Virtual Utility Technology License Available

/0 Comments/in , /by

The “Virtual Utility” (VU) concept provides intelligent coordination and aggregation of distributed resources through web-based connectivity. ABB developed an extensive portfolio of technology and IP which is now being made available for license, as an “enabler” in distributed generation markets. This comes as a result of the company’s recent move to tighten its business focus.

The ABB VU technology is centered on an internet-accessible control center by which clients or aggregates of clients can intelligently monitor and control distributed resource assets. Both distributed generation (DG) and distributed storage assets can be connected by the VU into a single highly flexible integrated power resource.

Both utilities and large consumers of energy will use the VU. Once commercialized, the VU can be sold as either an enterprise-wide “micro SCADA-like” system or as an Internet service provider where customers can call in to monitor and control their assets. The value provided by such a product could consist of any or all of the following:

– Universal monitoring ? the VU can offer the possibility of monitoring all distributed resource assets regardless of type, manufacturer, or date of manufacture.
– Power reliability ? with interconnected DG one can guarantee higher availability for important loads.
– Peak shaving ? fast dispatchable generation can avoid maximum demand surcharges and curtailment orders.
– Network optimization ? connection of DG units can be optimized to ensure the most economic and secure network; microgrids can be operated where bulk power supply reinforcement cannot be justified.
– Network safety ? protection settings can be monitored and calculated dynamically to ensure that power flows do not affect network protection parameters.
– Energy trading ? aggregated units can provide surplus energy from non-DG sources, which then can be sold.

Several business models are possible using such tools. Revenues can possibly be generated proactively ? by engaging in peak shaving, energy trading, premium power, etc. or by providing a service bureau business to allow others to access and control the DG equipment through a server that contains the required intelligent applications and communication technology. This latter arrangement relieves the customer of the responsibility of maintaining the database, updating software applications, etc. and provides the financial attractiveness of a lease rather than a purchase.

The Virtual Utility can have a significant impact on the bottom-line of a DG project or series of projects. Although the cost of the control and communication system is usually a small part of the cost of the project, its performance can be a determining factor in overall economic success. An intelligent control system can ensure the lowest energy and maintenance costs, the largest profit, the best payback, or even the greatest system reliability. It also can aggregate many small power generators into a more marketable mass.

The VU concept can be applied to both new and existing assets. As a minimum, the retrofit to existing emergency back-up generators would provide value in automatic testing and reporting. Further benefits of peak shaving and aggregation of load can also be realized depending on the VU owner.

VU also solves another serious future issue for distributed generation — the ability to connect many various distributed devices involving different technologies and manufacturers. VU thus becomes the infrastructure for all distributed resources and an enabler for market expansion.

The ABB concept is focused on low installation and operating cost, flexible control intelligence, and universal adaptability along with possible integration with existing power system assets. Low costs are achieved through technologies such as a browser based data server, wireless LAN, and the communication and control network. Control intelligence is achieved via economic planning and optimization algorithms, utilizing situation specific dispatching levels, and a hybrid central / local control logic. This platform is universally accessible to all distributed resources through intelligent electronic device configuration and information handling processes.

This intellectual property is represented by a patent portfolio, technical documentation, business model and market evaluation, and technical expertise related to hardware, software, and analytical tools. Technical assistance would be available to assist the integration of this technology into a current system or developing and commercializing a new system.

For more information, contact UFTO, if you or any company you work with might have an interest.

Leveraging the Feds

/0 Comments/in , /by

Federal research programs represent an opportunity for private industry to get additional resources applied to their RD&D projects and other business goals. Many companies, and a few utilities, have been successful at this for a long time.

This discussion is an initial introduction to what it takes to tap the Feds, and DOE/Labs in particular. If there is interest, UFTO stands ready to dig deeper.

The good news is that: it can be done, as evidenced by the companies that do it successfully and repeatedly (“best practice”). The bad news is that it isn’t easy, especially starting fresh. “Startup costs” may be considerable, and the ongoing costs are significant as well, particularly administrative. Companies with a lot experience have advised: don’t do it for a couple $100K; be in for the long haul; it’s a means, not an end; and start with knowing what you want to do. Bottom line– there are resources, programs, and mechanisms that can lead to leverage, but if you want to drink, you have to go to the well.

Federal Tech Transfer

Starting in the early 80’s, Congress and executive orders have been steadily reshaping U.S. federal research policy to expand the importance of technology transfer. Over time, it has become easier and easier for federal agencies to grant private parties the rights to technology and IP developed at federal labs. Working with industry is now the norm.

