WWW.BLUEFUELENERGY.COM: According to a US Patent Application Publication (No: US2009/0320356 A1), Nobel Prize-winner George Olah and his Loker Hydrocarbon Research Institute colleage, G.K. Surya Prakash, authors of “Beyond Oil and Gas: the Methanol Economy”, have applied for a patent for an invention relating to “a method of stockpiling a fuel source by storing methanol or dimethyl ether in appropriate storage facilities to provide an alternative fuel source that can be used to avoid shortages due to unavailability, limited availability or excessive costs of oil.” These facilities can be natural or man-made, such as an underground tank, an above-ground tank, or a salt dome.
A fundamental premise behind the invention is that the world is facing an oil crisis and that the US’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), established in the 1970s to maintain an emergency oil supply, is facing daunting challenges, including hurricanes, political unrest in oil producing countries, and overall oil shortages, as well as the fact that oil poses several safety issues, such as its extreme flammability. Another premise is that to mitigate climate change and pollution, renewable, alternative, clean-burning, low-carbon/carbon-neutral fuels need to be widely adopted. Professor Olah and his colleagues at Loker have also patented novel methods of production for methanol and/or dimethyl ether using the hydrogenative chemical recycling of carbon dioxide. To read more about the perspectives of professors Olah and Surya Prakash, click here.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Robert Zacharias test
WWW.BLUEFUELENERGY.COM: GV Energy announced the signing of a MOU with the City of Terrace, British Columbia to acquire land for a bio-refinery plant, and a subsequent December 17 CBC News article generated interest in the project amongst renewable energy writers around the world. The fact that two companies are now planning to use different feedstocks to produce DME in the same jurisdiction in North America bodes well for adoption of this emerging alternative fuel on the continent.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Special DME section of the journal Fuel Processing Technology
Dr. Andre Boehman, Professor of Fuel Science and Materials Science and Engineering at Pennsylvania State University, University Park Pennsylvania, also serves as Editor of Fuel Processing Technology. In this role he created a special DME section of the December 2008 edition of the journal.
This section contains seven research reports on DME received by the journal in 2008. Of the seven reports, three are from the US, and one each is from Iran, China, Italy, and Korea. Click here to view the Table of Contents of the DME section of the journal. Reports can be purchased online.
Heading Five
This section contains seven research reports on DME received by the journal in 2008. Of the seven reports, three are from the US, and one each is from Iran, China, Italy, and Korea. Click here to view the Table of Contents of the DME section of the journal. Reports can be purchased online.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Why blue is green
Let us count the ways . . .
1. Produced with renewable energy—wind, hydro, biomass, geothermal, solar, and ocean—as well as with water and waste carbon dioxide, Blue Fuel can be carbon dioxide-neutral. In other words the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere during combustion is equal to that captured from the industrial plant flue gases to produce it. This mitigates global warming, the ultimate in green! What’s more, when combusted at a facility such as a gas-fired power generation plant where the carbon dioxide can be captured and reused to produce more Blue Fuel, it can be carbon dioxide-negative. Closing the carbon loop results in Blue Fuel that’s . . . greener than green!
2. Even when produced with fossil fuels, such as natural gas and coal, the net amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere during combustion can still be lower than diesel—if green production processes are adopted. These processes include the use of renewable energy and gasification.
3. Blue Fuel burns ultra-clean because it is a simple, hydrogen-rich, oxygenated fuel with a short carbon chain and no direct carbon-to-carbon bonds (CH3–O–CH3). The carbon molecules in Blue Fuel attach to the oxygen, which makes the carbon burn more completely and cleanly. Blue Fuel produces virtually no particulate matter and no visible smoke. It also produces 90% less NOx (nitrogen oxides) than conventional diesel and no SOx (sulfur oxides). This translates into clean air and clear skies—and healthier, longer lives.
4. Blue Fuel burns more efficiently than diesel, which means better fuel consumption and thus lower emissions, including those of carbon dioxide.
