Posts

Update on Alchemix HydroMax

/0 Comments/in , /by

The HydroMax technology uses any carbon source including low sulfur and high sulfur coal to produce electricity, hydrogen and syngases which can be used as fuel for gas-fired power plants or converted into diesel, jet fuel, gasoline or ammonia. Alternate carbon sources include petroleum coke, municipal waste, biomass and shredded tires.

The company continues to make excellent progress as the U.S. Patent Office has now allowed 206 claims contained within a handful of patent applications. There is an opportunity to participate in an independent engineering evaluation of HydroMax vs. other hydrogen production technologies (such as gasification), to participate in a demonstration program, and to make a direct investment in Alchemix.

~~~~~~~

See: UFTO Note – H2 Production Adapts Smelting Technology, 15 Nov 2002:

http://www.ufto.com/clients-only/uftonotes02.html#Subject:%20UFTO%20Note%20-%20H2%20Production%20Adapts%20Smelting%20Technology
(password required)

HydroMax adapts existing metal smelting technology to convert dirty solid fuels to clean gases. 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, injects steam into a molten iron bath which makes H2 and iron oxide (FeO). HydroMax then makes use of iron making technology to return the iron oxide to pure iron for re-use. 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

~~~~~~~~

A great deal of information is available at the company’s website:
http://www.alchemix.us

Look under “News” and “Shareholders” for several powerpoint presentations and other items. Also a white paper under “Technology”. These emphasize the point that Alchemix provides a bridge strategy between hydrogen now, and the hydrogen economy of the future.

Alchemix says they have the lowest cost zero-emission coal/hydrogen technology, noteworthy in light of the somewhat controversial and problematic DOE FutureGen plan* to spend over $1 billion on a gasification approach. See Alchemix’s comments on how HydroMax will meet the FutureGen goals far more effectively.
http://www.alchemix.us/AlchemixFutureGenComments.pdf

(* http://www.fe.doe.gov/coal_power/integratedprototype/index.shtml)

~~~~~~~~~

Latest developments include specific plans for a commercial demonstration plant to be built in cooperation with members of the Canadian Oil Sands Network for Research and Development (CONRAD, http://www.conrad.ab.ca). Several members of CONRAD decided on July 15 to proceed with an engineering study to evaluate the HydroMax technology, economics and environmental impact in comparison with the alternate methods of producing hydrogen (i.e. steam methane reforming, gasification of solids and partial oxidation of heavy liquids). If the results of the study are positive for HydroMax as expected, then this group is likely to proceed with funding the first HydroMax plant, to be built in northern Alberta where the oil sands are located.

The plant will use petroleum coke to make 20 million scf/day of hydrogen and 10 MW of electricity. The plant will be profitable. An executive summary available on the Alchemix website (under “Introduction”) includes pro formas for the plant.
http://www.alchemix.us/AlchemixExecSummary5.05.03.pdf

The group in Canada would welcome participation in the study (and the demo plant) by additional companies including US utilities. Alchemix will make introductions for anyone who is interested.

The group includes governmental organizations and private companies who will provide funding for the plant but may not require an equity position since they are interested in accelerated access to the technology. Alchemix, anticipating a capital requirement on its part for a substantial portion of the project (estimated at $120 million US), has drafted an investment opportunity. The proposal is for sale of stock in Alchemix with a call option for another traunch as the project proceeds.

A detailed memo on the rationale for this investment is available (password required) at:
http://www.ufto.com/clients-only/clientdocs/AlchemixOffer7.16.03.doc

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

Non-Thermal Plasma H2, no CO2

/0 Comments/in , /by

Precision H2, a Canadian company, is developing a non-thermal plasma process which disassembles methane (CH4) into hydrogen and carbon black. Note, no CO2!

There are dozens of plasma companies, often focused on medical waste, and some on power (with coal or some waste stream as the feedstock). (See footnote) Usually these are hot plasmas, and tend to be expensive due to the materials problems at high temperature. In a plasma, sometimes called the 4th state of matter, material is very highly ionized by an electrical arc discharge. Lightning is a good example, and many plasma systems are brute force, require a lot of energy, and get very hot.

A so-called “non-thermal” plasma is one in which the electric discharge is controlled and confined. Locally it is extremely hot, but each spark doesn’t last long enough to heat up the surrounding materials. Precision H2 has created a “plasma dissociation reactor”, where the electrical discharge is carefully shaped and especially tailored to the specific job of dismantling methane. The electrical energy goes straight to the molecule, and doesn’t have to get there as heat. (It’s a little bit like cooking with microwaves instead of a conventional oven.)

The methane streaming through the reactor is partly converted to H2, with the carbon dropping out as a nanopowder. The output is then a blend of methane enriched with hydrogen (hythane). In an intriguing twist, this blend can be sent to a fuel cell which will consume the hydrogen, leaving the methane to be cycled back to the reactor. In effect, the fuel cell itself is used to separate out the hydrogen–for its own use. This configuration would produce electricity directly, rather than hydrogen. Pure hydrogen is gotten by using PSA (pressure swing absorption) or membranes to do the separation. Potential partners are already in discussions on both fronts (i.e. fuel cells and purification). Also, hythane can be used directly in engines, to good advantage.

The key is electronics (pulse shaping, and analysis and control of the discharge), and costs for electronics are well understood. Because temperatures remain modest, the reaction chamber can be made inexpensively, and is readily scalable.

There is an energy penalty–not all the “fuel value” of the methane is used, because the carbon itself isn’t oxidized. Instead, since no oxygen is present, no CO2 is produced–think of it as “presequestration”, with resulting GHG and carbon-trading benefits. Also, the carbon is in a valuable form which can be sold, enhancing overall economics. Detailed thermodynamic and financial models have been developed, and the company believes that even today, with “one-off” systems, they can produce hydrogen cost competitively.

The company is raising a round of equity financing.

Contact Dan Fletcher
514-842-3575, danfletcher@precisionh2.com
Precision H2
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
http://www.precisionh2.com/

