Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Enzymes Make Electricity From Jet Fuel Without Ignition

Posted by samzenpus on from the spreading-the-power dept.

An anonymous reader writes University of Utah engineers say they've developed the first room-temperature fuel cell that uses enzymes to help jet fuel produce electricity without needing to ignite the fuel. These new fuel cells can be used to power portable electronics, off-grid power and sensors. A study of the new cells appears online today in the American Chemical Society journal ACS Catalysis. "The major advance in this research is the ability to use Jet Propellant-8 directly in a fuel cell without having to remove sulfur impurities or operate at very high temperature," says the study's senior author. "This work shows that JP-8 and probably others can be used as fuels for low-temperature fuel cells with the right catalysts."

78 comments

  1. Sounds great but by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

    where do you get the enzymes? Is it scalable?

    I hope they don't have to squeeze it from baby kittens.

    1. Re: Sounds great but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wat?

    2. Re: Sounds great but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China is #1 in murdering baby girls, right? Now dead Chinese girls can be used to create fuel enzyme, baby.

    3. Re:Sounds great but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It is a bacterial enzyme. The purification methods in the article are easily scalable to an industrial scale. The only thing that is not clear are what are the yields. However, there is a significant room for optimization of the yield and this is something that is not hard to do. They have also not done any work on optimizing the stability of the enzymes. So I guess there is a lot of room for improvement. Enzymes are used quite a lot on industrial scale in things like laundry detergents for example.

    4. Re: Sounds great but by Truth_Quark · · Score: 1

      Hmmm.

      1.12 males to every female at birth, compared to the world average of 1.07

      It could be the epigenetics of a growing economy. If its not, that's 4.5% less girls born that average: 1 in about 22. (Probably more aborted than murdered.)

  2. Efficiency by Argos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Important question: efficiency?

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

      You are one cynical fellow

    2. Re:Efficiency by camperdave · · Score: 2

      Any efficiency is too efficient. Expect these idealist clowns to be sued into oblivion by the petroleum industry.

      Why? You still need the jet fuel. The Petroleum Industry still gets their cut. They may actually sell more jet fuel if this works out. Imagine every battery replaced by a canister of jet fuel. It would be the Petroleum Industry's dream.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    3. Re:Efficiency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, despite this research coming from the University of Utah and therefore funded by tax dollars, I still need to pay $35 to read the paper?

    4. Re:Efficiency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It depends. How much Utah tax have you paid?

    5. Re:Efficiency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously not enough to cover the tremendous costs of hosting a 100 kilobyte technical pdf for energy researchers.

    6. Re: Efficiency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better question, is it still burnable?
      An alternative might be to use fuel tanks as batteries as well, reducing weight.

    7. Re:Efficiency by tulcod · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That is not how fundamental engineering works.

      What do you think the first solid-state transistor looked like? A neat P-N junction on a silicon wafer, produced by one of those fancy ASML fab machines in Korea? Do you think the first solid-state transistor was capable of speeds anything like what we expect today? Do you think it was "efficient" for any meaning of that word?

      The first solid-state transistor was a piece of plastic jammed into a block of germanium. It was dirty, crooked, difficult to make, and generally a pain in the ass.

      But it was a proof of concept. It took a lot of additional engineering to make it usable in actual electronics. And then a lot more to make it smaller. And then a lot more to make it scalable. And then years and years and years and years of research brought us to what we know today as a transistor.

      But the first transistor was just an impractical oversized proof of concept.

      The research in this article is important. It shows that what was always theoretically an option is actually possible in practice. Scalability, efficiency, effort to produce - none of that matters at this stage. Obviously that would all be interesting next steps, but this shows that the principle works. And that is damn interesting.

    8. Re:Efficiency by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

      Imagine every battery replaced by a canister of jet fuel. It would be the Petroleum Industry's dream.

      Imagine every battery replaced by a canister of jet fuel. It would be the Terrorist Industry's dream.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    9. Re:Efficiency by RabidReindeer · · Score: 2

      Imagine every battery replaced by a canister of jet fuel. It would be the Petroleum Industry's dream.

      Imagine every battery replaced by a canister of jet fuel. It would be the Terrorist Industry's dream.

