Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


From Standard Oil to C&H?

posted at 7:43 am on April 15, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Can a car run on fuel produced by an internal still? Instead of alcohol, the product would be hydrogen, creating a method that would safely allow a transition from oil-based fuel to the Holy Grail of renewable resources, the hydrogen-fuel cell. All it would take, according to a Virginia Tech scientist, is sugar:

Pranksters put sugar in gas tanks to foul engines and halt cars in their tracks. But a Virginia Tech scientist is developing a way to run cars on sugar.

Y.-H. Percival Zhang’s “sweet engine” runs on hydrogen made from starch, a clean-burning and potentially renewable alternative to fossil fuels.

Although hydrogen fuel cells are much more efficient than combustion engines, hydrogen is difficult to transport, store, and distribute – as well as expensive to produce. But Professor Zhang’s method, which he presented April 9 at the national meeting of the American Chemical Society in New Orleans, circumvents the need for transportation and storage by turning sugar into fuel in the car on an as-needed basis.

Hydrogen gives the most efficient burn among potential replacement fuels, but that creates enormous problems. Gasoline is relatively safe because it only burns in a relatively narrow range of mixture. Hydrogen burns in almost any mixture, making its transport and storage highly dangerous. We could power homes, cars, and all sorts of transportation with hydrogen if we could get around the need to transport and store it.

This process does that. Instead of having to replace gas stations with hydrogen facilities, the car would use a water-sugar mixture with added enzymes for a catalyst. Once heated to 86 degrees Fahrenheit, that would produce a chemical reaction producing hydrogen in enough quantity to power the car. When the car reaches its destination, presumably the car would have a device to cool the still to end hydrogen production.

If Zhang’s process proves successful in practical applications, it could transform the entire energy-independence debate. It could also decentralize energy production, allowing homeowners and businesses to produce their own energy rather than connect to a central grid and rely on utility companies, at least for electricity. Depending on the scale and efficiency, it could drastically reduce our reliance on coal and oil, extending the life of both for hundreds or thousands of years for uses unsuitable to the new process. We certainly could end our reliance on foreign sources of fuel, which is what makes hydrogen so powerfully attractive in the first place.

A few issues might temper enthusiasm for Zhang’s discovery. The process also releases carbon dioxide, which will set up red flags for global-warming alarmists. It also might create a demand for sugar that will drive its cost up to the point where it makes it difficult for poorer people to buy it — a reaction we have already seen with corn and its use in biofuel production. The costs and production of the unspecified enzymes might also be a problem. However, if those issues can be overcome and Zhang’s process succeeds, we could find ourselves at the end of the fossil-fuel age much sooner than we anticipated, and on successful terms.


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages:

It also might create a demand for sugar that will drive its cost up to the point where it makes it difficult for poorer people to buy it — a reaction we have already seen with corn and its use in biofuel production.

Yeah, they might have to start dipping into that gasoline money they won’t be using anymore. Remember, most of our poor are wealthy enough to own cars.

James on April 15, 2008 at 7:50 AM

We’re seeing the ethanol craze driving the price of everything up and up. What’s the sugar craze going to do to us?

abcurtis on April 15, 2008 at 7:52 AM

More good news for Brazil, eh?

mikeyboss on April 15, 2008 at 7:53 AM

It also might create a demand for sugar that will drive its cost up to the point where it makes it difficult for poorer people to buy it

Yeah.

We already have problems with corn, do we need a crisis of sugar too?

Why they don’t just take all our veggies and fruits and make fuel out of them, and let’s starve?

Can’t they make fuel out of poop?

There’s a lot of it, it’s free and we’ll never run out of it.

Indy Conservative on April 15, 2008 at 7:54 AM

It also might create a demand for sugar that will drive its cost up to the point where it makes it difficult for poorer people to buy it

Does anyone use sugar anymore, except in their coffee? Everything’s made with high fructose corn syrup now.

Tanya on April 15, 2008 at 8:04 AM

Great, now I have to worry about ants in the car.

Seriously, hydrogen is some pretty powerful stuff. A few cubic feet of the gas is enough to blow your car to grandma’s house.