5. Compression-ignition engines (diesels) running on Blue Fuel run significantly quieter than on diesel. Reports place it at under 80 decibels, the level of spark-ignition engines (gasoline).
6. Blue Fuel released into the atmosphere has a half-life of hours in the troposphere and days in the upper troposphere before decomposing into carbon dioxide and water. It thus never accumulates in concentrations that cause it to trap solar radiation. In other words, Blue Fuel is a non-greenhouse gas.
7. Blue Fuel is ozone-friendly.
8. Blue Fuel is non-toxic, non-carcinogenic and non-teratagenic (does not interfere with normal embryonic development).
9. Since Blue Fuel is a pressurized fuel stored in closed systems, it is difficult to spill. Further, because it is a vapor at temperatures above -25ºC, at atmospheric temperature it vaporizes and thus does not contaminate the soil.
10. Although Blue Fuel is soluble in water, the likelihood of a spill into water is low because the fuel is stored in a closed system. Regardless, it evaporates over a period of hours.
1. Produced with renewable energy—wind, hydro, biomass, geothermal, solar, and ocean—as well as with water and waste carbon dioxide, Blue Fuel can be carbon dioxide-neutral. In other words the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere during combustion is equal to that captured from the industrial plant flue gases to produce it. This mitigates global warming, the ultimate in green! What’s more, when combusted at a facility such as a gas-fired power generation plant where the carbon dioxide can be captured and reused to produce more Blue Fuel, it can be carbon dioxide-negative. Closing the carbon loop results in Blue Fuel that’s . . . greener than green!
2. Even when produced with fossil fuels, such as natural gas and coal, the net amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere during combustion can still be lower than diesel—if green production processes are adopted. These processes include the use of renewable energy and gasification.
3. Blue Fuel burns ultra-clean because it is a simple, hydrogen-rich, oxygenated fuel with a short carbon chain and no direct carbon-to-carbon bonds (CH3–O–CH3). The carbon molecules in Blue Fuel attach to the oxygen, which makes the carbon burn more completely and cleanly. Blue Fuel produces virtually no particulate matter and no visible smoke. It also produces 90% less NOx (nitrogen oxides) than conventional diesel and no SOx (sulfur oxides). This translates into clean air and clear skies—and healthier, longer lives.
4. Blue Fuel burns more efficiently than diesel, which means better fuel consumption and thus lower emissions, including those of carbon dioxide.
5. Compression-ignition engines (diesels) running on Blue Fuel run significantly quieter than on diesel. Reports place it at under 80 decibels, the level of spark-ignition engines (gasoline).
6. Blue Fuel released into the atmosphere has a half-life of hours in the troposphere and days in the upper troposphere before decomposing into carbon dioxide and water. It thus never accumulates in concentrations that cause it to trap solar radiation. In other words, Blue Fuel is a non-greenhouse gas.
7. Blue Fuel is ozone-friendly.
8. Blue Fuel is non-toxic, non-carcinogenic and non-teratagenic (does not interfere with normal embryonic development).
9. Since Blue Fuel is a pressurized fuel stored in closed systems, it is difficult to spill. Further, because it is a vapor at temperatures above -25ºC, at atmospheric temperature it vaporizes and thus does not contaminate the soil.
10. Although Blue Fuel is soluble in water, the likelihood of a spill into water is low because the fuel is stored in a closed system. Regardless, it evaporates over a period of hours.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Blue Fuel for cleaner air and healthier, longer lives
Almost all of us want to live healthier, longer lives. But as a recent Los Angeles Times article indicates, by breathing in air with excessive concentrations of particulate matter, which billions of us do every day, we are not realizing our potential to do so. This is both tragic and costly, especially given that Blue Fuel is a solution to this problem—a solution waiting to be tapped. And the most obvious and immediate way that Blue Fuel can be used to significantly improve air quality is as replacement for natural gas for power generation because it can be used without the need to modify turbines or combustors and manufacturers such as Mitsubishi, Hitachi, and General Electric have all approved it for their gas turbines.