The emphasis on tech transfer is aimed to get results of federal R&D programs into use — thus fulfilling a (new) mission to help U.S. industry be more competitive. Where these efforts provide resources, industry gets a chance for leverage –it’s just the other side of the same coin.

Where federal spending is targeted at policy goals (such as conservation or advancing a new technology), utilities can be particularly appropriate partners. Another point to keep in mind–the labs are always looking for ways to maintain funding for their programs. An outside funder can gain tremendous leverage by adding resources to ongoing programs which can adapt to meet the funder’s own requirements.

If a private company wins a government award to develop new technology, it usually has to come up with matching funds (especially if it expects to hold on to the resulting IP). From the company’s point of view, their portion is leveraged substantially compared with a go-it-alone approach. (In the case a startup, an equity investor who provides the matching funds will find that his money goes that much farther.)

For a good overview and introduction to federal tech transfer, see the Federal Lab Consortium’s “Green Book”, available online or in hardcopy.
http://www.federallabs.org/ (scroll down, on left margin under “Resources”)

There are many contracting mechanisms for working with the government, ranging from outright grants to actual fee-for-service. National labs in particular like to say that contracting should not be an obstacle, that they will find a way to make it work. (Non-U.S. companies shouldn’t be discouraged from looking into opportunities– there usually are ways to deal with restrictions that might otherwise interfere.)

– CRADA (Cooperative R&D Agreement)
– Cost Share/Cofund
– Licensing
– User Facilities
– Work-For-Others
– Personnel Exchange
– Data & Information Exchange
– Consulting & Technical Assistance (by Lab personnel)
– Contracts
– Financial Assistance
– Grants (SBIR, Clean Coal, STTR, TRP, ATP, etc.)
– Consortia (“Industry Partnerships”)
– Informal Collegial Contact!

The main agency for energy is obviously DOE, and other agencies have extensive energy programs as well (e.g., DOD , NASA, Commerce, EPA, Agriculture, Transportation, Interior, etc.). Within DOE, two major programs account for most of the relevant activity:
– Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (EREN) http://www.eren.doe.gov/
– Fossil Energy (FE) http://www.fe.doe.gov/

Solicitations are handled by headquarters, regional program offices, or labs. NREL and NETL in particular seem to be heavily involved in supporting headquarters with administering solicitations and managing programs.
NREL-Nat’l Renewable Energy Lab, CO http://www.nrel.gov
NETL- Nat’l Energy Technology Lab; WV, PA — formerly METC & PETC
http://www.netl.doe.gov/

Solicitations Listings

EREN provides this site as a general starting point
>> http://www.eren.doe.gov/solicitations/

DOE’s Seattle Regional Office publishes a comprehensive compilation of solicitations — from multiple agencies and foundations — relating to energy efficiency, renewable energy, and sustainable development. They maintain online a 15-20 page “Open Solicitations Summary” and also send out a monthly email announcement of all new items.
>> http://www.eren.doe.gov/sro
Go to “Open Solicitations” link to see the new monthly listings. Also note instructions on how to be added to the email distribution. The link “Open Solicitations Summary” will take you to the archive where you can download the complete list. (Be sure to look at the last page of the summary for additional information about sources of information.)

On behalf of Fossil Energy, NETL provides alerts, solicitations, CRADA lore, etc., at:
>> http://www.netl.doe.gov/business/
The “Solicitations” link gives a list of current and future opportunities (plus a link to archives).
>> http://www.netl.doe.gov/business/solicit/main.html

All DOE solicitations are now handled through the new centralized Industry Interactive Procurement System (IIPS). It is used to post solicitations and amendments, receive proposals/applications, and disseminate award information. Entities wishing to participate in these solicitations will need to register at the IIPS Webster. Proposals will only be accepted through IIPS, unless otherwise indicated within the solicitation document.

IIPS takes some getting used to. “Guest” users can see most everything, but navigation is not easy. Guest users click on “Browse Opportunities”, and are stuck scrolling through 100’s of listings by number. It’s worth registering for a password, otherwise you can’t use the “Main View” which gives you much better sorting capabilities (e.g., by contracting office).
>> http://e-center.doe.gov or http://pr.doe.gov

[Caution: Don’t be surprised to see that “solicitations” in IIPS include everything DOE buys, from research (RFPs) to light bulbs to janitorial services. The Seattle list is a valuable filter.]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Some additional links that provide information and guidance on working with the government:

Argonne National Lab Tech Transfer Office
http://www.techtransfer.anl.gov/

Laboratory Coordinating Council
Specifically geared to the major “Industries of the Future” from the DOE Office of Industrial Technology.
http://www.oit.doe.gov/lcc/

DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Program
— Sign up to receive notices (right margin, at the bottom)
http://www.eren.doe.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Advanced Technology Program: partners with the private-sector to develop broadly beneficial technologies. ATP applies across almost any technology area–R&D, (*not* commercialization). Proposal teams often include private companies, startups, labs, universities, etc.
>> http://www.atp.nist.gov/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Utilities and DOE

Some utilities have been working closely with DOE for a long time, and others are just now entering the game.