Eh….no worries, I’ll be long gone before this ever hits the showroom.

Limerick on April 15, 2008 at 8:04 AM

Thats just what I need,my car all smacked up on sugar!

canopfor on April 15, 2008 at 8:07 AM

I remember when Cheaney said back in early 2001 that hydrogen was the way to go..cleaner more cost efficient! Wow! If he said it, it must be bad..

Pam on April 15, 2008 at 8:12 AM

My cars are bouncing off the walls as it is.

Coronagold on April 15, 2008 at 8:15 AM

Lots of things work, few scale. Hydrogen is not the panacea, it does not work well as hydrogen atoms penetrate most containment vessels, they are so small they leak out. It costs a lot to produce the vessels and fuel hoses and fittings.

Hydrogen makes up about 80% of the mass of the universe, but using it in large quantities for transport fuel is unlikely in the near future. Portable energy storage is the problem, BTUs stored per pound or cubic inch and with that measure, liquid fuels prevail. This is the problem with batteries, none have the storage capacity needed.

What I always wondered is why not just do what is easy, known and cheap, coal gasification, or coal liquification. old technology, works and doesn’t require you to burn your food.

Hey, look at it this way, miniature nuclear reactors could be the next big thing, don’t you think? They work.

tarpon on April 15, 2008 at 8:20 AM

What about motorcycles? Ethanol is gumming up my Triumph already, and I don’t need a sticky mess on top of that.

Hening on April 15, 2008 at 8:21 AM

Great, now I’ll have to worry about the sugar rotting the teeth of my car’s gears.

rbj on April 15, 2008 at 8:21 AM

If we can send a spacecraft to Saturn with a nuclear fuel cell, why can’t we design one for use in cars?

Hydrogen is the Houdini of the periodic table. It’s the smallest, and loves to escape. Plus, in most of the research I’ve read, in order to get hydrogen, you actually lose alot of energy in the process of breaking down complex carbon chains to get the hydrogen. Also, since you are breaking down complex carbon chains to get the hydrogen, you are still releasing carbon into the atmosphere… so while the hydrogen itself burns clean, the process to get the hydrogen is not.

The cleanest way to get hydrogen is through breaking down water using electricity. However, how do you get the electricity to get the hydrogen?

We either need more nuclear plants to produce hydrogen, or we just look into nuclear fuel cells technology.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on April 15, 2008 at 8:30 AM

This is a good idea…if you are in the towing business.

Imagine all of the vehicles falling into sugar comas creating traffic “jams” and car crashes.

saved on April 15, 2008 at 8:33 AM

Great,now I’ll have to worry about the sugar rotting
the teeth of my car’s gears.
rbj on April 15,2008 at 8:21AM.

rbj:Thats funny,may I suggest swaping the 90 gear oil
or transmission fluid and use molasses instead!HEHE.

canopfor on April 15, 2008 at 8:33 AM

I would love to see us stick it to OPEC by closing down all petroleum based power plants and moving to nuclear.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on April 15, 2008 at 8:34 AM

When the car reaches its destination, presumably the car would have a device to cool the still to end hydrogen production.

Park your car in the sun and have fun trying to keep the fuel cool.

The cleanest way to get hydrogen is through breaking down water using electricity. However, how do you get the electricity to get the hydrogen?

We either need more nuclear plants to produce hydrogen, or we just look into nuclear fuel cells technology.

I’ve seen some new research on microbial and enzymatic methods of Hydrogen production that are feasible, but the storage problems will remain.

trubble on April 15, 2008 at 8:40 AM

sounds like it still produces CO2. Gore will be displeased. Oh well, back to the drawing board.

Jimmy the Dhimmi on April 15, 2008 at 8:40 AM

Before the six o’clock news we will find some scientist will predict the drying up of the Amazon if the oil is taken out of the ground.

Al, Brazil found you another soap box to climb up on.

Limerick on April 15, 2008 at 8:42 AM

I wonder what kind of sugar. I suspect he means Sugarcane. Problem is, Sugarcane, as I recall only grows in a few small areas in the US: small parts of Florida, Louisiana and Hawaii. That’s why most of the sugar used in the US comes from corn and sugar beets, both of which require tremendous amounts of processing (i.e., input energy) to extract the sugars.