Here in British Columbia our crown-owned utility, BC Hydro, operates three natural gas-fired power plants. The largest of these, Burrard Thermal Power Station, is a 950 MW plant that provides back-up for the hydroelectric system during low-water years, and supplementary power at peak demand periods and during interruptions in the grid. It could also be run steadily during periods when natural gas prices are relatively low, as they presently are, but this would cause a huge increase in GHG emissions and other types of health- and life-threatening pollution. As Dr. David Suzuki of the Suzuki Foundation notes:
“The US Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 77 percent of particulates from natural gas plants are dangerously small. These fine particulates have the greatest impact on human health because they bypass our bodies’ natural respiratory filters and end up deep in the lungs. In fact, many studies have found no safe limit for exposure to the substances.”
Despite this, there are initiatives to restore Burrard Thermal to full capacity, which according to BC Citizens for Green Energy, would be an environmental obscenity both because of the GHG and fine particulate emissions. The message that Blue Fuel can improve health and save lives—and save society countless millions of dollars by enhancing productivity and minimizing medical costs—needs to be vigorously promoted to utilities and government and non-government organizations charged with the task of improving air quality. Switching from natural gas to Blue Fuel is the low-hanging fruit for proponents of Blue Fuel—and we all know the health benefits of eating fruit.
Here in British Columbia our crown-owned utility, BC Hydro, operates three natural gas-fired power plants. The largest of these, Burrard Thermal Power Station, is a 950 MW plant that provides back-up for the hydroelectric system during low-water years, and supplementary power at peak demand periods and during interruptions in the grid. It could also be run steadily during periods when natural gas prices are relatively low, as they presently are, but this would cause a huge increase in GHG emissions and other types of health- and life-threatening pollution. As Dr. David Suzuki of the Suzuki Foundation notes:
“The US Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 77 percent of particulates from natural gas plants are dangerously small. These fine particulates have the greatest impact on human health because they bypass our bodies’ natural respiratory filters and end up deep in the lungs. In fact, many studies have found no safe limit for exposure to the substances.”
Despite this, there are initiatives to restore Burrard Thermal to full capacity, which according to BC Citizens for Green Energy, would be an environmental obscenity both because of the GHG and fine particulate emissions. The message that Blue Fuel can improve health and save lives—and save society countless millions of dollars by enhancing productivity and minimizing medical costs—needs to be vigorously promoted to utilities and government and non-government organizations charged with the task of improving air quality. Switching from natural gas to Blue Fuel is the low-hanging fruit for proponents of Blue Fuel—and we all know the health benefits of eating fruit.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Blue Fuel/DME, ethanol, and President Obama
Though I can’t say for sure, and would love to be proven wrong, I rather doubt that President Barrack Obama has the slightest idea what the acronym DME stands for. He is in good company, I would think. How many government leaders around the world know what these three letters represent? Precious few. The problem is, President Obama is now laying the foundations for energy policy in the US that will have global implications—for decades. And there is little indication that Blue Fuel/DME is part of that policy.
Blue Fuel/DME has indeed kept a low profile in the US, despite merits that had authors of a 2005 study partially funded by the US Department of Energy concluding:
Compared to some of the other leading alternative fuel candidates (i.e., methane, methanol, ethanol, and Fischer–Tropsch fuels), dimethyl ether appears to have the largest potential impact on society, and should be considered as the fuel of choice for eliminating the dependency on petroleum.
–Journal of Power Sources Volume 156, Issue 2, 1 June 2006, Pages 497-511
Blue Fuel/DME has run into roadblocks in the US that have prevented it from reaching its rightful position as the alternative fuel of choice, one of the most unfortunate of which is the corn-based ethanol industry. Nicholas Hollis, president of an agriculture industry watchdog in the US called Agribusiness Council, has described ethanol as the largest scam in American history. This assessment is not only based on years of unethical, illegal and monopolistic practices, but also because so many prominent scientists have concluded that ethanol’s low energy conversion efficiency, and the energy intensive process to produce corn ethanol, result in an overall process that yields no significant net energy benefit. In other words, it takes as much energy to make it as you get from burning it. Worse than the tar sands of Alberta, Canada! On top of that, the production of corn-based ethanol is associated with a host of other problems, including the production of fuel from food in a hungry world, destruction of the soil, depletion of water resources—and a host of others. In 2008, some 30% of the US grain harvest went straight to ethanol distilleries—to provide energy security. A scam indeed. One subsidized by the US Government.