Electricity Advisory Board http://www.eab.energy.gov/
Established Nov 2001 to advise on electricity policy issues. Specifically, the DOE’s electricity programs; current and future capacity of the electricity system; issues related to production, reliability and utility restructuring; and coordination between the DOE and state and regional officials and the private sector on matters affecting electricity supply and reliability. Chair is Lynn Draper, CEO of AEP. Many of the CEO members come from utilities that are household words in DOE. (NiSource, DTE, SoCo, etc.)

The Clean Coal Program, which began mid 80’s, has funded major projects with companies like AEP, Tampa Elec, SoCo, etc. The recent solicitation (Clean Coal Power Initiative Round One Proposals – 8/02) attracted a number of new players (Ameren, IP&L, LG&E, Wepco, etc.).
http://fossil.energy.gov/techline/tl_ccpi_round1_proposals.shtml
http://fossil.energy.gov/techline/tl_ccpi_rd1proposals.html

Efficiency & Renewables likewise sees old and new companies at its conferences and responding to its solicitations, particularly in DG, Storage, Hydrogen, etc. (SCE, Nipsco, DTE, Com Ed, SRP…)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here is some advice compiled from conversations with people at DOE and in the utilities.

Know what DOE is trying to do that fits with your company’s goals
(attend workshops, review meetings, conferences etc.)

Get to know the people and programs, and understand what they’re up to.
( might be able influence what goes into an RFP)

Information/access is public, but only some companies bother to look.
extent of involvement depends on objectives

Work out a strategy, pick out a couple of areas, and put foot in the door.

Key is to find a (programmatic) match and a (contracting) vehicle.
(most DOE work is competed and cost-shared)

Follow the solicitations; understand procedures

Congressional earmark is a possibility, but doesn’t make any friends in DOE

Companies participate (in R&D/DOE) for variety of reasons
(PR, reg. pressures, …and sometimes… actual business goals!)

Don’t need to be insider (but it doesn’t hurt). DOE welcomes new faces and new ideas.

Sugar to Hydrogen by Aqueous Catalysis

/0 Comments/in , /by

In its August 29 issue, Nature magazine published an article by a distinguished group of researchers at the Univ. of Wisconsin who have succeeded in producing hydrogen and fuel gas directly from sugars and other compounds (ethylene glycol, glycerol, etc.). The novel new process is not biological, but catalytic, and represents a key breakthrough– it is the first time anyone has successfully done catalysis of carbohydrates in the aqueous phase, and at moderate temperatures and pressures to boot. (Catalysis is always done in the vapor phase, but previous attempts with carbohydrates have always failed because reaction products clog up the catalyst.) Filed patent applications have very broad claims.

The process is called Aqueous Phase Carbohydrate Reforming (ACR), and it represents a fundamentally new route for renewable fuel gas generation from biomass. The ACR process is simple, versatile and scalable over several orders of magnitude. It can utilize safe, non-flammable feedstocks as well as renewable biomass derived feedstocks. Also, hydrogen is produced with low carbon monoxide concentrations, using a single reactor vessel.

Feedstocks are plentiful and varied. To date, best results have been obtained with methanol and ethylene glycol (storable and transportable as liquid fuels!). Glycerol, derived from the esterification of fats and oils, will be available in large quantities as a byproduct of making biodiesel fuel. A lot of attention is being given to biomass ethanol, however ethanol production relies on fermentation of glucose. Processes that break down cellulosic biomass produce a mix of higher sugars which are not readily femented. ACR is much less picky.

A near term product involves using ACR to produce a fuel gas (light alkanes) fed to an IC engine genset. As fuel cells mature, they can be wedded to ACR hydrogen production.

A company, Virent Energy Systems, has been established to commercialize the technology. They are confident that scale-up will largely be a matter of standard chemical engineering, and intend to pursue aggressive product development and licensing strategies across a wide range of applications and markets. They are looking for investment to finance cost sharing of government grants. (A small investment now will enjoy substantial leverage if an ATP award comes through. The company is optimistic.) I have a brief summary and status update from the company which I can provide on request, and a business plan is available.