The reason ethanol works pretty well in Brazil is because they have large areas where they can grow sugarcane which can easily be converted to ethanol.

TheBigOldDog on April 15, 2008 at 8:42 AM

Great. Another food for oil program. Considering what a disaster our energy policy has been, I won’t be jumping on the sugar bandwagon. It’s more than just the fact it would drive up the price of sugar, it also requires land to grow sugar cane, and turning land into fuel sources is not working out too well right now with the ethanol craze.

From the New York Times – I’m sure you’ll be shocked, shocked, shocked to discover that another leftist policy is a freaking disaster:

The idea of turning farms into fuel plants seemed, for a time, like one of the answers to high global oil prices and supply worries. That strategy seemed to reach a high point last year when Congress mandated a fivefold increase in the use of biofuels.

But now a reaction is building against policies in the United States and Europe to promote ethanol and similar fuels, with political leaders from poor countries contending that these fuels are driving up food prices and starving poor people…

Check out Drudge for numerous stories about this very predictable disaster. The UN, who pushed global warming alarmism, is saying:

The UN says it takes 232kg of corn to fill a 50-litre car tank with ethanol. That is enough to feed a child for a year. Last week, the UN predicted “massacres” unless the biofuel policy is halted.

Go nuclear, exploit our oil resources, but leave our food sources alone.

Buy Danish on April 15, 2008 at 8:42 AM

Nuclear is one option we don’t use enough of.

Another source that is totally green and renewable is starting to be looked at or wave powered generation buoys.

There is a company out in California now making them in MW size units and larger and they are doing evaluation installations in many places.

Based on known wave height data which is very predictable for many areas, they show they can put arrays of these buoys in very small areas of under a couple of square miles and generate up to a total of 100MW of power from the array.

Also they are developing products that combine power generation with desalinization to supply water to ever growing coastal populations that are ready to exceed local water supplies.

CommentGuy on April 15, 2008 at 8:54 AM

Brazil can easily expand its sugar production, but this will come at the cost of curtailing some coffee production and even more OJ production.

Mr. Bingley on April 15, 2008 at 8:59 AM

Bingley

Right now Brazil has massive amounts of sugar beet production dedicated to conversion to ethanol.

CommentGuy on April 15, 2008 at 9:02 AM

Sugar prices in this country are controlled by the powerful sugar lobby which has strangled the ability of us to import cheap sugar from world markets with very strict quotas and price supports that really can no longer be justified.

CommentGuy on April 15, 2008 at 9:04 AM

From Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace has had an epiphany of sorts:

My belief, in retrospect, is that because we were so focused on the destructive aspect of nuclear technology and nuclear war, we made the mistake of lumping nuclear energy in with nuclear weapons, as if all things nuclear were evil. And indeed today, Greenpeace still uses the word “evil” to describe nuclear energy. I think that’s as big a mistake as if you lumped nuclear medicine in with nuclear weapons. Nuclear medicine uses radioactive isotopes to successfully treat millions of people every year, and those isotopes are all produced in nuclear reactors. That’s why I left Greenpeace: I could see that my fellow directors, none of whom had any science education, were starting to deal with issues around chemicals and biology and genetics, which they had no formal training in, and they were taking the organization into what I call “pop environmentalism,” which uses sensationalism, misinformation, fear tactics, etc., to deal with people on an emotional level rather than an intellectual level.

Buy Danish on April 15, 2008 at 9:09 AM

That may well be true, CommentGuy, but the farmers in the state of Sao Paulo have shown great dexterity in shifting from coffee/citrus production to sugar cane when market conditions make it worthwhile. It’s not as easy going the other way, but they can bring in a new sugar cane crop relatively quickly to meet added demand.

Mr. Bingley on April 15, 2008 at 9:16 AM

hydrogen made from starch

Is beer the loser in all this?