The reason I link Blue Fuel/DME, ethanol, and President Obama is that the president is from Illinois, where the corn-based ethanol industry is a powerful force. In fact the New York Times has noted that President Obama’s strong support of ethanol helped propel him to his first caucus victory in Illinois. “As befits a senator from the country’s second largest corn-producing state, he delivered a ringing endorsement of ethanol as an alternative fuel.” This, of course, raises the question of whether President Obama is a true reformer, or a lesser, mortal politician, one whose views are shaped by special interests. Is politics as usual going to prevail—in a field as crucial to the future of the planet as energy? A full read of this New York Times article is disturbing and highlights the challenges facing proponents of Blue Fuel/DME in the US.
But persevere we must. The key, of course, is getting access to President Obama—as soon as possible—to explain in uncertain terms why Blue Fuel/DME, and not ethanol, is the fuel for today. This access will no doubt be gained through a trusted ally of the president. Mr. Gore, perhaps? A man who not only knows about Blue Fuel/DME, but who once had a prototype Blue Fuel/DME vehicle. Where there’s a will there’s a way. . .
Blue Fuel/DME has indeed kept a low profile in the US, despite merits that had authors of a 2005 study partially funded by the US Department of Energy concluding:
Compared to some of the other leading alternative fuel candidates (i.e., methane, methanol, ethanol, and Fischer–Tropsch fuels), dimethyl ether appears to have the largest potential impact on society, and should be considered as the fuel of choice for eliminating the dependency on petroleum.
–Journal of Power Sources Volume 156, Issue 2, 1 June 2006, Pages 497-511
Blue Fuel/DME has run into roadblocks in the US that have prevented it from reaching its rightful position as the alternative fuel of choice, one of the most unfortunate of which is the corn-based ethanol industry. Nicholas Hollis, president of an agriculture industry watchdog in the US called Agribusiness Council, has described ethanol as the largest scam in American history. This assessment is not only based on years of unethical, illegal and monopolistic practices, but also because so many prominent scientists have concluded that ethanol’s low energy conversion efficiency, and the energy intensive process to produce corn ethanol, result in an overall process that yields no significant net energy benefit. In other words, it takes as much energy to make it as you get from burning it. Worse than the tar sands of Alberta, Canada! On top of that, the production of corn-based ethanol is associated with a host of other problems, including the production of fuel from food in a hungry world, destruction of the soil, depletion of water resources—and a host of others. In 2008, some 30% of the US grain harvest went straight to ethanol distilleries—to provide energy security. A scam indeed. One subsidized by the US Government.
The reason I link Blue Fuel/DME, ethanol, and President Obama is that the president is from Illinois, where the corn-based ethanol industry is a powerful force. In fact the New York Times has noted that President Obama’s strong support of ethanol helped propel him to his first caucus victory in Illinois. “As befits a senator from the country’s second largest corn-producing state, he delivered a ringing endorsement of ethanol as an alternative fuel.” This, of course, raises the question of whether President Obama is a true reformer, or a lesser, mortal politician, one whose views are shaped by special interests. Is politics as usual going to prevail—in a field as crucial to the future of the planet as energy? A full read of this New York Times article is disturbing and highlights the challenges facing proponents of Blue Fuel/DME in the US.
But persevere we must. The key, of course, is getting access to President Obama—as soon as possible—to explain in uncertain terms why Blue Fuel/DME, and not ethanol, is the fuel for today. This access will no doubt be gained through a trusted ally of the president. Mr. Gore, perhaps? A man who not only knows about Blue Fuel/DME, but who once had a prototype Blue Fuel/DME vehicle. Where there’s a will there’s a way. . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
