Searching \ for '[TECH]Carbazole a new fuel catalyst.' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=carbazole+new+fuel
Search entire site for: 'Carbazole a new fuel catalyst.'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[TECH]Carbazole a new fuel catalyst.'
2011\07\08@074321 by cdb

flavicon
face
According to the weekly newsletter from Elektor the University of
Erlangen-Nuremberg's Excellence Cluster of Engineering of Advanced
Materials  and Energy Campus Nuremberg have been looking into the storing
of energy in liquids to replace petrol and diesel. They have been looking
in particular at the storage of hydrogen using N-ethylcarbazole.

The main difference between this and other storage systems is that it is
recyclable rather than being consumed.

Full details

http://www.tvt.cbi.uni-erlangen.de/eng/index.html

Prof.Dr.-Ing. Wolfgang Arlt

Elektor article:

http://www.elektor.com/news/carbazole-the-electric-fuel

Colin

cdb,   3/07/2009

--




spam_OUTcolinTakeThisOuTspambtech-online.co.uk

2011\07\08@092321 by RussellMc

face picon face
>  According to the weekly newsletter from Elektor the University of
> Erlangen-Nuremberg's Excellence Cluster of Engineering of Advanced
> Materials  and Energy Campus Nuremberg have been looking into the storing
> of energy in liquids to replace petrol and diesel. They have been looking
> in particular at the storage of hydrogen using N-ethylcarbazole.
>
> The main difference between this and other storage systems is that it is
> recyclable rather than being consumed.

Really  a storage media than a catalyst.

Better here   http://www.elektor.com/news/carbazole-the-electric-fuel.1878692.lynkx

Assume SG of 1 in all cases.
Assume zero tank mass.

54 grams of H2/litre - about double what you get from 700 bar (!!!)
compressed Hydrogen storage.
Hydrogen has a calorific content of 34 kCal/gram or about 3 x that of petrol.
So equivalent to say 160 grams/litre of petrol.
ie 6 x less energy dense than petrol.
Present petrol tanks on mod size cars = say 50 l = 50 kg of fuel.
Equivalent 'carbazole' tank 300 litres / 300 kg OR smaller tank with
lesser range.
Equivalent mass to say 4 x passengers,
300 litre tank is about 670mm cube - approx 2'3" cube or 10.6 cubic feet.
All doable but a lot worse than petrol.


        Russell


>
> Full details
>
>  http://www.tvt.cbi.uni-erlangen.de/eng/index.html
>
> Prof.Dr.-Ing. Wolfgang Arlt
>
> Elektor article:
>
> www.elektor.com/news/carbazole-the-electric-fuel
>

2011\07\08@094552 by cdb

flavicon
face


:: Really  a storage media than a catalyst

That's the word I was looking for, but my synapses wouldn't let that particular neuron past.

Colin
--
cdb, .....colinKILLspamspam@spam@btech-online.co.uk on 8/07/2011
Web presence: http://www.btech-online.co.uk   Hosted by:  http://www.justhost.com.au
 This email is to be considered private if addressed to a named  individual or HR department, and public if addressed to a blog,  forum or news article.

2011\07\08@105240 by Michael Watterson

face picon face
On 08/07/2011 14:22, RussellMc wrote:
> Better herehttp://www.elektor.com/news/carbazole-the-electric-fuel.1878692.lynkx
>
> Assume SG of 1 in all cases.
> Assume zero tank mass.
>
> 54 grams of H2/litre - about double what you get from 700 bar (!!!)
> compressed Hydrogen storage.
> Hydrogen has a calorific content of 34 kCal/gram or about 3 x that of petrol.
> So equivalent to say 160 grams/litre of petrol.
> ie 6 x less energy dense than petrol.
> Present petrol tanks on mod size cars = say 50 l = 50 kg of fuel.
> Equivalent 'carbazole' tank 300 litres / 300 kg OR smaller tank with
> lesser range.
> Equivalent mass to say 4 x passengers,
> 300 litre tank is about 670mm cube - approx 2'3" cube or 10.6 cubic feet.
> All doable but a lot worse than petrol.
>
>

IMO hydrogen fuel is pointless unless you have a Fusion Power station to make if nearly for free from seawater. Otherwise converting coal to liquid fuel is more sensible. Or using shale gas. People doing it since 1940s and it's getting better.