~~~~~~
An amazing find can be found at:
http://www.noharm.org/nonincineration

“Non-Incineration Medical Waste Treatment Technologies”, an August 2001 report …. explores the environmental and economic impacts, among other considerations, of about 50 specific technologies.

Chapter 4 in particular is an exhaustive review of every technology and nearly every company with a means to destroy hazardous materials. While the focus is on medical waste, most of the technologies also apply to hazardous materials, municipal waste and sludge, biomass, and fossil fuels. Gasification, pyrolysis, plasmas, and many different chemical and electrochemical oxidation and reduction methods are out there, and are being used today at industrial scale. When they can be made to work, the issues are cost, reliability, system longevity, emissions (creation of new hazards, e.g. dioxins), materials handling, feedstock variability, etc. etc. The key is to inject sufficient energy into the material to break the chemical bonds, for example, to get it hot enough for long enough (dwell time).

DOE H2&FC Reviews’03

/0 Comments/in , /by

DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Merit Review Meeting
May 19-22, 2003, Berkeley, CA

(See UFTO Note 10 June 2002 for last year’s meeting.)

“Annual Review Proceedings” are (will be) available:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/hydrogen/pubs.html

DOE’s new organization for hydrogen and fuel cells is in place. Steve Chalk heads the program, and has about 20 direct reports for the many sub-areas. The org chart and key contacts list are available here:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/organization.html

Of course, the program got a huge boost when the president announced the $1.2 billion Hydrogen Fuel Initiative and “FreedomCar” program in the state-of-the-union address this past January.

In a plenary opening session, Steve Chalk gave an overview of DOE’s response, based on a major planning effort involving many stakeholders. (This is all heavily documented on the website.) He showed budgets steadily growing over the next several years.
H2: $47, $55, $77 million (FY 02, 03, 04)
FC: $29, $40, $88 million

The Plan involves a decade of R&D, with commercialization decisions towards the end, and subsequent “transition” and “expansion” in the marketplace. Meanwhile, “technology validation” projects will attempt semi-real world demonstrations of complete integrated infrastructure elements, e.g. refueling stations (major RFP was announced May 6 for a 5 year “learning demo” of hydrogen vehicle infrastructure.)
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/2003_solicitation_notice.html

The DOE Secretary will have a new Hydrogen Policy Group (heads of EE, FE, Nuclear, etc.) and the Hydrogen Technical Advisory Committee. Lower down, Steve Chalk will work with the Hydrogen Matrix Group and an Interagency Task Force. Of particular note, a new Systems Integration and Analysis office will be set up at NREL, and several “virtual centers” at national labs focused on specific technical areas.