Contact:
Dr. Mark Daugherty, CEO
Virent Energy Systems, Madison, WI
608-663-0228 mark_daugherty@virent.com

Company website:
http://www.virent.com

University press release:
http://www.engr.wisc.edu/news/headlines/2002/Aug28.html

Paper in NATURE:
http://www.engr.wisc.edu/news/headlines/pdfs/nature01009_r.pdf

An account aimed at high-school students
http://whyfiles.org/161renew_en/

UFTO NOTES 2002

/0 Comments/in , /by

08 Dec 2002 UFTO Note – 2002 Fuel Cell Seminar
05 Dec 2002 UFTO Note – H2 from Multiple Fuels & Polymeric Membrane Separation
15 Nov 2002 UFTO Note – H2 Production Adapts Smelting Technology
03 Nov 2002 UFTO Note – Optic Fiber Inside Transm Cable Measures Temperature
29 Oct 2002 UFTO Note – Solid State Power Breakthrough
14 Oct 2002 UFTO Note – Thermoelectrics Revisited
01 Oct 2002 UFTO Note – Short Subjects
06 Sep 2002 UFTO Note – Ice Mitigation
19 Aug 2002 UFTO Note – Staged Combustion with Nitrogen-Enriched Air (SCNEA)
05 Aug 2002 UFTO Note – Utility Telecom Has a Future-PurOptix
01 Aug 2002 UFTO Note- E-lecTrade Enables Trading of Structured Products
12 Jul 2002 UFTO Note – EESAT’02 Electricity Storage Conference
08 Jul 2002 UFTO Note – Digital Hubbub-IEEE Spectrum
10 Jun 2002 UFTO Note-DOE H2&FC Reviews
24 May 2002 UFTO Note – NREL VISIT
20 May 2002 UFTO Forward- NRECA DG tools
17 May 2002 UFTO Note – Small scale Gas to Liquids (GTL)
25 Apr 2002 UFTO Note – PowerWAN PLC to Solve Last-Mile
22 Mar 2002 UFTO Note – New Small Turbines, 600 Watts to 2 MW
16 Feb 2002 UFTO Note – IEEE 1547 Interconnection Working Group
15 Feb 2002 UFTO Note – DOE Distributed Power Review
26 Jan 2002 UFTO Note – Fluid Mechanical Energy Recovery
23 Jan 2002 UFTO Note – 2001 IEEE T&D Expo
17 Jan 2002 UFTO Note – NEETRAC R&D Focused on Power Delivery

2002 Fuel Cell Seminar

/0 Comments/in , /by

Fuel Cell Seminar http://www.gofuelcell.com
Nov 18-21, Palm Springs, CA

The Fuel Cell Seminar has been held every two years* since 1978. Until recently, it’s been essentially a scientific forum. The 2000 event (in Portland OR) saw a major change into a full blown trade show. That trend continued this time, with 50% larger attendance (3000) and many more than twice the number of exhibitors (125). The event is very international, with huge contingents from Europe and Asia. For the first time, simultaneous translation in Japanese was provided. (*From now on, they’re going annual–the next one will be in Miami, Nov ’03.)

The mood this time, however, was distinctly different. Recall that January 2000 started with a runaway boom in stock prices and excitement over fuel cells. By November, that surge was still strong, and the event had the feel of a celebration. In contrast, this year the mood was almost grim, or at least very subdued. Beyond the effects of the wider economic doldrums, the reality has set in that cost and performance of fuel cell technology just aren’t there yet. Fuel cells are still years from being ready for a meaningful ramp-up in commercial market penetration. Investment bankers and venture capitalists, who were very much a presence in 2000, were few and far between this time.

A great many of the exhibitors were suppliers to the industry, offering membranes, catalysts, pumps and valves, test equipment, etc. Thus the comment that people were there to sell to each other, not to sell fuel cells to real customers. (The only customers appear to be governments–see below.) It is possible to spin this positively–companies like 3-M and Agilent wouldn’t be bothered if they didn’t see a big opportunity down the road. The large attendance could be viewed in the same light. The saying goes that it’s a matter of when, not if [that fuel cells will be a practical reality on a large commercial scale].

Keynote Address
S. David Freeman was blunt (as usual) in his keynote address–fuel cells have not achieved financial viability; the fuel cell car is a huge publicity stunt–not yet a practical reality; and distributed generation (via fuel cells) doesn’t have the political appeal that renewable energy enjoys. He urged the industry to pay more attention to the question of fuels for fuel cells, and suggested that it’s in everyone’s interest to deploy hydrogen burning IC engines, to build up the hydrogen infrastructure independent of and in parallel with fuel cell development.