I can see ZERO value in mainstream rechargeable cars electric cars either, especially if there was an ideal battery. You can only have "refills" at a sensible speed by battery swap, and even then the entire Electricity Distribution grid would need upgraded.

I used to think bio-fuel was a good idea, but unless a digester is making it from the WASTE vegetable matter of food crops (i.e. stems of maize, rape, sunflower, banana etc) it only makes people starve and put up food prices. Obviously using up waste cooking oil etc in diesel engines or aircraft turbines is good, but it can only be a small percentage unless we eat a lot more deep fat fried food :(

2011\07\08@115123 by RussellMc

face picon face
> IMO hydrogen fuel is pointless unless you have a Fusion Power station to
> make if nearly for free from seawater. Otherwise converting coal to
> liquid fuel is more sensible. Or using shale gas. People doing it since
> 1940s and it's getting better.

IF you can electrolyse water with electricity at an "acceptable" cost
and % efficiency then a suitable storage medium (which this carbazole
process seems potentially as good as most) then you have gained the
ability to distribute liquid electricity. Economies are different
because eg transport costs and storage tanks are 6 x larger than with
petrol. So distribution costs assume a far larger %  of the "pump
cost". Also, that assumes that the liquid is benign when transported.
ie  how do you trigger the Hydrogen release. Does eg pouring it on the
ground do it, or shaking it in a tank, or heating it, or adding what
catalyst at what %? Could be fun but may not be fuel.

Once you can distribute energy from electricity using Hydrogen you cut
added distribution CO2 emissions to about zero (and CO2 for generated
electricity depends on whether nuclear, hydro, solar, wind,
hydrocarbon (liquid o gas or solid) , ... Overall you may win. CO2
emissions as a proxy for hydrocarbon burning need to be greatly
reduced regardless of what warming effects they may or may not have on
the planet.

AND you can never have enough stored hydrocarbon. It is far too
valuable a feedstock resource to be pillaging the future's reserves
for to "just" burn it for its energy content. .


> I can see ZERO value in mainstream rechargeable cars electric cars
> either, especially if there was an ideal battery. You can only have
> "refills" at a sensible speed by battery swap,

That assumes no major battery gains. Some LiIon variants now charge in
under a minute (stand clear).
Vanadium redox batteries used a charged liquid "electrolyte" which
stores energy in the difference between a number of oxidation states.
"Energy" can be pumped in and old electrolyte for charging pumped out
in relatively small time. A list member is well experienced with
these. He may wish to stick his head up, or not.

> and even then the entire
> Electricity Distribution grid would need upgraded.

And?
Everything costs money. I'm told that the US's infrastructure is
largely worn out, or far more so than was intended when it was built,
and that the repeatedly postponed day when major input is needed looms
near. (Bridges, roads, ...) I DO NO KNOW the truth of this, but
slipping a new power grid into the impossible bill may as well be done
:-).
FWIW everywhere I have been in China they are undergoing massive
public works programs - roads, bridges, railways, ... on a scale
almost unimaginable. AND everywhere I go in China there are seriously
too-old  factories littering the countryside - well past their 'use
by' date. Seems that they both know the lesson and have failed to
learn it.

> I used to think bio-fuel was a good idea, but unless a digester is
> making it from the WASTE vegetable matter of food crops (i.e. stems of
> maize, rape, sunflower, banana etc) it only makes people starve and put
> up food prices.