In each area, goals have been established for the various cost and performance parameters. (e.g., by 2005 electrolytic hydrogen at 5000 psi should be produced at 65% efficiency, for under $3.75/kg. By 2010, moving hydrogen from central production sites to distribution facilities should be under $0.70/kg.) [One kg of H2 is about equivalent in energy content to one gallon of gasoline, making comparisons easier.]

When Chalk’s powerpoint becomes available, it will be worth reviewing if you’re interested in how all of this is going.

This year’s annual review meetings drew a large crowd again. A subset of projects were chosen from each technical area for 20-30 minute presentations, while other investigators were asked to do poster papers instead. Hydrogen and Fuel Cell sessions were held in parallel (last year they were on separate days), making it impossible to cover everything. A two inch thick binder had all the vugraphs, however, and all of it be posted on the website.

Here are the session headings:

Hydrogen

– Production -Biological & Biomass Based
– Production -Fossil Based
– Production -Electrolytic
– Production -Photolytic and Photoelectro-chemical
– Storage – High Pressure Tanks
– Storage – Hydrides
– Storage – Carbon & Other Storage
– Infrastructure Development -H2 Fueling Systems & Infrastructure
– Codes & Standards

Fuel Cells

– High Temp Membranes/ Cathodes/ Manufacturing
– High Temp Membranes/ Cathodes/ Electrocatalysts
– Fuel Cell Power Systems Analysis
– Fuel Processing
– Direct Methanol Fuel Cells
– Fuel Cell Power System Development
– Fuels Effects
– Sensors for Safety & Performance
– Air Management Subsystems

A few highlights:

– Codes and standards were compared to the “iceberg below the surface” (i.e. that sunk the Titanic). The voluntary standards-making process in this country, along with the 40,000 independent local jurisdictions, represent a huge educational and process challenge to make society ready for hydrogen. The recently announced fueling station in Las Vegas needed 16 separate permits, and the local fire marshal was the toughest to deal with.

– Carbon nanotube storage is living on borrowed time. It has the distinction of a stern “Go-No go” decision that’s been put in its path (2005), and the science seems not to be making the greatest progress.

– Another Go-No Go decision is set for late 2004, for onboard fuel processing.

– Photolytic H2 production makes slow progress, but researchers close to it acknowledge it’s practical application can only happen if the right materials are found. The search continues using “combinatorial” methods. (see UFTO Note 2 April 2003).

– The fuel cell work seems mostly to do with the tough slugging it out with materials and costs, finding formulations and configurations that gradually improve the situation. A fair amount of attention is going towards higher temperature PEM cell membranes, where hydrogen purity is less of an issue, however no breakthroughs seem imminent.

– Quite a bit of attention is going to fueling systems. Several projects involve the building of equipment and actual demonstration fueling stations and “power parks”. DTE and Pinnacle West are the only utilities that seem to have really pursued this; each has a major demonstration project in development.

In view of the volume and technical nature of this material, let me suggest that I can dig deeper into any particular area of interest to you, but that otherwise the DOE website has all the documentation on the programs and specific projects.

^^^^^^^^^
Other Hydrogen news:

You may have seen Wired 11.4 (April). The cover story is by Peter Schwartz, the famous futurist, who proclaims that a full-blown hydrogen economy is urgent and inevitable. I saw him present the argument at a seminar at Stanford recently, and found it very short on practical specifics and less than compelling. For one thing, he asserts that nuclear will be the major source of energy to make hydrogen a decade or two from now.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.04/hydrogen.html

Along the same lines, the June issue of Business 2.0 came last week, with a feature story about the head of Accenture’s Resource Group, Mary Tolan, and her blunt challenge to the energy industry to go invest like crazy to make the hydrogen economy happen quickly. She says it’s the only way the oil majors in particular will be able to continue to make big profits in the future. She apparently let loose with this at CERA Week, back in February. Business 2.0’s website (http://www.business2.com) won’t have it online for a few weeks, but I was able to locate a reference to an Accenture utility industry event that outlines the argument.
http://www.accenture.com/xd/xd.asp?it=enweb&xd=industriesresourcesutilitiesagenda_monday.xml

Curious to know what you think. In my own opinion, both sound over the top. We’ve got a ways to go before the technology, or the society, will be ready for hydrogen on a massive scale. I’ve written to Ms. Tolan to see if I can get more details as to their reasoning.