      Forget Lethal Weapon. Jet fuel is basically kerosene. You can't just touch a match to it and it explodes.

      Actually, some batteries are more explosive than an equivalent (shall we say 3oz.?) sized canister of jet fuel.

    10. Re:Efficiency by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

      Wow so negative. Imagine this as a generator replacement. They already burn hydrocarbons. I would love one for Hurricane season here in South FL. No fire hazard or less of one than a gas generator. No CO issue. No noise.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    11. Re:Efficiency by jittles · · Score: 1

      The research in this article is important. It shows that what was always theoretically an option is actually possible in practice. Scalability, efficiency, effort to produce - none of that matters at this stage. Obviously that would all be interesting next steps, but this shows that the principle works. And that is damn interesting.

      Don't be naive. Of course the efficiency matters at this stage. If this is just as efficient, or more efficient than burning the fuel in a turbine, then it's ready for use now. If it is not, then we know that more research is required. The GP was asking "Is this ready for use, or is this one of those technologies they say we will be using 20 years from now?" He framed that in the question of efficiency because that is how you would measure whether this is a viable method of generation or just a technological marvel.

    12. Re:Efficiency by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      Important question: efficiency?

      And by-products. Hydrogen fuel cells release water vapor as the by-product. What would a petroleum powered fuel cell release and would it be better than what is released in an engine (particularly when scaled up to provide the same power outputs).

    13. Re:Efficiency by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 2

      Imagine every battery replaced by a canister of jet fuel. It would be the Petroleum Industry's dream.

      Imagine every battery replaced by a canister of jet fuel. It would be the Terrorist Industry's dream.

      Forget Lethal Weapon. Jet fuel is basically kerosene. You can't just touch a match to it and it explodes.

      Actually, some batteries are more explosive than an equivalent (shall we say 3oz.?) sized canister of jet fuel.

      Kerosene needs the right conditions to explode, unlike gasoline. It does burn, however. Kerosene, jet fuel and diesel fuel are all basically the same thing, just different purity levels.

    14. Re:Efficiency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a good chance this will never be more efficient than burning it in an efficient engine. IRRC, only the hydrogen atoms contribute to electricity in fuel cells, the carbon just creates waste heat.

    15. Re:Efficiency by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      The research in this article is important. It shows that what was always theoretically an option is actually possible in practice. Scalability, efficiency, effort to produce - none of that matters at this stage. Obviously that would all be interesting next steps, but this shows that the principle works. And that is damn interesting.

      If scalability and efficiency don't matter at this point, then I've got a potato fuel cell that you can build at home. All it takes is a potato and a zinc and copper rod. Works great for running a small clock, for instance. It even has the advantage of being biodegradable. If only I could get a grant, I could work on improving the scalability and efficiency.

    16. Re:Efficiency by kilodelta · · Score: 1

      Very true. I've read a lot about the development of the transistor and the initial prototype was in fact fairly crude. But they'd established a lot of the physics behind solid state before they even built the device.

      When you think about it BJT versus the scads of types of transistors out there now.

    17. Re:Efficiency by Khyber · · Score: 1

      All you have to do is add 36-0-0 nitrate fertilizer to it and you've got one high-explosive fire bomb. Easy lethal weapon.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    18. Re:Efficiency by Spugglefink · · Score: 1

      Why? You still need the jet fuel. The Petroleum Industry still gets their cut. They may actually sell more jet fuel if this works out. Imagine every battery replaced by a canister of jet fuel. It would be the Petroleum Industry's dream.

      It would be the petroleum transportation industry's dream too. Jet fuel requires expensive extra handling, which means more money everywhere.

      I'm down. Sign me up.

    19. Re:Efficiency by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Sure it is interesting. But there are truckloads of interesting fundamental research results that turn out to not have any useful application in practice because they are either not efficient enough, or cheap enough, or practical enough. I can think of lots of questions like: are the enzymes expended with the fuel, how much does it cost to produce the enzymes per gallon of fuel burned, and how efficient the whole scheme is. If it is not efficient enough it would at best only be useful for stationary applications at horrendous $/kWh.