Reaps on April 15, 2008 at 9:26 AM

Once heated to 86 degrees Fahrenheit

Fahrenheit! Uh oh. Room temperature is 70deg. Body temperature is 98.6deg. So if you touch it? Pump it?

Transport seems to still be a problem when you have to chill the mixture as much as 30deg when it’s hot. So refrigerated storage? !Refripipes?! Refrigerated trucks?!

Agrippa2k on April 15, 2008 at 9:37 AM

kyamamoto@analysts.com

Is it possible to produce enough sugar to replace fossil fuels? I read that if we pressed all of our corn crop into fuel production it still would barely make a dent.

“The amount of land required to plant enough corn to replace imported fuels is 238 million acres (963,000 km²). Realistically, peak corn-ethanol would likely top out at between 11 and 15 billion US gallons (42 and 57 million m³) per year – only a fraction of the 140 billion US gallons (530 million m³) of gasoline consumed each year in the United States.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_ethanol

ronsfi on April 15, 2008 at 9:42 AM

The secret? A stew of naturally occurring enzymes that, at 86 degrees F., create hydrogen and CO2 from a water-sugar mixture

What? CO2?!!! Are you kidding? This guy better go into the witness protection program?

Agrippa2k on April 15, 2008 at 9:42 AM

Look, you can get SOME hydrogen out of sugars enzymatically, but nowhere near enough to power a real car on a real trip. You have to load 100 lb bags of the stuff.

Clark1 on April 15, 2008 at 9:43 AM

Assuming this project is viable, we would need to end the farm subsidy program for sugar to make it work (well, we need to in any case). We could grow plenty of sugar in the US if it were legal – but like the peanut farm program, the government decides who grows it and how much they grow, and what minimum price it is sold at (which is why soft drinks etc are now produced with corn syrup). While I understand the grain/ethanol problem re: the price of bread increasing due to ethanol production, it would not be as severe if government intervention did not disrupt the operation of the market.

Think_b4_speaking on April 15, 2008 at 9:45 AM

I knew you would like this article.

Florida stands to gain from this innovation as they grow a lot of sugar. As for the carbon dioxide, scrubbers can take care of that.

Zorro on April 15, 2008 at 9:55 AM

This is a great find and good news! The price of sugar has been suppressed recently because of Splenda. A couple of years ago I visited St. Thomas (bahamas) and their main crop was sugar. The guide said that the sugar farmers there were all going out of business because of Splenda keeping the price of sugar down. If this technology is feasible, I don’t see what it could hurt. But as with anything hydrogen, they had better have a super stable and safe storage tank. Like double, triple, and quadrouple lined with some space aged strength stuff.

ThackerAgency on April 15, 2008 at 9:55 AM

The problem isn’t electriucity generation, but transportation fuel. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal, in any case. We have no electricity generation problem, unless we allow the global warming scam artists destroy us by shutting dopen coal.
Moving to 100% nuclear power means exactly zip.

TexasJew on April 15, 2008 at 10:17 AM

Sugar is pure poison to humans so it will be no lose to use it for fuel. It has no value as food so why not use it as fuel. It comes from cane which can be grown in many parts of the south and from beets that can grow anywhere you have water even in northern climes.

RobD on April 15, 2008 at 10:21 AM

Sugar is poison so no one will miss it. I saw another example of easily stored and released hydrogen years ago. I’ll see if I can find the link.

manfriend on April 15, 2008 at 10:22 AM

ThackerAgency on April 15, 2008 at 9:55 AM

This is a very interesting article about Big Sugar, the folly of price controls, and the attempt to muscle out the competition of Splenda by Stephen Moore, written exactly 2 years ago.

Buy Danish on April 15, 2008 at 10:24 AM

manfriend on April 15, 2008 at 10:22 AM
RobD on April 15, 2008 at 10:21 AM

Nanny staters?

Leave my sugar alone! Splenda tastes god-awful, but you are free to eat it to your heart’s content.

Buy Danish on April 15, 2008 at 10:28 AM

I thought Splenda was made from real sugar…isn’t that how they advertise it?