Largely true. I have somewhere a stunningly sobering report that
analyses "spare" land capacity in all European countries, plus
efficiency of production of biofuels in each, and which then makes
predictions as to what could be achieved using ALL "spare" land.
Notionally it may achieve all energy needs in the medium term but the
scale is vast and one can be sure that real results would be inferior
to predicted.
Some crops use seriously bad land to produce high energy density
crops that are inedible but that have almost all by products useful
for something. There is an Australian one (name somewhere) and there
is an Indian & African tree (Moringa oleifera ) that is very
widespread (no mistake)  that has some food output but also is highly
useful for about everything. Even can be used as a high quality water
flocculant allowing "one or two 9's) water purification.

> Obviously using up waste cooking oil etc in diesel
> engines or aircraft turbines is good, but it can only be a small
> percentage unless we eat a lot more deep fat fried food :(

Yes. Marginal value.
I know a man in Louisiana  who seems competent and honest (and having
had a part in advising those planning the Bay of Pigs affair because
he was ordered to*, should not be held against him :-) ) who claims to
be able to convert almost any food waste into quality hydrocarbon
product at a viable price. Most such claimants  are dreamers and/or
snake oil purveyors. He doesn't seem to be either).
* So older than young :-).

Hydrogen as an energy transport medium and clean burning or conversion
energy releaser seems highly attractive, once you work out how to do
little things [tm] like transport IT economically.
ie carrying Protons with an electron attached is easier than carrying
just electrons, but not too much.



Russel

2011\07\08@135057 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Good analysis Russell. Comments below...


On 7/8/2011 8:50 AM, RussellMc wrote:
{Quote hidden}

I predict battery gains also. I am suspicious of Lithium, but the Metal Hydride types
are not tapped out yet.

Here in Tucson, the big college Pizza shop drives all-electric vehicles, but they charge
from PV arrays mounted on the roof. Seem to run well.
>> and even then the entire
>> Electricity Distribution grid would need upgraded.
Dead right. The non-repair of the US power grid when money was being thrown around
by the Washington DC lunatics is a travesty.


> And?
> Everything costs money. I'm told that the US's infrastructure is
> largely worn out, or far more so than was intended when it was built,
> and that the repeatedly postponed day when major input is needed looms
> near. (Bridges, roads, ...) I DO NO KNOW the truth of this, but
> slipping a new power grid into the impossible bill may as well be done
> :-).

The sewers under Atlanta, GA were last repaired as Sherman marched out. Bridges
collapse regularly. Its my opinion that the US cannot recover from this financial wound
unless we (1) get rid of the Federal Reserve Bank, (2) dismantle the Internal Revenue
Service, and outlaw the Democrats & Republicans.



{Quote hidden}

I agree. Somebody is making a lot of money somehow.
{Quote hidden}

Lotsa those on the WWW. Amazing.
> Hydrogen as an energy transport medium and clean burning or conversion
> energy releaser seems highly attractive, once you work out how to do
> little things [tm] like transport IT economically.
> ie carrying Protons with an electron attached is easier than carrying
> just electrons, but not too much.

I agree.


Nice note, R!!
>
>
>   Russell


--Bob A

2011\07\08@135922 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
Hi Bob,

You know that political speech is not allowed.

No more passes. Don't do it again. Don't even get close.

Thanks,

Bob


On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 10:51 -0700, "Bob Axtell" wrote:
> Its my opinion that the US cannot recover from this
> financial wound
> unless we (1) get rid of the Federal Reserve Bank, (2) dismantle the
> Internal Revenue
> Service, and outlaw the Democrats & Republicans.

-- http://www.fastmail.fm - Accessible with your email software
                         or over the web

2011\07\08@144047 by M.L.

flavicon
face
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Michael Watterson <mikespamKILLspamradioway.org>wrote:

> I can see ZERO value in mainstream rechargeable cars electric cars
> either, especially if there was an ideal battery. You can only have
> "refills" at a sensible speed by battery swap, and even then the entire
> Electricity Distribution grid would need upgraded.
>

Except that there are people who have been using them for decades (and
earlier)

All of your arguments are repeated ad nauseum by people who believe there
will be one solution to the oil problem.

