Recent Comment
Share
Hydorgen seems like a logical choice for fuel - it's energy dense and emits only water upon combustion - but upon closer examination we see that it's extremely expensive to make from water, so all the hydrogen in production today is made from fossil fuels. But Gerardine Botte at Ohio University has figured out an easy and efficient way to break the bonds in urea to produce hydrogen. The process consumes roughly one quarter of the energy needed to electrolyze water. And, yes, the world has a fairly plentiful (and renewable) supply of urea. Maybe not enough to power all our cars, but it's a start.
Very simply, an inexpensive electrode oxidizes the urea creating two H2 molecules, nitrogen gas and potassium carbonate. Success! None of these chemicals are bad for the environment, and, indeed, are useful, saleable byproducts. The urea doesn't need to be pure or anything either, the process works with human urine, meaning that port-o-johns could someday become useful hydrogen-generation stations.
Of course, we don't have oceans or rivers or lakes of urea (good thing) so it is a more limited feedstock than water. The good news is, what we do have of it is a waste product, and (especially in the case of livestock) already needs to be managed more effectively for environmental reasons. So it certainly wouldn't hurt to have an extra source of hydrogen gas while giving the world a reason to more effectively manage its waste.
Hits: 17775
Comments (25)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Elana, July 07, 2009
This is AWESOME! It not only has innumerable benefits as far as a renewable energy source, it also helps us get rid of a byproduct waste we're spending money and energy to get rid of anyway. If we could make this work, it would be amazing. Maybe we could even figure out a way to have our toilets transport urine to energy plants when we flush the toilet! Haha.
Elana
Greenpeace Intern
Elana
Greenpeace Intern
-
- +1
-
-
written by Luis, July 07, 2009
This sure looks great. I'm not aware of the stoichiometry of the process, but I just wonder, if we are to produce massive quantities of H2, most likely massive quantities of N2 and K2CO3 will be produced as well. for the potassium carbonate, I guess we can store the spare stock, but what about N2? Is it safe to just release it to the atmosphere, at whichever rate and amount?
-
- +0
-
-
written by shek, July 07, 2009
I would think using urea for a feedstock would be nitrogen neutral (I would assume that there is a nitrogen cycle of some sort). N2 accounts for 78% of the Earth's atmosphere, and is essenctial to life, so I doubt this process would contribute much of a change in concentration or have any ill effects.
-
- +1
-
-
written by Patrick, July 08, 2009
Just another item that we normally would get no use out of and make a useful product like hydrogen. I never would have thought that we could get hydrogen from urine using less energy than from water.
-
- +1
-
-
written by Herno, July 08, 2009
First, Hydrogen is not "energy dense" it´s the least dense of our known fuels.
Second, putting catheters in cows is quite problematic, seriously they get infected all the time. It´s already been thought for producing recombinant proteins in cows urine instead of milk. But who knows, maybe it could work.
Third, reggarding the question about the molecular concentration of urea, the answer is yes, the more molecules of urea you have the better. But if you have diluted urine it would be easy to just concentrate it to the level you want.
Second, putting catheters in cows is quite problematic, seriously they get infected all the time. It´s already been thought for producing recombinant proteins in cows urine instead of milk. But who knows, maybe it could work.
Third, reggarding the question about the molecular concentration of urea, the answer is yes, the more molecules of urea you have the better. But if you have diluted urine it would be easy to just concentrate it to the level you want.
-
- +1
-
-
written by grimlyfiendish, July 08, 2009
This is a wonderful idea, but don't bring up livestock. Factory farm animals are already mistreated enough without having to walk around with catheters in all the time. When this goes corporate they'll be forcing them to over-drink so they'll pee more. It's amazing technology but let's not put all the burden on the already over-burdened animals.
