated links listed. One of them is Nature, a British science journal. If you do a search at Nature (I used 'glucose' and 'hydrogen' as keywords) a number of relavent articles will show up. Unless you are willing to pay for a subscription, then you are likely to need to pass by your local university library to read them, as the results are just abstracts.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    2. Re:In-depth scientific explanation by Sgt+York · · Score: 1

      If you don't have a subscription to Nature, the absract is here If the link is busted, go to NCBI and search for "Dumesic glucose" under Pubmed.

      --

      There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.

  6. PEOPLE! by Thoth+Ptolemy · · Score: 3, Funny

    Accelerant glucose is made of people!
    IT'S MADE OF POOOOEEEEPLLLLEE!!!

  7. Questions for the chemists by amorsen · · Score: 2

    How much heat do you get from C6H12O6 + 6O => 12H + 6CO2? And what is the molecular mass of C6H12O6?

    --
    Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    1. Re:Questions for the chemists by GMontag451 · · Score: 4, Informative
      How much heat do you get from C6H12O6 + 6O => 12H + 6CO2? And what is the molecular mass of C6H12O6?

      First of all you wouldn't get 12H, you'd get 6H2. I don't know about the heat, but the molecular mass is pretty easy to figure out. 6C = 6*12. 12H = 12*1. 6O = 6*16. That makes 72+12+96=180. What I want to know is how they are keeping the H2 from combining with the O2 at those temperatures.

    2. Re:Questions for the chemists by troemyd · · Score: 1, Informative

      According to my only readily available source ('Energy: a Guidebook' by Janet Ramage) the combustion of hydrogen releases 37 kWh/kg. That's more than twice the heat released from methane.

    3. Re:Questions for the chemists by simonjester2424 · · Score: 1

      Yes, by wieght, hydrogen releases alot (yeah im being vague) more energy than methane, one reason to consider though is than methane is more dense than hydrogen, that why you can make a blimp out of hydrogen....by mass hydrogen migh not be as energy dense.

      --
      Beware of gifts bearing Greeks.
  8. Two inaccuracies in the story by GMontag451 · · Score: 3, Informative
    He says the process does not produce extra carbon dioxide, as this would have been released back into the air anyway through biodegradation of the plants.

    This statement, which I suppose is technically true, is absolutely ludacris. It would be like saying that burning down the rainforest wouldn't produce any extra carbon dioxide for the same reason! If this process becomes widespread, even though it won't technically produce any more carbon dioxide than would have been produced, it will produce it a hell of a lot faster and there will be higher concentrations of it in the atmosphere.

    At present in the laboratory bench process, hydrogen constitutes about half of the product from a catalyzed glucose solution. But with further refining of the sugar solution the percentage rises.

    The percentage cannot rise above 50%. The reaction is C6H12O6 (glucose) + 6O2 -> 6H2 + 6CO2. And that's only 50% by volume. By mass its only 4.3% H2 and 95.7% CO2.

    1. Re:Two inaccuracies in the story by famebait · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This statement, which I suppose is technically true, is absolutely ludacris

      Nope, nor is it ludicrous; it is common sense, as long as the fuel is produced from cultivated plants. And the article did say renewable sources.

      It would be like saying that burning down the rainforest wouldn't produce any extra carbon dioxide

      No, that would contribute extra CO2 until the areas grew back with an equivalent amount of biomass. After that the balance would be restored (as long as we're talking only about CO2), but it would take a long time and there's no guarantee it would happen at all. Rainforests are not generally considerd a renewable resource in practice. Normal farmland is usually renewed all the time.

      it will produce it a hell of a lot faster and there will be higher concentrations of it in the atmosphere.

      The speed of the carbon cycle is irrelevant, the important part is how much carbon is bound up in plants and elsewhere and thus kept out of the atmosphere at any given time. I can't see how this fuel scheme would be different from any other cultivation on the same land in that respect.

      Another question is whether it is ethical or viable in the long term to use land for growing fuel in stead of food, but that is a very different matter.

      --
      sudo ergo sum
    2. Re:Two inaccuracies in the story by Sgt+York · · Score: 2, Informative
      Got a chance to read the article (the real one, not the CNN article)

      The CO2 production/recovery by plants issue is well addressed in the first reply.

      As for the 50% figure....