    20. Re:Efficiency by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

      H2O and CO2. Which is the same output as a perfect combustion engine. Of course in practice such a thing as a perfect combustion engine does not exist. You use air instead of O2 in the oxidizer and you get NOx. Even if you used only pure O2 as the oxidizer you would probably still get CO, benzene and crap like that in the exhaust. So you remove the CO, benzene and other crap with a platinum catalyst to turn that crap into CO2 and H2O. Which is what we use right now.

    21. Re:Efficiency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      it doesn't necessarily need to be more efficient to be usable now.

      first it operates at low temperatures without burning, so you don't have a lot of waste heat to deal with.
      second, it would generate the electricity quietly without a loud generator.

      these 2 things mean even if there is an efficiency hit, it could still be useful at least in some niche areas.

      the real question is how much of this enzyme do you need, and how expensive is it? in conjunction with how much fuel it uses. the answer to these questions will tell you whether this is just a niche product that needs more research or is ready for everyone.

    22. Re:Efficiency by mlts · · Score: 4, Interesting

      When RV-ing, fuel cells (EFOY, VeGA [1]) are already on the market. They may not be powerful enough to run an A/C, but good enough to a few months from a liter or two of fuuel.. This keeps the batteries topped off and allows one to use 12 volt items and 120/240 volt items (with an inverter) without the noise of a generator when dry camping.

      A fuel cell running on diesel would be very useful. It would have more energy per volume than methanol or propane, and would go far in supplementing solar.

      For non-RV uses, having a diesel fuel cell to supplement a battery bank if the solar charging system isn't cutting it would be useful. A good set of batteries, and one can have a circuit in their house just for small electrical items that are always on, such as battery chargers. It also makes for a decent UPS.

      [1]: Ironic that Truma, named after a US president, doesn't sell anything other than a propane gauge on this side of the pond, when they have the absolute best RV furnaces, water heaters (water heaters that will auto-dump their tanks rather than allow the water to burst if the tank is about to freeze), fuel cells, and many other niceties.

    23. Re: Efficiency by LeadSongDog · · Score: 1

      Better question, is it still burnable?

      Well, it's a PDF, so whether you can burn it depends on what you print it on. Paper ought to work.

      --
      Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
    24. Re:Efficiency by Russ1642 · · Score: 1

      All you have to do is add 36-0-0 nitrate fertilizer to it and you've got one high-explosive fire bomb. Easy lethal weapon.

      With gasoline you don't even need the fertilizer.

    25. Re:Efficiency by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      All you have to do is add 36-0-0 nitrate fertilizer to it and you've got one high-explosive fire bomb. Easy lethal weapon.

      With gasoline you don't even need the fertilizer.

      Gasoline is more volatile but even it doesn't explode when you touch a match to it.

      That's why internal combustion engines have carburators or similar vaporization systems.

    26. Re:Efficiency by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      Don't be naive. Of course the efficiency matters at this stage. If this is just as efficient, or more efficient than burning the fuel in a turbine, then it's ready for use now. If it is not, then we know that more research is required. The GP was asking "Is this ready for use, or is this one of those technologies they say we will be using 20 years from now?" He framed that in the question of efficiency because that is how you would measure whether this is a viable method of generation or just a technological marvel.

      Well, it's low temperature for starters. It means energy isn't wasted converting the fuel to heat as in a regular turbine. That already gives you a huge efficiency boost since you're not heating a bunch of stuff to thousands of degrees.

      Of course, a reason for the low temperature could be it's a slow reaction, but even slow reactions can be useful if you only need a little power at a time. It means a reasonably sized tank could last far longer than a battery.

    27. Re:Efficiency by turp182 · · Score: 1

      Interesting. Do you know of any small fuel cells (of any type) that output 12 volt DC? I found a small one by Brunton that outputs to USB, but that's not what I'm looking for.

      I'm looking to supplement a 12 volt lead acid battery (supplement = charge) that I take while camping (yeah, I'm a car camper, but I bring along 4 years olds...).

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    28. Re:Efficiency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, you are too late.
      Yes, we have these things called alkaline batteries.

    29. Re:Efficiency by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      After two back to back hurricanes 3 weeks apart I got an generator. It could not run my ac but I did at least have fans. Not having to store lots of gas and and not having to worry about CO would make it a real winner for me. If it is small enough and light enough you could even replace the engine in plug in hybrids with one.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    30. Re:Efficiency by mlts · · Score: 2

      EFOY does. It uses methanol, but a liter of the stuff will last months. Truma has a product, but they refuse to sell anything but their propane meter in the US.

