Rice study fuels hope for natural gas cars

Cars that run on natural gas are touted as efficient and environmentally friendly, but getting enough gas onboard to make them practical is a hurdle. A new study led by researchers at Rice University promises to help. Rather than shoehorn bulky high-pressure tanks like those used in buses and trucks into light vehicles, the Department of Energy (DOE) encourages scientists to look at new materials that can store compressed natural gas (CNG) at low pressure and at room temperature. Cage-like synthetic macromolecules called metal organic frameworks (MOFs) are among the candidates.

Examples of metal organic frameworks, which may be suitable for natural gas storage, were discovered through a computer algorithm developed at Rice University. The program explores possible combinations of components that may be used to synthesize the compounds. In these illustrations, molecules known as secondary building units (top left) and organic binding ligands, or linkers (top right) can be used in a chemical process to produce the metal organic framework seen at the bottom, according to the program. (Courtesy of the Deem Research Group/Rice University

MOFs are nanoscale compounds of metal ions or clusters known as secondary building units (SBUs) and organic binding ligands, or linkers. These linkers hold the SBUs together in a spongy network that can capture and store methane molecules in a tank under pressure. As the pressure is relieved, the network releases the methane for use. Because there are tens of thousands of possible MOFs, it’s a daunting task to synthesize them for testing. Researchers have turned to using computers to model candidates with the right qualities. A team led by Rice bioengineer Michael Deem went a step further; they used a custom algorithm to not only quickly design new MOF configurations able to store compressed natural gas — aka methane — with a high “deliverable capacity,” but ones that can be reliably synthesized from commercial precursor molecules. And here’s a handy bonus: The algorithm also keeps track of the routes to synthesis. Deem and his colleagues at Rice, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of California-Berkeley reported their results this month in the American Chemical Society’s Journal of Physical Chemistry C. MOFs show potential for applications like drug delivery, sensing, purification and catalysis, but methane storage for transportation is high on the DOE’s wish list, Deem said. “MOFs are being commercialized for methane storage in vehicles now,” he said. The advantages to using MOF as a storage medium are many and start with increased capacity over the heavy, high-pressure cylinders in current use. The Rice study found 48 MOFs that beat the best currently available, a compound called MOF-5, by as much as 8 percent. The program adhered to standard DOE conditions that an ideal MOF would store methane at 65 bar (atmospheric pressure at sea level is one bar) and release it at 5.8 bar, all at 298 kelvins (about 77 degrees Fahrenheit). That pressure is significantly less than standard CNG tanks, and the temperature is far higher than liquid natural gas tanks that must be cooled to minus 260 degrees F. Lower pressures mean tanks can be lighter and made to fit cars better, Deem said. They may also offer the possibility that customers can tank up from household gas supply lines. The Deem group’s algorithm was adapted from an earlier project to identify zeolites. The researchers ran Monte Carlo calculations on nearly 57,000 precursor molecules, modifying them with synthetic chemistry reactions via the computer to find which would make MOFs with the best deliverable capacity — the amount of fuel that can be practically stored and released for use. “Our work differs from previous efforts because we’re searching the space of possible MOF linkers specifically for this deliverable capacity,” Deem said. The researchers hope to begin real-world testing of their best MOF models. “We’re very keen to work with experimental groups, and happy to collaborate,” Deem said. “We have joint projects underway, so we hope some of these predicted materials will be synthesized very soon.” Yi Bao, a graduate student in Deem’s lab at Rice’s BioScience Research Collaborative, is lead author of the paper. Co-authors are Richard Martin and Maciej Haranczyk of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Cory Simon and Berend Smit of the University of California-Berkeley. Deem is chair of Rice’s Department of Bioengineering and the John W. Cox Professor of Biochemical and Genetic Engineering. The DOE Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Division of Chemical Sciences, Geosciences and Biosciences, supported the research. The researchers utilized the National Science Foundation-funded DAVinCi supercomputer administered by Rice’s Ken Kennedy Institute for Information Technology. Source: Rice University

IEA: Renewable Energy Sources to Top Natural Gas by 2016

by Justin Loiseau, The Motley Fool Jun 28th 2013 4:29PM Updated Jun 28th 2013 4:30PM

Energy produced from renewable sources such as hydro, wind, and solar will exceed that from natural gas and more than double the outupt from nuclear by 2016, according to a recent International Energy Agency report, making it the second most important global electricity source, after coal.