Electric cars can be seen as one piece of a much larger system of solutions..
Part of the solution may be that people will decide that $10 a gallon
gasoline means it's too expensive to afford the convenience of driving as
far as I want, as often as I want.

-- Martin K

2011\07\08@150541 by Byron Jeff

flavicon
face
On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 10:52:14AM -0400, Michael Watterson wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Hydrogen isn't a fuel. It's an energy carrier, and not a particularly good
one at that. Getting it by cracking hydrocarbons is just about as bad as
burning the hydrocarbons themselves. May as well take the energy to do that
and stick it into a battery at 90%+ efficiency.

>
> I can see ZERO value in mainstream rechargeable cars electric cars
> either, especially if there was an ideal battery. You can only have
> "refills" at a sensible speed by battery swap, and even then the entire
> Electricity Distribution grid would need upgraded.

I agree with the second part to a point, but totally disagree with the
first premise. Most folks naturally map their perceptions of current cars
onto electric cars: find a station, fill it up, run it empty, repeat. By
this metric, electric cars will never be viable because electricity does
not have the energy density of gasoline or the speed of refillability.

But electricity does have some advantages. First is the widescale
distribution network (which I do agree needs to be improved). The second is
that via induction it is possible to both power a vehicle and charge the
batteries while it is moving.. Not an easy feat to pull off with gasoline
or hydrogen.

Many of these issues were discussed in some research from Cal Berkeley's
PATH project:

http://www.electricgvan.com/Documentation/http___repositories.cdlib.org_cgi_viewcontent.pdf

The study showed a bus in continous operation for 7 hours only having used
about 14% of its usable battery capacity. With a proper distribution grid
in place an electric vehicle can travel long distances primarily powered by
the in road grid. It can still be charged overnight pretty much anywhere.
And when neither are available, the onboard batteries can convey it quite a
few miles before running out of power.

The bottom line is that the vast majority of cars spend most of their time
on well defined roads. Electrify the roads, then the distribution problems, the range problems, and the perception problems disappear.


>
> I used to think bio-fuel was a good idea, but unless a digester is
> making it from the WASTE vegetable matter of food crops (i.e. stems of
> maize, rape, sunflower, banana etc) it only makes people starve and put
> up food prices. Obviously using up waste cooking oil etc in diesel
> engines or aircraft turbines is good, but it can only be a small
> percentage unless we eat a lot more deep fat fried food :(

I thought that oil from algae was interesting.

http://www.oilgae.com/ref/faq/faq.html

BAJ
-- Byron A. Jeff
Department Chair: IT/CS/CNET
College of Information and Mathematical Sciences
Clayton State University
http://cims.clayton.edu/bjef

2011\07\08@162120 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
On 7/8/2011 10:59 AM, Bob Blick wrote:
> Hi Bob,
>
> You know that political speech is not allowed.
>
> No more passes. Don't do it again. Don't even get close.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob
>
>
> On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 10:51 -0700, "Bob Axtell" wrote:
>> Its my opinion that the US cannot recover from this
>> financial wound
>> unless we (1) get rid of the Federal Reserve Bank, (2) dismantle the
>> Internal Revenue
>> Service, and outlaw the Democrats&  Republicans.

Thanks, Bob.


Sorry folks, went to see family on the 4th.

--Bob

2011\07\08@164506 by Oli Glaser

flavicon
face
On 08/07/2011 19:40, M.L. wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Michael Watterson<.....mikeKILLspamspam.....radioway.org>wrote:
>
>> I can see ZERO value in mainstream rechargeable cars electric cars
>> either, especially if there was an ideal battery. You can only have
>> "refills" at a sensible speed by battery swap, and even then the entire
>> Electricity Distribution grid would need upgraded.
>>
> Except that there are people who have been using them for decades (and
> earlier)
>
> All of your arguments are repeated ad nauseum by people who believe there
> will be one solution to the oil problem.
>
> Electric cars can be seen as one piece of a much larger system of solutions.
> Part of the solution may be that people will decide that $10 a gallon
> gasoline means it's too expensive to afford the convenience of driving as
> far as I want, as often as I want.
>

I agree - we need to shift our perception a little. Electric cars are different to petrol/diesel cars, and have their +/- in just the same way.
Driving as far as we want to, when we want to reasonably cheaply has been the norm for a long time. It is not essential for our survival though. Sometimes progress (not necessarily technological) means taking a step back.

