Breakthrough promises $1.50 per gallon synthetic gasoline with no carbon emissions


http://www.gizmag.com/breakthrough-p...issions/17687/

UK-based Cella Energy has developed a synthetic fuel that could lead to US$1.50 per gallon gasoline. Apart from promising a future transportation fuel with a stable price regardless of oil prices, the fuel is hydrogen based and produces no carbon emissions when burned. The technology is based on complex hydrides, and has been developed over a four year top secret program at the prestigious Rutherford Appleton Laboratory near Oxford. Early indications are that the fuel can be used in existing internal combustion engined vehicles without engine modification.

According to Stephen Voller CEO at Cella Energy, the technology was developed using advanced materials science, taking high energy materials and encapsulating them using a nanostructuring technique called coaxial electrospraying.

“We have developed new micro-beads that can be used in an existing gasoline or petrol vehicle to replace oil-based fuels,” said Voller. “Early indications are that the micro-beads can be used in existing vehicles without engine modification.”

“The materials are hydrogen-based, and so when used produce no carbon emissions at the point of use, in a similar way to electric vehicles”, said Voller.

The technology has been developed over a four-year top secret programme at the prestigious Rutherford Appleton Laboratory near Oxford, UK.

The development team is led by Professor Stephen Bennington in collaboration with scientists from University College London and Oxford University.

Professor Bennington, Chief Scientific Officer at Cella Energy said, “our technology is based on materials called complex hydrides that contain hydrogen. When encapsulated using our unique patented process, they are safer to handle than regular gasoline.”

 

Or is this going to be like Ethanol that takes more energy to build and supply than it's worth?

 

http://www.cellaenergy.com/

As another guy said on my local board, if it's true I can hear the oil companies having an OSM! (Oh S*^& moment)

 

I'm sure it is fake, that or it has a negative ERoEI.

What is the feedstock for this new fuel? That right their should give us an idea if it is real or not.

 

Interesting. Sounds like the perverbial "magic bullet" that shouldn't be possible though. We get to keep powerful ICEs and make the greenies happy, at a cheap price?

I'm not sure how "stable" the prices will be - if there's eventually a hydrogen futures market like any other commodity it could be subject to the same type of crap we're dealing with now.

My only question would be whether or not the production process makes it realistic to distribute on a scale such that it can outright replace gasoline. And can I still get synthetic 93 for my car.

 

Says the fuel is hydrogen-based, which makes sense. The fact that hydrogen is the most abundant element around makes me at least initially hopeful.

 

Trash this with the 100 MPG carberator. If this were real, they'd be selling it like whoa already.

 

Not if they've just now developed it.

When you think about it, you kind of wonder why the concept of a synthetic gasoline hasn't come about to this point. As I said, the production process and energy in/out ratio would have to make it worth producing on a global scale. Certainly this has to be a large obstacle.

 

That means nothing. Water is hydrogen based, but a takes a lot of energy to separate the H2 from the O. Even coal has hydrogen in it. They could be doing liquefied coal, but then at that point you are using coal, not a new energy source. "Synthetic Gasoline" is no good if your feedstock is coal, natural gas, or so form of oil.

 

I understand what you're saying, but I don't see the point in starting with a hydrocarbon material like coal, oil, etc. to synthesize a hydrocarbon material. It's a waste of time and I would certainly hope that isn't what this research is doing.

There just aren't enough specifics here to make a judgement one way or another outside of some abstract techno mumbo-jumbo.

 

You are right, there are not enough specifics, but if I had to take a guess, I would say that it is based off Natural gas or another hydro carbon. There is some value in finding new ways to make liquid fuels, like for air travel, but not when it comes to automobile use.

 

Most hydrogen today is made from natural gas, simply because it's the most cost effective method. Cheaper than electrolysis, for example.

Assuming hydrogen is the basis for this new fuel, and that the market for this fuel takes off, the sheer volume of hydrogen required would greatly disrupt the natural gas market such that it may no longer carry a cost advantage. At that point we could perhaps foresee hydrogen being produced via electrolysis on solar or wind farms, where issues of peak supply/demand or location would be less relevant than they are today when simply supplying electricity to the grid. The ability to economically store and make portable the energy produced by solar/wind would greatly increase their viability.

 

It appears that this is not a way to generate hydrogen, but a way to store and deliver hydrogen at normal temperature and pressure. In other words, it's a way to deliver hydrogen in a liquid form (like gasoline) but without having to pressurize it. That's what the nanoparticles do; each nanoparticle is like a little sphere of encapsulated hydrogen that releases it's hydrogen at slightly elevated temperature and pressure (as in a combustion chamber). At least I think that's how I read it.

 

It seems every 5 or 6 years some guy comes along with some magic new fuel that is going to save us. What happened to that guy, with Catterpillar's backing, a few years ago that had developed some new fuel that was suppose to save us?

 

If this is real, then expect the oil companies to buy, and then bury, the company and it's research & developments.