James on April 15, 2008 at 10:31 AM

Buy Danish,

What? Did I even mention Splenda? The only carbohydrates I eat are vegetables and nuts and berries

RobD on April 15, 2008 at 10:46 AM

Splenda is made from real sugar. But they cut it in half with an artificial substitute. So basically it IS real sugar, but it is real sugar cut by some artificial sweetener. So they reduced the demand by half.

ThackerAgency on April 15, 2008 at 10:52 AM

Thanks for the article buy. Part of the problem I read from somewhere with choosing sugar based ethanol over corn based was that Iowa couldn’t grow sugar, but grows the crap out of corn. You know, Iowa, the first caucus state? Anyway, sugar would be a good way to go, but the government subsidies need to be removed to improve free market forces on American sugar production.

ThackerAgency on April 15, 2008 at 10:58 AM

ThackerAgency on April 15, 2008 at 10:52 AM

Actually, I just looked it up…they say Splenda’s chemical name is sucralose, and it’s totally artificial (but does share some chemical structure with real sugar, except for the chlorine). The fillers you refer to are dextrose-based and are required because in its pure form it’s about 600 times sweeter than sugar so they market it in equivalent volume to ‘one serving’ of other sweeteners…also, without them it’s unstable at higher temperatures.

James on April 15, 2008 at 10:58 AM

Aw hell, everything you put in your body is a poison in one way or another.

Mr. Bingley on April 15, 2008 at 11:01 AM

but the government subsidies need to be removed to improve free market forces on American sugar production.

ThackerAgency on April 15, 2008 at 10:58 AM

Also, we should get rid of the $0.54/gallon tariff on imported ethanol.

dedalus on April 15, 2008 at 11:03 AM

Two issues.

One, in my philosophy anything that makes race survival less likely is evil. Turning food to fuel fits that category.

Second, I’d have to run the numbers, but I’d guess that the amount of sugar you’d need to generate a reasoable Power to weight ratio would kill this.

Third, sugar is not easy to grow or manufacture. It could very well fall into the same trap as ethanol, where its not really energy efficient for the society (ie, all things considered, it takes as much, or more, energy to make it as it supplies).

Romeo13 on April 15, 2008 at 11:07 AM

I’d like to see an energy balance before I jump on this bandwagon. A reaction to dissociate hydrogen from sugar molecules is likely to be endothermic–require heat to keep the reaction going, and the sugar water at 86 F. This heat might be obtained from waste heat from the engine after burning the hydrogen, but that might reduce the efficiency of the process.

If the process also produces carbon dioxide, there would have to be some means to separate the carbon dioxide from the hydrogen, so that the CO2 doesn’t smother the flames from the hydrogen. Membrane filters work well for this purpose, but need to be maintained under pressure.

The cost of producing the enzymes that catalyze the reaction could be a problem, as could the disposal of “spent” sugar water (what remains after the hydrogen has been removed). Could the reaction be re-started by adding fresh sugar to the water, or would a situation be reached where reaction by-products in the water prevent the reaction from continuing or fresh sugar from dissolving?
Once a solution is totally “spent”, how is the enzyme recovered from the water? Or is new enzyme required, and what is its cost?

Another potential problem with this process is the freezing of sugar water in winter. Sugar is very soluble in hot water, but tends to precipitate out as a solid in cold water. Would a heat source be needed to keep the sugar solution warm while the car is not in use in cold weather?

This sounds interesting on the surface, but the devil may be in the details…

Steve Z on April 15, 2008 at 11:13 AM

Buy Danish,

What? Did I even mention Splenda? The only carbohydrates I eat are vegetables and nuts and berries

RobD on April 15, 2008 at 10:46 AM

Good for you, Dude! If you want to eat like an animal in the woods, go for it! Just don’t tell me what I don’t need or won’t miss. It’s a freedom thing.

Buy Danish on April 15, 2008 at 11:15 AM

Third, sugar is not easy to grow or manufacture. It could very well fall into the same trap as ethanol, where its not really energy efficient for the society (ie, all things considered, it takes as much, or more, energy to make it as it supplies).