Four keynote lectures followed:
– DOE Fossil Energy Fuel Cell Program (Victor Der for George Rudins)
FE spends $250 million/year for stationary fuel cell RD&D, mostly on SECA and FC-Hybrids. SECA is the initiative whose goal is $400/kw planar solid oxide fuel cell. Contracts have been awarded to four industry teams to pursue various technical strategies.
(http://www.seca.doe.gov/)

– Stationary Perspective (Jerry Leitman, Fuel Cell Energy)
Stationary plants are commercially available today, and offer dramatic efficiency and emissions improvements over engines and combined cycle plants.

– Transportation Perspective (Andrew Schell, for Ferdinand Panik, DaimlerChrysler)
Fuel cells in transportation are a necessity to gain the “freedoms” (i.e. of choice, from emissions, from oil dependence, etc). Applications will ramp up over the next 7 years to become truly commercial. New fuel insfrastructures must be deployed. (In January, DOE replaced the PNGV with FreedomCAR, concentrating on hydrogen and fuel cells http://www.ott.doe.gov/freedom_car.shtml).

– Portable Perspective (Laryy DuBois, SRI)
There is no Moore’s Law for batteries. The price paid per kw is high compared with large scale power, creating an opportunity for fuel cells. Drivers include longer runtime, fast recharge, unlimited recharge, etc. A dozen companies at least plan to be selling products sometime in the next 3 years. Concentration is on direct methanol or PEM, with at least one SOFC to run on butane. The competition isn’t standing still, with advances in batteries and ultracaps, as well as work on nano-heat engines and RF scavenging. (I have a pdf of this presentation-2MB)

– Fuel Perspective (Don Huberts, Shell Hydrogen)
Stationary, Transportation and Portable each have different requirements for refueling infrastructure, and no single answer will suffice. There needs to be a mix of technologies, primary energy sources, and delivery means.

Program Overviews
A series of presentations outlined programs and budgets deveoted to fuel cell developments funded by the European Commission, Germany, Japan, and the US (DOE). Strong long term commitments were evident, with expressed goals of meeting Kyoto requirements and reducing oil dependence through hydrogen and fuel cells. $100s of millions are budgeted. Notably, they all talk in terms of gradual progress up the adoption curve, with the bulk of activity over the next 6-10 years in demos and projects.

Papers
In addition to over 230 poster papers, parallel sessions included presentations on PEM R&D, SOFC, Commercialization and Demonstrations, Fuel Processing and DMFC/Portable. Many of the papers were highly technical and specialized, while others were little more than general overviews for companies and programs (some bordering on infommercials).

Observations
Reflecting on the general state of the industry, governments appear to be the main customers for fuel cell companies, along with the big carmakers who are doing demos, partnerships, and their own development programs (GM was curiously quiet at this event). Otherwise, it just seems to be a swarm of similar sounding programs, and it’s nearly impossible to see any real differentiation that would indicate a possible eventual winner.

This is especially true in PEM, and also to some extent in SOFC. Fuel Cell Energy, of course, is the only US molten carbonate company, and they are just introducing a new and improved series of models into their 12 MW order backlog. They are “commercial”, but price remains an issue, as well as perceived technical risk on the part of buyers (the US Navy does seem to be keen on them for shipboard use). Meanwhile, companies like Plug and Nuvera have quietly stopped talking about residential.

As the long slow march of this technology continues, maybe the traditional approaches are just too difficult. Almost everyone seems to be pursuing the same old stacks with bolts around the edge, and the same handful of reformer technologies. Meanwhile, a number of “stealth” developments are underway, out of the spotlight, by people who are thinking different. They may just come along with novel new approaches that break through the age-old dilemmas of cost, manufacturability, and performance. One is almost tempted to think that if something is being presented at conferences, it’s not cutting edge, and it’s not the answer. (And it’s a safe bet that companies that do make presentations are probably not telling us about their really good stuff.)