      Glucose is C6O6H14, not H12. Sugars are CnOnH(2n+2) in these conditions. The H12 refers to the ring structure. They're saying they get almost, but not quite, 100% of the H2 recovered if they use glucose.

      On other stuff in the letter (it's not a full paper)....

      The guy even proposes a complete system, with their reactor connected to a fuel cell working at 50% efficiency (Engineers.....Is that realistic?). He states that based on the rate of H2 formation that they got at conditions for optimal efficiency, you could get 1kW of electrical power per liter reactor volume. The reactor would use bio waste (wood, grain chaff, etc).

      He says the main drawback is the use of Pt as a catalyst; he says there may be better and/or cheaper ones.

      The thing that really got me was the first line:

      We consider production of hydrogen by low-temperature reforming (at 500K)

      Since when is 227 degrees C a low temperature?

      --

      There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.

    3. Re:Two inaccuracies in the story by Blain · · Score: 1

      Um, I think he's comparing the use of carbon that's recently been in the atmosphere (plant based) versus adding carbon that's been underground for a long time (oil based).

      Also, this CO2 would seem to be pretty easily isolated and clean, for use in stuff like carbonating water, adding to greenhouses maybe, or just storing in calcium carbonate somewhere to keep it out of the atmosphere.

      Thinking about that middle idea, I kinda like the idea of pumping the CO2 back into greenhouses used to grow the glucose in, so we're recycling the carbon and outputting the H2. Anybody know if we can conveniently extract glucose from algae? From kelp, maybe?

      Maybe I'm missing something, but this sounds distinctly like a Good Thing to me if it can be done economically.

    4. Re:Two inaccuracies in the story by drinkypoo · · Score: 2
      Another question is whether it is ethical or viable in the long term to use land for growing fuel in stead of food, but that is a very different matter.

      Of course it is ethical. Right now we produce far more than enough food to feed the entire world, though perhaps not healthily since we didn't actually evolve to eat all these carbohydrates.

      The problem is one of distribution, which could actually be aided by a source of cheap, non-polluting fuel. It won't be, because the problem is one of ethics, not logistics; There's more than enough money lying around to feed all those hungry people, too (IE, get the food to them) but it won't happen because of selfishness.

      Note that I too am selfish and do not spend my money on feeding Somalian children, but then again I'm worried about making rent right now, so I have a valid excuse. Next time I have a job, I won't have one, but I still won't feed the starving children. Boy, am I an asshole.

      As for viable, you have to look at what nutrients these particular plants remove from the soil, and what it costs/what damage it does to put them back in. This could easily spill over into "ethical" as well, I suppose, given that agriculture changes global weather patterns if carried out on a wide enough scale. But if it catches on perhaps instead of paying farmers to grow nothing we can pay them to grow hydrogen crops.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Two inaccuracies in the story by Salis · · Score: 1

      Rofl, don't talk ethics about growing food vs. growing energy. Look at the ethics conundrum involved in buying Oil from Saudia Arabia. A majority of the 9-11 hijackers were from Saudia Arabia...do you think it's ethical to do business with people who support active terrorism against the U.S and its allies?

      When we have to debate eating corn vs. using corn to power my car, I will beat my gun into a ploughshare. I will, really.

      Salis

      --
      Favorite /. tagline: "On the eighth day, God created FORTRAN." And it was good.
    6. Re:Two inaccuracies in the story by gotih · · Score: 1

      Right now we produce far more than enough food to feed the entire world...

      actually, a very large part of the food we produce is used to feed other food -- cattle. americans eat so much beef (and a lot of chicken too) which is, from a food efficiency standpoint, a bad thing.

      this is actually one of the reasons i'm vegetarian -- the way i see it, food raised to feed animals is mostly wasted since the animals just turn most of that food into shit.

      ...though perhaps not healthily since we didn't actually evolve to eat all these carbohydrates.

      now that's just silly, there is more to vegetable matter than carbohydrates. consider beans (high in protine) or legumes such as peanuts (high in oil) etc. just because we grow lots of corn (to feed cattle, who are ruminids, evolved to eat grass and therefore, when corn-fed, need large quantities of antibiotics to disrupt the fermentation process which would otherwise result in a slimy glop that prevents the expulsion of the fermentation gasses (CO2) and would cause the rumin organ to expand to the point of collapsing the cattle's lungs, killing the animal) doesn't mean we can't grow soy, wheat, squash, fruits, etc. on that land.

      the real problem is the subsidies that mean growing corn (with tons of nitrogen fertilizer which results in run-off and destroys aquatic habitat) for a non-human market is more profitable than growing human food.

      there's more but why bother. tell me otherwise and i'll continue

      --

      fear is the mind killer
    7. Re:Two inaccuracies in the story by Dastardly · · Score: 1

      Of course it is ethical. Right now we produce far more than enough food to feed the entire world, though perhaps not healthily since we didn't actually evolve to eat all these carbohydrates.

