REPP logo banner adsolstice ad
site map
Google Search REPP WWW register comment
home
repp
energy and environment
discussion groups
calendar
gem
about us
employment
 
REPP-CREST
1612 K Street, NW
Suite 202
Washington, DC 20006
contact us
discussion groups
efficiencyefficiency hydrogenhydrogen solarsolar windwind geothermalgeothermal bioenergybioenergy hydrohydro policypolicy
Bioenergy Archive for September 2002
54 messages, last added Tue Nov 26 17:13:57 2002

[Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Hydrogen Economy greatly overrated, biomass underrated...



 Dear all,      
       This first question may be particularly directed at biodigestion as 
well. The first letter from Tom R. missed that list.  If Methane is such a 
good fuel, what is the difference between naturally produced methane, i.e., 
natural gas from a well, and methane from a landfill? 
       Most of the biowaste from the past, has ended up burnt or in a 
landfill.  If the process of gas production is the same as geological, why is 
landfill gas not as clean? Is it the amount of time that passes and/or the 
effects of the surrounding limestone or other rocks?  Is it the presents of 
more water affecting the quantity of CO2 and NH4 contamination produced?  
What happened to those contaminants in nature's process?  Can we learn from 
this? 
       Can Landfill gas be an important source of REFINED methane or hydrogen 
as required? Obviously, since free methane is many times worse than CO2 as a 
greenhouse gas, then trapping and burning it to CO2 should be first priority. 
The payback is many times greater than simply cleaning up existing 
combustion. 
        Can the new landfills be constructed in such a way to maximize 
production of clean methane with little byproduct? We would be simply 
creating our own replacement gas wells.  Would we be better off with 
controlled fast digestion of MSW(Municipal solid waste) as opposed to 
landfills? We could then landfill only the ash leftover. Blended sewage 
sludge could accelerate the program "killing two birds with one stone." 
       Here in Ohio, there is an excellent program to maximize production of 
electricity from landfill gas, which is good. Would we be better off to also 
consider this high quality fuel for transportation? Are we better off to just 
replace the existing electric power plants running on natural gas to landfill 
and producer gas?  Then the cleaner natural gas can be saved for 
transportation. Less effort than hydrogen production. Just a small biomass 
subsidy to replace large ones for oil production and hydrogen conversion.
       How difficult is it to convert producer gas, landfill gas, or natural 
gas into synthetic gasoline? It would seem that the effort to produce 
hydrogen, with all of it's storage and usage faults, plus conversion 
inefficiencies, would be much greater.                                        
         
      Synthetic gasoline, or even methanol would be a better energy carrier 
for transportation and cooking fuel.  There are less requirements to change 
infrastructure, and greater safety. By subtracting some hydrogen from 
methane, you can produce gasoline anyhow. While we are doing all of this 
producer gas refining to get some hydrogen, just make gasoline as a 
byproduct. 
       Insurance costs have to be also considered. Who wants to insure the 
Hindenburg? Cannot methanol and methane also be used for fuel cells? 
       A huge quantity of methane hydrates are available under the oceans. 
Combine this with the fact that warmer ocean waters are naturally releasing 
the methane anyway.  These two factors should propel mans use of ocean 
subsurface hydrates for methane production, as our last wave of fossil fuel 
usage.  By trapping what is being released naturally anyway, we can short 
circuit the greenhouse gas cycle, being accelerated by the greenhouse effect. 

       With all this gas around, why are we still drilling for oil anyway? 
What a waste of effort!  All that technology expense, tax breaks, and defense 
spending, into a hole in the ground. Usually this is in another land, with 
negative political implications and transportation losses.  Half the research 
and investment, and we would have gas for centurys, much of it domestic 
and/or renewable, with positive atmospheric effects.                          
                  
       Food for thought, 
        Daniel Dimiduk 

-
Bioenergy List Archives:
http://www.crest.org/discussion/bioenergy/200207/

Bioenergy List Moderator:
Tom Miles,  tmiles@trmiles.com
List-Post: <mailto:bioenergy@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bioenergy-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:bioenergy-subscribe@crest.org>

Sponsor the Bioenergy List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
-
Other Bioenergy Events and Information:
http://www.bioenergy2002.org
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1010424940_7.html Bioenergy
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html Gasification
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975672_7.html Carbon