2011\07\08@183311 by Byron Jeff

flavicon
face
On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 04:44:53PM -0400, Oli Glaser wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Agreed. Most electric car naysayers have the mentaility "I only need a
single vehicle, and that vehicle needs to meet all needs when I need them."
It's really the uncertainty, or rather the certainty of the limitations of
the electric vehicle, that drives the negative perception.

An electric vehicle with a 50 mile range would serve over 90% of my driving
needs. But if any of the other 10% (long road trip, emergency travel
elsewhere than work/home, carrying more than 2 passengers) pop up, then the
vehicle no longer is suitable. The uncertainty of those events coupled with
the prospect of running out of power, with no quick recharge ability.

On possible solution is to have a powerful backup emergency battery for
these types of situations. Metal/Ait batterys such as Zinc/Air or
Aluminum/Air are primary batteries that cannot be recharged. However, they
are more lightweight and much more powerful than the rechargable batteries that
are normally used. Simply keep the air electrode sealed until you need the
extra power. After use, replace the emergency battery.

Just a thought.

BAJ

>
>
>
> -

2011\07\08@191854 by Lyle Hazelwood

picon face
> An electric vehicle with a 50 mile range would serve over 90% of my driving
> needs. But if any of the other 10% (long road trip, emergency travel
> elsewhere than work/home, carrying more than 2 passengers) pop up, then the
> vehicle no longer is suitable. The uncertainty of those events coupled with
> the prospect of running out of power, with no quick recharge ability.

I always thought that all-electric vehicles could be augmented with tow-behind
gasoline generators for those occasional (planned) longer trips.
Just a gas tank and a gasoline powered generator with an umbilical
cord to the towing vehicle.

These trailers could be rented for the duration of the trip only, and
so the maintenance
responsibilities fall to the equipment owner. If there is a problem
with one, they could swap
out the trailer faster than most repairs could be implemented.

While this is still carbon-burning, it allows the efficiency of an
electric-only vehicle to be
fully appreciated for the 90% of the time, and covers the highway
needs using the existing
gasoline distribution network we already have in place.

Any future legislation to improve carbon emissions in personal
vehicles could be focused
on the trailer renting companies, and leave the vehicle owners out of
the loop. This would make
enforcement and compliance a LOT easier to manage.

It also avoids the need to swap batteries, and all the potential
issues that entails.

Lyl

2011\07\08@220301 by Sean Breheny

face picon face
Hi Russell,

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 11:50 AM, RussellMc <apptechnzspamspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote:
> Vanadium redox batteries used a charged liquid "electrolyte" which
> stores energy in the difference between a number of oxidation states.
> "Energy" can be pumped in and old electrolyte for charging pumped out
> in relatively small time. A list member is well experienced with
> these. He may wish to stick his head up, or not.
>

I would greatly appreciate if I could get in touch with said list
member as I have an application which MIGHT be ripe for Vanadium redox
batteries but I need some additional info which I've not found in my
casual web searches so far.

Sea

2011\07\08@221420 by RussellMc

face picon face
> >  A list member is well experienced with
> > these. He may wish to stick his head up, or not.

> I would greatly appreciate if I could get in touch with said list
> member as I have an application which MIGHT be ripe for Vanadium redox
> batteries but I need some additional info which I've not found in my
> casual web searches so far.

Sean - I just sent him an mail pointing out your interest

2011\07\09@023021 by Sean Breheny

face picon face
Thank you!