Here is an example of such a possible “end-run”: Microcell Corp had a booth showing a very different configuration for a fuel cell system. Very few details were given, but they did tell me their cost goal is less than $100/kw. The cells are long thin hollow tubes (less than 1 mm in diameter) whose wall consists of the anode, electrolyte, and cathode, and which can be made by extrusion. The cells can be arrayed in bundles in a tube and header configuration, and high power densities are predicted. The company is in the 2nd year of a 3 year ATP grant, with cofunding investment by Pepco. www.microcellcorp.com
http://www.atp.nist.gov/awards/00004429.htm

Ceramic Fuel Cell Ltd, of Australia, presented its new all ceramic SOFC stack technology which looks very promising. Temperature cycling is the big issue for SOFC’s and their latest set of innovations have resulted in a simple rugged design.
http://www.cfcl.com.au/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
References and Publications:

Abstracts of the 2002 Fuel Cell Seminar–the book is 2 ” thick; also on a CD, available for purchase ($55 and $30, respectively). Contact:
Catherine Porterfield

European Integrated Hydrogen Project
http://www.eihp.org/
White paper: “European Transport Policy for 2010 : time to decide ”
http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy_transport/en/lb_en.html

New releases (at the seminar):
2002 Annual Progress Report, H2, FC and Infrastructure Technologies Programs, 400 page book, or CD. Also online at http://www.eren.doe.gov/hydrogen/publications.html

The new 6th edition of the DOE Fuel Cell Handbook (Oct 2002) was handed out at the Seminar. This comprehensive textbook (450 pages) can be ordered on CD at http://198.99.246.10/

~~~~~~
Overview of Portable Power
The German company Smart Fuel Cell is among the many contenders in portable power, and appear to be making good progress towards commercialization. They were listed among Scientific American’s 50 Business Leaders (Dec issue)
http://www.smartfuelcell.de/en/index.html

They cite this helpful overview of the market on their website:
http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/FuelCellToday/FCTFiles/FCTArticleFiles/Article_509_MarketSurveyPortableApplications.pdf
~~~~~~

[web tips]
— The NETL website has its fuel cell materials under the Strategic Center for Natural Gas. Look under “End-Use” to find fuel cells.
http://www.netl.doe.gov/scng/enduse/enduse.html