Romeo13 on April 15, 2008 at 11:07 AM

Actually I don’t think this is true. Cane sugar is exceedingly easy to grow and manufacture, and many sugar mills burn the cane bio-mass to provide the weightier portion of the energy needed in the refining process, so the energy cost to get to the ’sugar in the raw’ stage is negligible, I believe.

Obviously any new process beyond that has its costs.

Mr. Bingley on April 15, 2008 at 11:38 AM

If we can send a spacecraft to Saturn with a nuclear fuel cell, why can’t we design one for use in cars?

Because Cassini-Huygens won’t be speeding down the highway in rush hour traffic, weaving back and forth across all lanes as well as the shoulder while adjusting the rear view mirror with one hand and applying makup with the other, no hands on the wheel, no eyes on the road?

Rip Ford on April 15, 2008 at 11:47 AM

No blood for sugar!

jl on April 15, 2008 at 12:11 PM

Mr. Bingley on April 15, 2008 at 11:38 AM

Hmmm…

Cane sugar can only grow in a very limited environment… most sugar comes from beets.

“This trend is particularly true and alarming for the production of sugar beets, which are considered to be one of the most water-intensive crops. ”
From

http://www.waterfair.org/content.spring?contentItem=247

Thought I remember that from growing up… Beets take a LOT of water… which is already now in short supply here in Colorado…

Whole thing is unsustainable. We literaly CAN’T waste our irrigation water to make fuel, or the whole Food system of the world gets out of whack quickly.

Romeo13 on April 15, 2008 at 12:12 PM

We could power homes, cars, and all sorts of transportation with hydrogen if we could get around the need to transport and store it.

second look at the Hindenburg?

liquidflorian on April 15, 2008 at 12:40 PM

Romeo13, are you talking strictly about US sugar production?

Nearly 80% of the world’s sugar production comes from cane sugar, which is basically a high-falutin’ grass that grows in dan near any tropical and sub-tropical climate. There are lots of unused places to grow sugar; the problem has been that at 6 cents/lb it hasn’t been worth the effort.

Mr. Bingley on April 15, 2008 at 12:54 PM

While this particular sugar process probably isn’t a viable solution, I’m still encouraged. Many bright minds are working on alternatives – some more promising than others, of course. But one of these pointy-headed lab-coat wearing beta males IS going to find that alternative. There is a demand, somebody will rise up and supply – and get sinking rich in the process. Good on him.

innominatus on April 15, 2008 at 1:32 PM

Mr. Bingley on April 15, 2008 at 12:54 PM

Yep, taling US because we are talking energy independence, not just changing one imported commodity to another.

Sugarcane cultivation requires a tropical or subtropical climate, with a minimum of 600 mm (24 in) of annual moisture

sugar beat production, which is about 58% of sugar production in the US, is another water intensive crop.

What a lot of folks in the US don’t get is we have a WATER shortage here in the US. Lake Powell is at historic low levels since it was built… water prices are WAY up… farmers are being told to NOT use well water…

And with this we are going to tranform FOOD into fuel using two very water intensive crops??? HUH???

Romeo13 on April 15, 2008 at 1:46 PM

I’d rather see the price of sugar go up than the way corn has gone up.

Most of us could probably handle cutting down on our sugar intake.

Corn, on the other hand, is a great vegetable with protein and vitamins. It’s also used for feed for animals. Have you noticed the way the cost of eggs, milk and meat have gone up? I haven’t tracked it down, but I bet it’s part of the chain of the rise in the price of corn.

INC on April 15, 2008 at 4:33 PM

Our boys in Washington already have U.S. consumers paying double the world price for sugar: imagine the damage they could do if sugar becomes fuel, too!!!

So until you get the energy balance thing worked out and get Washington to put its hands in its own pocket (and keep them out of my pocket), I’ll stick to gasoline and I’m not buying a “sweet ride”.

Oh yeah, one thing more: Let’s make the waste sugar into Chocolate Chip Cookies and bubble the waste CO2 through another part of the sugar mix to make a carbonated drink to go with the cookies!! Then you’ll have a product I can get behind!!

landlines on April 15, 2008 at 5:23 PM

Comment pages:


You must be logged in to post a comment.