      You will be paying top dollar for the fuel cell. From the prices on US Marine products, the 40, 75, and 105 watt cells run $3499, $4999, and $6999, respectively. The fuel runs $67 for a 10 liter bottle, $193 for a 28 liter bottle.

      If car camping, I'd probably consider a portable solar charger. Even if one builds their own with a MPPT controller, it will be still cheaper than a fuel cell.

    31. Re:Efficiency by mlts · · Score: 1

      The fuel cells I've seen are not going to replace a generator anytime soon. They put out a couple hundred watts out at most, which might be enough to keep a battery bank charged over a period of time, but don't put out enough oomph to directly power electric motors.

      As for disasters, I've seen people use an inverter with Prius and other hybrid models which is functionally equivalent to a generator, although the inverter had to be a PSW model.

      Of course, generators are a good option, but usually I see people buy a generator, use it, stick it in the garage, and in 1-2 years, pull it out, and find that the carb is completely gummed up. Generators either need to be properly fogged or at least run occasionally, and if stored with fuel, need a fuel preservative (Sta-Bil, Star-Tron, Seafoam, or others) added to minimize varnish, especially with ethanol blends, as ethanol sucks water in from the air.

    32. Re:Efficiency by turp182 · · Score: 1

      That's quite a bit out of my price range, but thanks for the info. My "charger" if the battery gets drained will continue to be my vehicle...

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    33. Re:Efficiency by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      I don't think jet fuel requires any more special handling than other similar fuels.

      The advantage of something like jet fuel or diesel is it's already being distributed in large quantities. So those hazardous material handling costs are amortised over a much large volume of fuel. Whereas if you have a special (but similarly hazardous) fuel with higher purity or different additives those costs are spread over a much smaller volume.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    34. Re:Efficiency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      kerosene and diesel are not the same. kerosene burns cleanly and diesel throws off carbon which is why it is not used in jet engines.

    35. Re:Efficiency by Spugglefink · · Score: 1

      I don't think jet fuel requires any more special handling than other similar fuels.

      In this case, it's the difference between thinking and driving a tanker for a living. Bring on the jet fuel contract!

    36. Re: Efficiency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not terrorist's dream because the fuel is potentially flammable... Terrorist's dream because petroleum is how they are funded! Why are they building islands in the shape of islands and palm trees that can be seen from the ISS? Because we spend trillions on our protection racket, (ie: aircraft carriers/fighter/bomber planes etc...) and on billions of barrels of petroleum. We ALREADY harness electricity from fossil fuels. This may be a novel approach, but it's NOT a solution.

    37. Re:Efficiency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any low-temperature is innately efficient as waste is energy you can't use, such as low level heat, but we are getting better at even utilising that.

    38. Re: Efficiency by DavidPetersonHarvey · · Score: 1

      You know kerosene lamps are lit with a match, right?

    39. Re:Efficiency by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      So what if any precautions would you take for jet fuel that you wouldn't take for say petrol or methanol or other common flammable liquids?

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    40. Re:Efficiency by Spugglefink · · Score: 1

      So what if any precautions would you take for jet fuel that you wouldn't take for say petrol or methanol or other common flammable liquids?

      The main thing is that if the tank is ever used to haul any of those other common flammable liquids, you can't load jet fuel onto it. Every last scrap of the transport pathway has to be dedicated 100% to jet fuel, down to the last gasket. There are extra security and training requirements too.

  3. That's the energy crisis sorted out, then! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't wait for the first jet fuel power stations to come online.

    1. Re:That's the energy crisis sorted out, then! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      they'd better hurry up

  4. Oh goody goody by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    All we needed was another way to use petrochemicals! The world is saved!

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Oh goody goody by Required+Snark · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Are you whining just to whine, or is your brain actually the size of a walnut?

      The sponsor is the US military. They have standardized on JP-8

      Apart from powering aircraft, JP-8 is used as a fuel for heaters, stoves, tanks, by the U.S. military and its NATO allies as a replacement for diesel fuel in the engines of nearly all tactical ground vehicles and electrical generators, and as a coolant in engines and some other aircraft components. The use of a single fuel greatly simplifies logistics.