— The DOD has a website http://www.dodfuelcell.com/ which details a major residential PEM demo program, as well as the Army’s Fuel Cell Test & Evaluation Center (FCTEC), operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC) in Johnstown, PA

~~~~~~~~~
By coincidence, this article appeared right after the Seminar

More Rationalization Of Fuel-Cell Companies Expected
By Lynne Olver, Dow Jones Newswires — Nov 25, 2002

VANCOUVER — The fuel-cell industry is entering an “important phase” in which more corporate consolidation can be expected, according to Pierre Rivard, president and chief executive of Hydrogenics Corp. (HYGS). Rivard said the PC and telecom industries tend to have a few dominant players, and he expects a similar pattern in the fuel-cell business over the next three years.

“It’s typical that, post-consolidation, you might see two, three, perhaps four emerging, larger-sized companies and to me that’s very healthy,” Rivard told Dow Jones.

. . . . The article goes on to describe Plug Power’s acquisition of H Power, and Global Thermoelectric’s interest in finding a buyer or major partner for its SOFC business.

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,BT_CO_20021125_005129-search,00.html?collection=autowire%2F30day&vql_string=olver%3Cin%3E%28article%2Dbody%29

H2 from Multiple Fuels & Polymeric Membrane Separation

/0 Comments/in , /by

So much is going on in hydrogen these days, but one still wonders whether truly novel developments will ultimately be the key to making H2 an economic and practical part of the energy system. H2fuel, a small technology development company in Chicago, has two important innovations that may be examples the kinds of breakthroughs that are needed.

1. Fuel Processor — Simpler cheaper integrated autothermal reformer system–sulfur tolerant

2. Polymeric Membrane — A unique new membrane that removes CO2 and H2S, by a chemical mass transport, not physical separation, while reducing CO.

H2fuel is jointly owned by Avista Labs(70%) and Unitel Fuel Technologies (30%). H2fuel is looking for investors. A business plan is available.

Contacts:
Lee Camara, Unitel, ehc.unitel@usa.net 847-297-2265
Mike Davis, Avista Labs, mdavis@avistalabs.com 509-228-6685

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here are some technical details, adapted from a 4-page summary the company has prepared, complete with color graphics. (download – password required):
http://www.ufto.com/clients-only/H2fuel.doc.

Fuel Processor

A couple of years ago, H2fuel took over funding of work at Argonne on an autothermal reformer (ATR), and introduced new sulfur-tolerant catalysts. A key goal was to process any number of standard (sulfur bearing) fuels in the same device. The system now promises low cost, simple operation, ease of manufacture, rapid cycling (load following), and ease of manufacture.

Sulfur-tolerant water gas shift (WGS) catalysts have been qualified for both medium temperature and low temperature applications. One of the most significant breakthroughs is the elimination of the zinc oxide bed, thus allowing the H2S produced in this processor to go right through the reactor without any deleterious effects. The H2S is continuously removed by a new subsystem downstream (see below).

The CO produced in the fuel processor, ~1%, depending on the fuel, acts as a PEM fuel cell poison because it affects the anode electrocatalyst. H2fuel has developed a unique method for reducing the CO level to below 10 ppm, thus eliminating this problem.

H2fuel’s new hydrogen processor, with its sulfur-tolerant autothermal and water gas shift catalysts, and without the need for a zinc oxide bed, has been tested continuously for over 2500 hours with natural gas containing ~20 ppm sulfur compounds. During this period, it has successfully completed several load-following tests and maintained an output gas composition (dry basis) of 45% H2, 15% CO2, 1% CO, 0.4% CH4, balance N2. This reactor continues to be tested; however, the fuel is being changed to regular gasoline, and later to fuel grade ethanol.

Polymeric Membrane

On a separate front, under the auspices of a R&D program originally started at the University of Kentucky, and now being continued at Ohio State University, H2fuel has a controlling position in the IP developing polymeric membrane products and support devices to facilitate the removal of H2S and CO2 from the reformate product streams. The key component of this membrane separator is a surface layer that reacts with H2S and CO2, but not with H2 and CO. The membrane transports the reaction products from one side of the membrane to the other by mass transport. The H2S and CO2 desorb on the other side and are swept away. The H2 and CO don’t react with the membrane and are retained on the reformate side. A second membrane stage incorporates a catalyst to deplete the remaining CO in the reformate to less than 10 ppm.

This membrane technology can be used as well to clean up H2 from other production processes. Some major fuel cell companies have made clear their interest once higher temperature operation of the membrane is accomplished.

H2 from Multiple Fuels & Polymeric Membrane Separation

/0 Comments/in , /by

Subject: UFTO Note – H2 from Multiple Fuels & Polymeric Membrane Separation
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002

So much is going on in hydrogen these days, but one still wonders whether truly novel developments will ultimately be the key to making H2 an economic and practical part of the energy system. H2fuel, a small technology development company in Chicago, has two important innovations that may be examples the kinds of breakthroughs that are needed.

1. Fuel Processor — Simpler cheaper integrated autothermal reformer system–sulfur tolerant

2. Polymeric Membrane — A unique new membrane that removes CO2 and H2S, by a chemical mass transport, not physical separation, while reducing CO.

H2fuel is jointly owned by Avista Labs(70%) and Unitel Fuel Technologies (30%). H2fuel is looking for investors. A business plan is available.

Contacts:
Lee Camara, Unitel, ehc.unitel@usa.net 847-297-2265
Mike Davis, Avista Labs, mdavis@avistalabs.com 509-228-6685

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here are some technical details, adapted from a 4-page summary the company has prepared, complete with color graphics. (download – password required):
http://www.ufto.com/clients-only/H2fuel.doc.

Fuel Processor

A couple of years ago, H2fuel took over funding of work at Argonne on an autothermal reformer (ATR), and introduced new sulfur-tolerant catalysts. A key goal was to process any number of standard (sulfur bearing) fuels in the same device. The system now promises low cost, simple operation, ease of manufacture, rapid cycling (load following), and ease of manufacture.

Sulfur-tolerant water gas shift (WGS) catalysts have been qualified for both medium temperature and low temperature applications. One of the most significant breakthroughs is the elimination of the zinc oxide bed, thus allowing the H2S produced in this processor to go right through the reactor without any deleterious effects. The H2S is continuously removed by a new subsystem downstream (see below).