Cleantech Venture Forum II

/0 Comments/in , /by

Cleantech Venture Network’s second venture forum in San Franciso, Apr 30- May1 was a great success. Over 260 people in attendance included mostly investors, along with representatives of the 23 companies selected to present (from over 200 companies that applied).

You may recall reading about Cleantech Venture Network in UFTO Notes 26 July, 1 October ’02.

The surge of interest in cleantech was noteworthy. Many new faces were there, some of them very prominent VC firms whose usual sectors of IT and telecom have lost their lustre. These investors seem to be checking out energy tech and cleantech to see what the opportunities are, and whether it might represent a “next big thing”. Some of them are actually doing deals, too. Panels sessions discussed this very trend, while others went into water, Asia, and the overall outlook for investing in cleantech. The new issue of the Venture Monitor, due in a couple of weeks (for members only!) will have details from the panel discussions.

The presenting companies ranged from a successful biopesticide company (better, cheaper, safer than chemicals…really), to several hydrogen, fuel cell, and solar PV companies, and some water and waste management. (The PV companies were described in another UFTO Note just recently). Here’s the list. (If you want additional information, please contact me. I’m not including details here in the interests of brevity, but I can send you a version with longer descriptions, as well as individual company’s own writeups. Some may appear in future notes.)

AgraQuest, Inc. – Natural pesticides
aqWise – Wastewater treatment retrofit increases throughput
CellTech Power – Fundamentally new solid oxide fuel cell acts like a refuelable battery.
FiveStar Technologies – Advanced materials via cavitation technology
Global Solar – thin film PV in production
H2Gen – On-site hydrogen generation via small scale steam methane reforming
Hoku Scientific, Inc – PEM fuel cell membrane to replace Nafion
HyRadix Inc. ? Small scale hydrogen generators via thermal reforming
Integrated Env. Technologies – Waste Treatment via Plasma
iPower – Distributed Generation ? New genset
Mach Energy ? Energy management services to commercial buildings
PolyFuel Inc – Direct methanol fuel cell (DMFC) systems
PowerTube – Geothermal powerplant downhole
Powerzyme – Enzymatic fuel cell
PrecisionH2 – Hydrogen, power and carbon from methane, via cold plasma (no CO2!)
Primotive – unique electric motor/generator
QuestAir – Gas purification via pressure swing absorption
Raycom Technologies – Thin film solar cells via high volume sputter coating
Sensicore – Sensors monitor water quality cheaply
Solaicx – Polycrystalline silicon PV
Solicore – Thin film lithium batteries
Verdant – Wave power via underwater windmills

Here’s a definition of “Cleantech”, from the website:
**The concept of “clean” technologies embraces a diverse range of products, services, and processes that are inherently designed to provide superior performance at lower costs, greatly reduce or eliminate environmental impacts and, in doing so, improve the quality of life. Clean technologies span many industries, from alternative forms of energy generation to water purification to materials-efficient production techniques.**

I strongly suggest you consider an investor membership, for dealflow, Venture Monitor, networking and other benefits. (http://www.cleantechventures.com). The next Forum will be held this Fall in New York.