-
- +4
-
-
written by BrianH1988, July 08, 2009
If we start having pity for animals that have been completely bred for the past 4000 years to be completely used in any way possible for human consumption and use, there would be little point in it. The cattle currently in the system are already too far gone to have pity for. These animals are tools, nothing more. They have been bred far beyond the scope of wild cattle, and they are to the point where if we released all the cattle into the wild, it would take millenia for them to survive as they did before they were domesticated. Your concern for domesticated animals being mistreated is pointless, since they are already condemned to death the moment they are born. That being said, if we were to go without livestock for even a single year, a good portion of the human race would die out, even the vegetarians. This is merely political correctness on your part. Feeling sorry for the cow will not change the outcome on what happens to it. I do realize that cows experience a wide range of emotions and are self-aware, but the truth is is that as long as there are people, there will be need to slaughter them for the long list of products they yield. That being said, I understand your point of view. But truth be told, your concern is antithetical to the human race.
-
- -3
-
-
written by BrianH1988, July 08, 2009
Okay, my apologies. Replace every instance of the word cow in that post with the word "livestock". I wish they had the ability to edit posts here without registering. Most blogging sites that have the ability to leave comments. Anyway, while I'm typing up another comment post, (in response to the article in question) I think this is an awesome idea, and that we should most definitely use every resource available to us. But we should also use some moderation and try to make such uses efficient, so that it lasts as long as is possible. But we need to balance cost efficiency with quality. Obviously, if something costs far less to produce hydrogen with, that's clearly the process to produce it we should be using.
-
- +0
-
-
written by apachai, July 08, 2009
This is great idea, one piss and your off. out on the open road. and piss over the week and you have enough for the trip to the mountains for the weekend.
Make it use just enough so the car can run 150+ miles on one leak, and were in business.
Make it use just enough so the car can run 150+ miles on one leak, and were in business.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Uncle B, July 08, 2009
The Swedes and Norwegians also bio-gas sewage and offal into consumer gas and Oslo runs its buses on the stuff to cut the cost of imported oil and save their economy - Not so the proud and Mighty Yankee Doodle, who persists in breaking his countries economic back by burning expensive imported oil as gasoline in his V-8 landcruisers, and spreads his Shiite all over his fair land, an enhancement I'm sure! The sewage from pig-farms in Michigan smells so bad tourists stop going their! Do we collect it into compressible bio-gas and use it as fuel like India does? Hell No! We are arrogant, entitled, Americans and prefer to spread it in disease causing ponds, lakes, fields, streams, wherever! but practical recovery enforced by law? not us! So why should urine be any different? make an Arab Saudi Prince rich today! Fill your fuckin' tank, and shiite in the parks and lakes. let unregulated vulture capitalism rule, and sell your goddamn mother's ass for a ROI! Do things the American way, America, Love it or leave it, just don't even try to change the stench we all enjoy so much! Close your windows, turn up your A-C and cruise your V-8 on gasoline only baby! You owe nobody nothin'! We won in WWII, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Gulf war, and Iraq, and we rule man! Hear my big noisy mufflers now, and pay mind! The Chinks are gonna bail us every goddamn time, ya' hear now!
-
- +0
-
-
written by Suz, July 16, 2009
Well condoms that are attached to urinary collection bags just like the kind we use on old men are perfect for collecting that golden bio-brew....and for the female cows we have U-Bags. They stick on the skin right over the orfice.
When there is a will there is a way. Anything is better than supporting the mideast and stripping the earth of fossil fuel.
When there is a will there is a way. Anything is better than supporting the mideast and stripping the earth of fossil fuel.
-
- +1
-
-
written by Armny, July 16, 2009
Have you ever sat near the toilets in a large airplane?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Eddie, July 16, 2009
I can hardly wait for this idea to be featured on "Dirtiest Jobs".
-
- +0
-
-
written by Jim, July 16, 2009
Honey, I'm doing my patriotic duty and going to put in some time down at the hydrogen production facility. I better make sure to take some extra money for the darts and munchies.