      More importantly, is growing plants the most efficient way to convert sunlight to usable energy? Which gets you more useable energy growing corn on 1 acre of land for 10 years? Or, 1 acre of photovoltaics for 10 years? Which one results in more energy net energy inputs?

      Then you have to consider which process results in more hydrogen for mobile applications. Photovoltaics & electrolysis of water. Or, corn plus the process described in the article.

      Dastardly

  9. Oops =o by jafuser · · Score: 1
    Stay calm, though -- ""We are not talking about spooning glucose into your car to make it go.

    Uh.. So putting sugar in my gas tank was a bad idea? I knew I should have read more than just the title! ;-)

    --
    Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
  10. Mr. Fusion by camusflage · · Score: 2

    Crap, and here I thought we were going to get a Mr. Fusion Home Energy Converter to slap on our Deloreans.

    --
    The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake
  11. Old News... by Conare · · Score: 2

    We already have glucose powered vehicles. They are called "horse and buggy".

    --
    Stop Continental Drift! Reunite Gondwanaland!
  12. Drat! by delorean · · Score: 1
    Man... I sooooo need my Mr. Fusion. Plutonium is getting soooo hard to get now that I can't even travel back in time to when it was easy to get!

    --
    "You may all go to hell and I will go to Texas"
     Sen. Davy Crocket to US Congress, Nov. 1, 1835
  13. Possibly an answer by Spamalamadingdong · · Score: 3, Informative
    What I want to know is how they are keeping the H2 from combining with the O2 at those temperatures.
    They don't, because there is no O2; they start with a water solution of glucose. The reaction would appear to go something like this:

    C6H12O6 + 6 H2O -> 6 CO2 + 12 H2

    --
    Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
  14. Obvious observation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Methane is only 25% hydrogen by mass, so on the order of half the chemical energy of methane comes from the carbon, not the hydrogen.

  15. No combustion by sys$manager · · Score: 1

    I assume the Hydrogen would be used as fuel for PEM Fuel Cells rather than for combustion.

  16. Wow! by Zen+Mastuh · · Score: 2

    Maybe it was because the American flag icon was adjacent to the headline, but I read "Freeing Americans From Glucose" and thought that it was about time someone did just that. Maybe my health insurance premium would go down then...

    --
    "What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
  17. Once Efficiency Rises, End to Arab Oil Cartels by Salis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hydrogen powered fuel cells will do more than operate cars. In fact, cars will probably be the last application of hydrogen fuel cells, partly because carrying a tank of compressed hydrogen around in your car is rather cumbersome. But, imagine all of the factories, manufacturers, refineries, power plants, etc that exist in the U.S? Refineries alone consume something like 5% of the US Oil consumption.

    Now instead of buying that oil from Saudia Arabia, wouldn't it be so much better to grow it in the MidWest? The US already produces more corn than it can consume and so finding new ways to use it to supplement our energy consumption is TRULY amazing.

    Once the effeciency of the involved catalysts increases and the large-scale process is designed you can say BYE BYE to our growing dependency on the MidEast Arab countries and their autocratic governments. The only resource they have is Oil. The only reason why their government is stable is Oil. The only reason why the United States tolerates their lack of civil rights is Oil.

    Bye Bye Oil, Bye Bye Tyranny!

    Say Hello to Mr. & Mrs. Smith of Indiana who farm 1500 acres of corn.

    Which would you prefer to do business with?

    Salis

    --
    Favorite /. tagline: "On the eighth day, God created FORTRAN." And it was good.
    1. Re:Once Efficiency Rises, End to Arab Oil Cartels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod up - one of the smarter comments i've seen on slashdot

  18. Re:HOW DO I FREE MY COCK FROM AN ASSHOLE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    please tell me this guy isnt at his computer awaiting an answer......