The CO produced in the fuel processor, ~1%, depending on the fuel, acts as a PEM fuel cell poison because it affects the anode electrocatalyst. H2fuel has developed a unique method for reducing the CO level to below 10 ppm, thus eliminating this problem.

H2fuel’s new hydrogen processor, with its sulfur-tolerant autothermal and water gas shift catalysts, and without the need for a zinc oxide bed, has been tested continuously for over 2500 hours with natural gas containing ~20 ppm sulfur compounds. During this period, it has successfully completed several load-following tests and maintained an output gas composition (dry basis) of 45% H2, 15% CO2, 1% CO, 0.4% CH4, balance N2. This reactor continues to be tested; however, the fuel is being changed to regular gasoline, and later to fuel grade ethanol.

Polymeric Membrane

On a separate front, under the auspices of a R&D program originally started at the University of Kentucky, and now being continued at Ohio State University, H2fuel has a controlling position in the IP developing polymeric membrane products and support devices to facilitate the removal of H2S and CO2 from the reformate product streams. The key component of this membrane separator is a surface layer that reacts with H2S and CO2, but not with H2 and CO. The membrane transports the reaction products from one side of the membrane to the other by mass transport. The H2S and CO2 desorb on the other side and are swept away. The H2 and CO don’t react with the membrane and are retained on the reformate side. A second membrane stage incorporates a catalyst to deplete the remaining CO in the reformate to less than 10 ppm.

This membrane technology can be used as well to clean up H2 from other production processes. Some major fuelcell companies have made clear their interest once higher temperature operation of the membrane is accomplished.

H2 Production Adapts Smelting Technology

/0 Comments/in , /by

In iron making, carbon (coke) is mixed into molten iron oxide, and the result is elemental iron (Fe) and CO2. Alchemix’s new process, HydroMax,then introduces steam, which makes H2 while converting the Fe back to iron oxide. These two steps are done one after the other, and the fixed inventory of iron/iron oxide remains in place. (To produce a steady output stream, two reactors alternate, one in each mode.)

FeO + C –> Fe + CO2
Fe + H2O –> FeO + H2

By adding some tin to the melt, sulfur that comes in with the carbon is readily dealt with. Tin and sulfur form tin sulfide (SnS). TheSnS is combusted to form tin oxide(SnO2) and SO2. The SnO2 goes back into the melt to be reduced back to tin along with the iron oxide, and the SO2 is scrubbed from the exhaust (and used to make fertilizer).

Note that the H2 comes from the water, not from a hydrocarbon. The carbon merely provides process heat, and the reforming of the iron oxide.At the very high temperature (1300 deg C), any carbon compound will be quickly reduced to elemental carbon, opening the way to use low value or waste material feedstocks.

Alchemix has adapted widely used metal smelting reactors to both produce hydrogen and reduce iron oxide back into iron. The specific technology is the top-submerged lance furnace which is currently operating in more than thirty commercial installations worldwide. These furnaces routinely convert ores of tin, lead, copper, zinc and iron into metal. The principal function of these reactors is to obtain efficient contact between gases and molten liquids so that the oxygen in the liquid metal oxides can react quickly with the input carbon leaving only metal. The natural ores processed in these furnaces frequently contain more than 50% gangue (rock or other materials associated with the metal oxides). The absence of gangue substantially simplifies the HydroMax process relative to existing smelter operations.

To date, Alchemix has demonstrated its ability to produce hydrogen and reform metal oxide efficiently at both laboratory (kilogram) and demonstration plant scale (0.3 meter reactor diameter). Currently, engineering development work is being conducted at CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) in Melbourne, Australia. These plants were chosen and adapted to the HydroMax technology since they are the same plants used to demonstrate the top-submerged lance technology as it was developed for use with a variety of metals. These demonstrations have validated the science which is the underpinning of the HydroMax technology. The next step is to attract partners for a larger commercial demonstration plant (2 meter) in the US.

Plants producing 50-150 million scf H2 per day can drastically beat the standard steam methane reforming in terms of cost (by as much as a factor of 10), in part because of the much cheaper feedstock (low value coal, sludge, etc., vs. natural gas) and the value of co-products (electricity and ammonium-sulfate fertilizer). The engineering firm Kvaerner has recently done a capital and operating cost analysis (summary available on the company website).

The chicken and egg nature of the “hydrogen economy” might suggest that large scale production won’t have a place until end uses and the delivery infrastructure are in place. The multipurpose nature of a Hydromax plant, however, makes it possible for a plant built today to supply an oil refinery, or produce ammonia or syngas, while awaiting the development of the H2 transportation market. HydroMax can also be used to gasify hydrocarbons, with the unique ability to control the ratio of H2 and CO in the resulting syngas (the steam and C are introduced together), which in turn can be made into the various liquid fuels.

The H2 (or syngas) and excess steam can be used directly to generate power, making an overall system that is far more efficient and cleaner than any solid fuel boiler. Imagine a mine mouth power plant using low value high sulfur coal. The overall efficiency would be close to 50% with a major reduction in CO2, and no emissions of sulfur, mercury or NOx.

Key implications — the flexibility provides immediate clean power and fuels from low grade carbon resources while we await the decades-long transition to a hydrogen economy; — the opportunity to dramatically reduce the US dependence on oil imports; — environmentally benign way for China, for instance, to use their resources which otherwise threaten the entire globe.

The company website has white papers, the cost analysis, and even a dramatic animated graphic of the process: http://www.alchemix.us

The company has attracted significant investment participation. As mentioned earlier, the goal now is to bring in partners to participate in the US commercial demonstration plant, e.g. four partners at $10M each, whose investment would gain them a preferred position and a credit towards the royalties of a full size plant.

Contact Robert Horton, President
480-488-3388 rhorton@alchemix.net