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 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

DOE H2&FC Reviews

/0 Comments/in , /by

Hydrogen – Fuel Cells for Transportation – Fuels for Fuel Cells
— 2002 Annual Program/Lab R&D Review —

These three US DOE programs held their combined review meetings, May 6-10, 2002 in Golden CO. Proceedings are available on the Hydrogen Information Network:
http://www.eren.doe.gov/hydrogen/hydrogen_review.html

……..[addendum July 17]………
The proceedings of the 2002 US DOE Hydrogen Program Annual Review are available on-line.
http://www.eren.doe.gov/hydrogen/docs/2002toc.html

The 70 technical reports, each available as a separate downloadable file, represent the efforts of researchers and engineers at National Labs, universities, and in industry from across the US. They cover hydrogen production, storage, and use, with excellent papers on analysis and the Program’s technology validation projects. The CD-ROM will be available for purchase soon.
…………………………

As you know, UFTO made its group visit to NREL on the Wednesday. I was there all week and caught four days of the review meetings.

The first big news was that all three programs are now combined into one, under the major reorganization of Energy Efficiency and Renewables (aka EE or EREN). (See UFTO News March 26–if you missed it let me know. Also http://www.eren.doe.gov/ee.html.) These programs had been under separate offices (Power, Industrial, and Transportation).

HYDROGEN: May 6-8

Technical abstracts appear in two documents, each of which contain 2-3 pages on each of 38 presentations. Technical Papers from the meeting will be posted by mid-July 2002.

Session A – Production and Technology Validation
– Biological Hydrogen Production
– Fossil ? Base Production
– Renewable Production/Electrolytic Processes
– Technology Validation
– Separation And Purification

Session B – Storage, Utilization, Analysis
– Analysis Projects
– Hydrogen Utilization Research
– Technology Transfer
– Storage

FUEL CELLS FOR TRANSPORTATION (21 papers): May 9
– Fuel Cell Modeling/Analysis
– Fuel Cell Stack Components
– Membranes/MEAs
– Electrodes/Electrocatalysts
– Direct-Methanol Fuel Cells
– Fuel Cell Materials

FUELS FOR FUEL CELLS (13 papers): May 10
– Fuel Processing
– Water-Gas Shift Catalysts
– Fuels Effects

Complete papers for fuel cells are already posted, along with 20 poster papers.

—— ——— ————
DOE is required by law to do these reviews, and they are quite scripted and formalized. A panel of grey-beard expert reviewers sit in the front and ask probing questions and give sage advice to each of the researchers who present an update of their progress since last year. Meanwhile several hundred observers fill the rest of the room, and can ask questions if there’s time after the reviewers are finished. The format of the presentations were very tightly prescribed, with a number of required points to cover (e.g. ‘collaborations and outreach’). The Hydrogen program even banned fancy graphics and powerpoint, insisting on plain vu-graphs (bad experiences in the past with computer glitches).

Presentations covered projects funded by the three DOE programs. Most were from national lab researchers, with only a handful of industrials. As such the emphasis seemed to be heavily in favor of basic research/long-term R&D, and “analysis” projects, e.g. to estimate the costs and benefits of various infrastructure schemes. As such, it was a long five days, and only moderately rewarding at best (especially if one considers that developments with real commercial potential are not going to be talked about in public). As usual, the informal networking during breaks and receptions were at least as worthwhile. One can only hope that the reorganization will bring greater clarity to all of this work, along with a rethinking of the review process.

—— ——— ————
DOE staff gave overviews of the issues, programs, and progress–these are also on the website above.

For HYDROGEN:
– Storage is progressing well, notably pressurized tanks, but a breakthrough would be welcome
– Production is from natural gas in the nearterm, capitalizing on existing infrastructure, though not sustainable for the long term.
– Long term (20+ years) the goal is hydrogen from biomass, coal, nuclear* and waste.
(*by electrolysis, or better, direct thermal decomposition of water at high temperature)
– The essential end-use device- the fuel cell- continues to need huge cost reductions
– Safety, codes, standards, and fair trade issues are a major piece of the puzzle
– On-board vehicle reformers are only a transition strategy. Startup time and efficiency are key.
– Vehicle Insfrastructure Demonstration partnerships, involving the deployment of progressively larger fleets and charging station

DOE initiated a National Hydrogen Vision and Roadmap process in response to recommendations made in President Bush’s National Energy Policy. The Vision Meeting took place Nov 2001 and the Roadmap Workshop took place Apr 2002 in Washington, D.C. The summaries, the proceedings, and the individual presentations are available at:
http://www.eren.doe.gov/hydrogen/features.html