      By the way, the original post was wrong when it said JP-7. That's a specialty fuel used by the SR-71 and hypersonic X-51 Waverider. The research was done using JP-8.

      From a logistics point of view, having a fuel cell that uses the same stuff you use in aircraft, tanks, and trucks is a big win. A fuel cell that is a drop in replacement for existing generators that use JP-8 would be a big deal. That;s why the military is interested.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
  5. This is gonna create by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a booming market.

  6. Not subject to Carnot efficiency limit by stoploss · · Score: 4, Informative

    This isn't a heat engine; therefore, it isn't subject to the Carnot efficiency limit that is a key reason that internal combustion engines have such a low maximum theoretical efficiency in terms of extracting energy from the fuel.

    Hydrocarbons are actually a great energy store for a vehicle: they are thermally stable/don't discharge over time, it's fast & trivial to "recharge" the energy store, and hydrocarbons have orders of magnitude more energy per mass than any form of battery, which improves vehicle efficiency by reducing the mass that has to be lugged around. However, the internal combustion engine is a wastefully inefficient, complicated machine. Ideally, we could get the best of both worlds with a hydrocarbon fuel cell that efficiently produces electricity to drive electric motors for a vehicle. There are other technologies that could potentially accomplish this, such as the solid oxide fuel cell.

    Don't conflate the energy store (hydrocarbons) with the stored energy (e.g. fossil fuels). There is no reason we cannot create hydrocarbons at will using various approaches. Biodiesel from algae is one example as well as "reverse combustion" via more industrial processes (e.g. the Fischer-Tropsch process). Some catalytic processes have been created that use solar power to create hydrocarbons.

    Personally, I prefer the idea of large nuclear plants creating hydrocarbons from atmospheric CO2. As a bonus, we would get to keep our existing petroleum distribution infrastructure while our vehicle fleet becomes carbon neutral. Backwards-compatible carbon neutrality FTW?

    1. Re:Not subject to Carnot efficiency limit by peragrin · · Score: 1

      either Darpa or the Navy are working on producing JP8 from seawater algae. that way aircraft carriers can make the jet fuel needed for their jets.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    2. Re:Not subject to Carnot efficiency limit by olau · · Score: 1

      There is no reason we cannot create hydrocarbons at will using various approaches.

      Except for price. Most alternatives when it comes to energy are limited by costs. Although I think you're right that we'll eventually end up creating/harvesting the hydrocarbons from other sources than the ground.

    3. Re:Not subject to Carnot efficiency limit by stiggle · · Score: 1

      Sandia Labs have a project creating hydrocarbons using photosynthesising cyanobacteria (easier to genetically manipulate)
      As the hydrocarbons float - they just need to skim the top of the tank to get the product.

    4. Re:Not subject to Carnot efficiency limit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Carbon! Carbon! Carbon! Carbon! Carbon! Carbon!

      It still doesn't mean there is any such thing as 'catastrophic man-made global warming', still, your constant use of the word 'carbon' earns you 100 'Earth saviour points'...

      www.climatedepot.com

    5. Re:Not subject to Carnot efficiency limit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > This isn't a heat engine; therefore, it isn't subject to the Carnot efficiency limit [wikipedia.org] that is a key reason that internal combustion engines have such a low maximum theoretical efficiency in terms of extracting energy from the fuel.

      True this isn't limited by the Carnot efficiency, but there still is a fundamental limit on its efficiency - the amount of useful energy can not be greater than the input minus the amount rejected (wasted). Many people hear "not subject to Carnot efficiency" and think that means the amount rejected goes to zero, but it doesn't. If you look at many direct energy devices, the method that the energy is rejected to the surroundings is worse than you would get if you just burned your input and rejected the waste energy to the surroundings via heat transfer.

      If you a rejecting energy through some means other than heat transfer then you can ignore the Carnot efficiency, but you can't get around the fact the inputs need to balance the outputs.

    6. Re:Not subject to Carnot efficiency limit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The is no algae in the Navy design. They are getting the carbon from CO2 dissolved in seawater.