-
- +0
-
-
written by John, July 16, 2009
Can't wait for the bumper sticker "This car is 100% piss powered"! One question: Are you going to train cows to pee at a designated location? Or make them walk around all day with external bladders that capture the pee?
-
- +1
-
-
written by autostry, July 18, 2009
I think that this is a great idea! If they could make it possible to use both human and animal waste as fuel, then it would give a big impact to Mother Earth as we are clearing up some of our wastes from the dumps.
-
- +0
-
-
written by jamie, August 07, 2009
could you not extract the million of tonnes of urea in the sewers? Free power!
-
- +0
-
-
written by jamie, August 07, 2009
Could we not use the millions of tonnes of urea in the sewers?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Mark, August 10, 2009
doesn't mean they are just tools. If I breed mildly autistic and mentally retarded children and use them as livestock are they just tools? Afterall, they too cannot independently succeed in their natural environment. Cows are no different. If we stopped reproducing livestock and let the existing lot die off without replenishment we'd have plenty of time to adapt.
Nutritionally, there's no reason to ever kill an animal. I can reproduce in a lab every single bit of nutrition that a cow can produce in milk or meat. There's also more than enough non-animal food to feed the world.
H2 from urine, if it works is a good idea. Unfortunately, the cost of storing, transporting, and transferring H2 is very high. If the process produces more energy than it consumes then the H2 produced might be a good idea for a new class of small scale, local powerplants but not for direct use in transportation.
H2 was and will never be a good idea for use in cars and trucks.
Nutritionally, there's no reason to ever kill an animal. I can reproduce in a lab every single bit of nutrition that a cow can produce in milk or meat. There's also more than enough non-animal food to feed the world.
H2 from urine, if it works is a good idea. Unfortunately, the cost of storing, transporting, and transferring H2 is very high. If the process produces more energy than it consumes then the H2 produced might be a good idea for a new class of small scale, local powerplants but not for direct use in transportation.
H2 was and will never be a good idea for use in cars and trucks.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Angela, August 12, 2009
Mark, as the Mom of a "mildly Autistic" child and someone who's been around cows, I take offense at your saying that they are "no different". Cows do not know when they are being made fun of or being laughed at. Cows are not self-aware. Cows do not ask questions about the nature of God or love. And how, precisely, are you going to "breed" them, since we don't know the causes? Mentally disabled (NOT retarded - ugly word) and autistic people can make music, love, laughter and art; none of which cows can do.
-
- +0
-
-
written by nuvi, August 25, 2009
urea to h2 takes advantage of the inherent inefficiencies of our food system:
fossil fuels --> fertiliser --> food --> pee + energy --> hydrgen. where hydrogen is not the source of power, the electricity used to electrolyze the urea provides the power. Much more efficient would be peeing in your vegetable garden, nutrients in, nutrients out.
fossil fuels --> fertiliser --> food --> pee + energy --> hydrgen. where hydrogen is not the source of power, the electricity used to electrolyze the urea provides the power. Much more efficient would be peeing in your vegetable garden, nutrients in, nutrients out.
-
- +0
-
-
written by sb shoes, August 25, 2009
I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don’t know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
-
- +0
-
-
written by jenny Blakey, October 05, 2009
what is the point of saving this world the human race have destoryed this lovey world it is under great pressure land food water etc the resource are limited there are far to many people in this world who are greedy selfish and care about themsleves we kill each other and the human race hate each other what is the point of saving this world the human race are not worth saving this world will fill up with water or it will burn down do I care not really
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Seriously, have you ever seen a cow take a leak? Easily gallons of the stuff every time they go, and they go MANY times a day! With the energy density of Hydrogen, I gotta believe cattle alone could provide much of the required "fuel"!
Wonder if the "density" of the urea matters? I mean like if you have been drinking water all day it has an "x" factor, but if you have been drinking beer all weekend it has a "multiple x" factor?! Protein have anything to do with it?
Just sayin...