This presentation contains a lot of information about the perceptions, priorities and programs: — Review of the Hydrogen Program (N. Rossmeissl, DOE)
http://www.eren.doe.gov/hydrogen/pdfs/32405c.pdf

For FUEL CELLS:
National policy is indeed driving things. There is a draft report to Congress, following a workshop held in February, available now at:
http://www.sentech.org/fuelcell.html
“…an assessment of the technical, economic, and infrastructure barriers to commercialization of fuel cells for transportation, portable power, stationary and distributed generation applications. This full report is due November 5, 2002. In addition, the Department is to provide an interim assessment that describes the need for public and private cooperative programs to demonstrate commercial use of fuel cells by 2012.”

The FreedomCAR Partnership is the successor to PNGV, whose goal had been a very high mileage auto. Go to: http://www.cartech.doe.gov/
The new emphasis is on hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Scroll down this long list of publications (probably a lot more than you wanted to know):
http://www.cartech.doe.gov/research/fuelcells/index.html
Note in particular, the 2001 Annual Progress Report for Fuel Cells for Transportation

The name “Freedom” is meant to represent freedom from foreign oil and emissions and freedom of choice, with myriad technologies and products. These programs address technical challenges such as cost (platinum), durability, fuel processing, air-thermal-water management, and higher temperature (=new membranes). Specific stretch goals: 60% efficiency; 325 W/kg; $45/kw (including storage!). For storage, 2 kwh/kg, 1 kwh/L.

CO, CO2 Removal from reformate H2

/0 Comments/in , /by

This press release will be released on Wednesday. It follows an earlier one from Avista that contained some errors. The company, H2fuel, is a spinoff from Unitel and is co-owned by Avista Labs. Unitel is a small technology development company in Chicago with several other developments that we’re tracking for UFTO.

I visited Unitel/H2fuel in Chicago recently, and heard a detailed account of this technology under an NDA. They’ve given me permission to pass the press release along to UFTO, so please hold onto it at least til Thursday.

There is an investment opportunity here.

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

H2FUEL NEWS

For Immediate Release, October 31, 2001

Media Contacts: Serge Randhava, H2fuel, 847-297-2265

H2fuel Membrane Program Technical Update

October 31, 2001: In providing additional details about its proposed fuel cell hydrogen membrane program, H2fuel confirmed that the membrane is being tailored to work at temperatures up to 350C, levels that are normally associated with the water gas shift reaction. In a press release issued earlier this month, the company had announced that it had awarded a R&D contract to the University of Kentucky to synthesize, characterize and test a family of chemical transport membranes that can efficiently and selectively remove oxides of carbon from a gas mixture.

The primary objective of the H2fuel membrane program is to eliminate carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide from a reformate gas stream, thereby increasing its hydrogen content and greatly reducing the overall cost of producing pure hydrogen for fuel cell applications.

H2fuel’s membrane module is being configured as a dual-role device. To begin with, all the carbon dioxide in the gas stream will be stripped out of the gas mixture. Simultaneously, the carbon monoxide that is present will be converted into carbon dioxide by means of an integrated water gas shift reaction step, following which this coproduced carbon dioxide will also be transferred out by the membrane. For all practical purposes, the H2fuel membrane module will serve to get rid of all the carbon in the gas before it goes to the fuel cell.

The H2fuel membrane is not a conventional permeation platform. Rather, it will use a polymeric membrane that operates at close to atmospheric pressure, and incorporates a unique chemical transport mechanism for attaching and detaching the carbon dioxide molecule.

“Our membrane program is based upon a simple wish list,” notes Serge Randhava, President of H2fuel. “First, we want to get rid of the carbon dioxide leaving our primary fuel processor. Second, we want to convert any carbon monoxide in the gas stream into carbon dioxide, and also affect the parallel removal of this secondary compound. At the end of the faucet, we want an enriched fuel cell hydrogen stream that is totally free of all oxides of carbon,” he adds.

H2fuel is jointly owned by Avista Labs, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Spokane-based Avista Corp. (NYSE: AVA) and Unitel Fuel Technologies, LLC, Mt. Prospect, IL.