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 10:13 PM, RussellMc <@spam@apptechnzKILLspamspamgmail.com> wrote:
>> >  A list member is well experienced with
>> > these. He may wish to stick his head up, or not.
>
>> I would greatly appreciate if I could get in touch with said list
>> member as I have an application which MIGHT be ripe for Vanadium redox
>> batteries but I need some additional info which I've not found in my
>> casual web searches so far.
>
> Sean - I just sent him an mail pointing out your interest.
>

2011\07\09@182846 by Byron Jeff

flavicon
face
On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 07:18:54PM -0400, Lyle Hazelwood wrote:
> > An electric vehicle with a 50 mile range would serve over 90% of my driving
> > needs. But if any of the other 10% (long road trip, emergency travel
> > elsewhere than work/home, carrying more than 2 passengers) pop up, then the
> > vehicle no longer is suitable. The uncertainty of those events coupled with
> > the prospect of running out of power, with no quick recharge ability.
>
> I always thought that all-electric vehicles could be augmented with tow-behind
> gasoline generators for those occasional (planned) longer trips.

Yes, that's doable. Unfortunately the average (or even the above average)
consumer isn't going to want to be bothered. Then the discussion turns to
integrating the gas engine into the car, and you're right back at the
hybrids of today, from the Prius, which cannot go more than a mile or two
on electric power alone, to the Volt, which does have better range but ends
up having the gas engine kick in much sooner because you have to lug around
the gas engine and gasoline all the time.

> Just a gas tank and a gasoline powered generator with an umbilical
> cord to the towing vehicle.
> These trailers could be rented for the duration of the trip only, and
> so the maintenance
> responsibilities fall to the equipment owner. If there is a problem
> with one, they could swap
> out the trailer faster than most repairs could be implemented.

Seems to defeat the purpose. As long as folks continue to think that
hybrids (of any gasoline type) is the solution, the infrastructure required
to support an all electric infrastructure will never be developed.

>
>
> While this is still carbon-burning, it allows the efficiency of an
> electric-only vehicle to be
> fully appreciated for the 90% of the time, and covers the highway
> needs using the existing
> gasoline distribution network we already have in place.

Too complex for the "get in and drive" crowd that is required to create the
necessary economies of scale.
>
> Any future legislation to improve carbon emissions in personal
> vehicles could be focused
> on the trailer renting companies, and leave the vehicle owners out of
> the loop. This would make
> enforcement and compliance a LOT easier to manage.
>
> It also avoids the need to swap batteries, and all the potential
> issues that entails.

The only way to flip the switch, IMHO, is to create an infrastructure that
makes electrics better than gas vehicles. It cannot be more comples, too
much more expensive, or have any significant limitations in order for it to
work. Or there needs to be mandates, or incentives, to get into the game.
Right now neither really exists on a signicant scale. From an energy
capacity standpoint, gas is very close to "magic". Unless a competing
electrical infrastructure that costs about the same and has seemingly
"magic" properties (like not having to stop to get more energy), it's going
to be virtually impossible to effect a switch.

BAJ

>
> Lyle
> -

2011\07\09@190443 by cdb

flavicon
face


:: the Volt, which does have better range but ends
:: up having the gas engine kick in much sooner because you have to
:: lug around the gas engine and gasoline all the time.

Slight sidestep :)

I recall many moons ago (well when I was about 9), a light weight engine casing was built made out of ceramics. The prototype was a flat VW Kombi engine and the idea was that when it broke down the engine could be just slid out and a new one put in.

The 'blurb'** was quite excited at the prospects of a lighter engine and the fact it could be remoulded. Perhaps whoever bought the patent for that technology could make a buck or two bringing the idea up to date.

** Blurb was a series of technology based information cards about A4 in size distributed to people who purchased more than 3 gallons or petrol from Jet stations or had a squirt of Redex or two.

Colin



--
cdb, KILLspamcolinKILLspamspambtech-online.co.uk on 10/07/2011
Web presence: http://www.btech-online.co.uk   Hosted by:  http://www.justhost.com.au
 This email is to be considered private if addressed to a named  individual or HR department, and public if addressed to a blog,  forum or news article.

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2011 , 2012 only
- Today
- New search...