    7. Re:Not subject to Carnot efficiency limit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See here, good man, you seem to be intoxicated. Never fear, you'll be fine when you wake up.

    8. Re:Not subject to Carnot efficiency limit by nojayuk · · Score: 1

      Get back to us when they can make bombs, missiles, ammunition, spare parts and all the other things aircraft carriers consume on a day-to-day basis. Ditto for all the other fuel-burning ships in a carrier group. Until then you can expect a bunch of logistics ships and tankers to accompany the Big Boys wherever they go.

      Where is this supermagical seawater-algae-avgas plant going to fit into the crowded spaces of an aircraft carrier anyway? Eating into the avgas tankage spaces might suffice but the US Navy really needs that volume filled with as much avgas as they can carry for an extended operational cycle. Carriers may be big but every cubic metre is already allocated to something, pretty much.

    9. Re:Not subject to Carnot efficiency limit by dkf · · Score: 1

      Where is this supermagical seawater-algae-avgas plant going to fit into the crowded spaces of an aircraft carrier anyway? Eating into the avgas tankage spaces might suffice but the US Navy really needs that volume filled with as much avgas as they can carry for an extended operational cycle. Carriers may be big but every cubic metre is already allocated to something, pretty much.

      Strategically, it might make more sense to have these fuel production systems at the depots that the logistics ships/tankers come from, so that you're not critically dependent on having fuel supplies to them. Like that, an unfortunate catastrophe (whether natural, accidental or due to malicious intent) at a US naval base would be less likely to render large parts of the fleet impotent. The key is thinking in terms of ensuring that even if something really bad happens, the operational missions are not compromised more than necessary; planning for the worst, even if not hoping that it will come to pass.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
  7. Still a fossil fuel with a carbon footprint. by stiggle · · Score: 1

    So much for developing low carbon fuels - this is just kicking out more fossil fuel based CO2.
    Doesn't matter what method you use to fully oxidise long carbon chains to release energy the results are still CO2 and H2O. There enzymes are only converting available energy at around 30%

    1. Re:Still a fossil fuel with a carbon footprint. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Not if you are using biodiesel.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  8. Reverse by Livius · · Score: 1

    It's progress. Just get the process to go backwards and solar power *will* solve the carbon and energy problems.

  9. No Smoking or Open Flame Near Fuel Cell! by fygment · · Score: 1

    Not only is it a 'fossi'l fuel but the JP line of fuels are highly flammable and aromatic ie. they evaporate easily ... and that vapor (surprise) ignites easily.

    --
    "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
    1. Re:No Smoking or Open Flame Near Fuel Cell! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still not as flammable as gasoline, IIRC.

    2. Re:No Smoking or Open Flame Near Fuel Cell! by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      nah, they're kerosene

    3. Re:No Smoking or Open Flame Near Fuel Cell! by fruity_pebbles · · Score: 2

      JP-8 is nearly identical to Jet A-1, which is the fuel used in commercial jet airplanes and is mostly kerosene. It's not very aromatic and is harder to ignite than gasoline. You may be thinking of JP-4, which is similar to commercial Jet B. JP-4 and Jet B have naptha in addition to the kerosene.

    4. Re:No Smoking or Open Flame Near Fuel Cell! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      drop a cigarette in Jet A-1, and you put it out.

  10. Wait a Minute by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    This news brought to you by the same school that came out with cold fusion...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
    1. Re:Wait a Minute by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      ...and all the researchers involved are from the same planet as Pons and Fleischmann, too! Surely this is significant.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  11. Potential Efficiency by tomxor · · Score: 1

    The process of refining the efficiency of a device or process is not the same as evaluating it's potential efficiency.

    The maximum potential efficiency of a given chemical process is knowable in the same way that the maximum potential efficiency of a given type of solid state solar panel.

  12. So...besides the electricity...what by Grey+Geezer · · Score: 1

    exactly is the byproduct? Is the kerosene completely consumed? If not, what does it change into, and is it usable, or does it become a deadly poison? I read the article but missed that part.

    --
    The USA is only 4X older than me...perspective
  13. Re:call for an immediate audit, criminal charges by slazzy · · Score: 1

    Call it by it's other name then; kerosene lamp oil and everything is fine.

    --
    Website Just Down For Me? Find out