According to projections, renewable power will increase by a whopping 40% over the next five years, despite what the report calls a “difficult economic context.” Renewables are currently the fastest-growing electricity source, and will make up almost a quarter of the global power mix by 2018, according to the IEA, up from an estimated 20% in 2011. Non-hydro sources (wind, solar, geothermal, etc.) are expected to double by 2018, reaching 8%, according to the Medium-Term Renewable Energy Market Report (link opens in PDF).

“As their costs continue to fall, renewable power sources are increasingly standing on their own merits versus new fossil-fuel generation,” said Agency Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven during a presentation. “This is good news for a global energy system that needs to become cleaner and more diversified, but it should not be an excuse for government complacency, especially among OECD countries.”

In 2012, global renewable energy generation exceeded China’s overall electricity consumption. Van der Hoeven pointed to increased investment in emerging markets and cost-competitiveness as the two main drivers behind renewables’ ramp up.

The article IEA: Renewable Energy Sources to Top Natural Gas by 2016 originally appeared on Fool.com.

The $1 Trillion Choice

Posted February 22, 2013 By Mark Green

While the White House talks again about raising taxes on oil and natural gas companies, let’s look at a chart that captures the starkly different outcomes – in terms of revenue for government – from two policy paths: higher energy taxes vs. increased energy development:

You read it right: The difference between the two policy choices, in cumulative dollars for government from now until 2030, is more than $1 trillion.

According to a 2011 study by Wood Mackenzie, increased oil and natural gas activity under pro-access policies would generate an additional $800 billion in cumulative revenue for government by 2030. The chart puts into perspective the size of these accumulating revenues – enough to fund entire federal departments at various points along the timeline. By contrast, Wood Mackenize also found that hiking taxes on oil and natural gas companies would, by 2030, result in $223 billion in cumulative lost revenue to government.

Another way to look at it: The chart below shows that the higher-taxes policy path would add about $16 billion in cumulative revenue for government at first, but that sharp revenue losses would follow as increased taxes slow energy development (costing about 22,000 jobs in the process).

The choice is a no-brainer. Yet some in Washington continue to push for the higher taxes path – the less-energy, fewer-jobs, less-revenue-for-government path. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney this week:

“If we have one fundamental goal here in Washington, it should be to work towards growing the economy and increasing job creation, not doing unnecessary, arbitrary things to halt or reverse that process.”

Carney’s right. We need policies that help the economy. Yet, working against the economy and job creation is the likely result from the course the administration keeps pushing: discriminatory tax increases on our industry – one that already contributes an average of $86 million a day to the federal government in income taxes, bonus bids, rental payments, royalties and other fees. API Executive Vice President Marty Durbin, in a recent conference call with reporters:

“When it comes to taxes, singling out our industry for tax increases is bad economic policy, it’s bad tax policy and it punishes one of the few industries that has created jobs and grown our economy throughout the economic downturn. We pay more than our fair share, and despite repeated allegations, we receive no subsidies. We pay federal taxes at an effective rate – 44 percent – that is well above the 29 percent effective rate paid by other S&P Industrials.”

As Durbin noted, higher taxes would impact the significant stimulus our industry provides to the broader economy – $545 billion in 2012. That figure represents jobs, investments in facilities and operations and energy development that generates millions in revenue for government – stimulus that doesn’t require legislation from Congress or a new federal program. Here’s how industry’s investments, measured in capital spending, stacked up from 2006-2011:

Durbin:

“Short-sighted, punitive tax proposals could put at risk those investments, diminishing what we can do for economic growth, sacrificing potential jobs and, paradoxically, sacrificing revenues that could come from new development and new jobs.”

If the goal is more revenue for government from the oil and natural gas industry, there are two paths: One that produces a sizeable net loss over the next two decades – as well as job losses and less energy – or one that, through increased energy development, generates hundreds of billions of additional dollars for government while adding jobs, growing the economy and producing more of the energy our country needs: the $1 trillion choice.