Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Corn cobs may unlock key to natural gas cars

TENILLE BONOGUORE

Globe and Mail Update

Latest comment posted at 10:21 PM EDT 22/02/07

Researchers have turned corn waste into carbon briquettes that can store gas in unprecedented densities that may encourage mass-market natural gas automobiles ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. J H from Canada writes: To the readers,
    Do your own research on the energy in/energy return out of corn as an alternative. And once you see it doesn't make sense then the fact that you would have to take away all the corn based food in the country to make this happen one quickly realizes the idea is only well meaning at best. Corn is not a renewable in that too much energy is required to make a gallon of "gas". And North America doesn't have enough corn after eating to make this happen. Check out the price of corn in the last couple years ever since we started to "test" these ideas.
    So far there is no transportable energy that is efficient as depleting oil. Including hydrogen cells which is really a storage and not efficient at all.
  2. M B from Victoria, Canada writes: JH, do your own research. The article does not refer to the use of food corn to produce ethanol. It refers to the use of corn cobs, i.e. inedible corn waste, to produce a storage medium for natural gas. I don't see how this technology could possibly affect the corn food supply.
  3. BC Refugee in AB from Canada writes: JH is right...look at the recent riots in Mexico where the price of tortillia's have trippled recently due to the increased price of corn. Don't laugh, this is a serious issue for poverty stricken folks who's diet is centered around corn as a staple.
  4. James Young from Brantford, Canada writes: http://xrl.us/udn9

    The bio-ethonol question is being discussed by "Greens" and politicians as a sort of panacea for solving the pollution and global warming problems in the world today.

    In the Brantford area a bio-ethonol plant is under construction to produce ethonol from corn. The farmers are hailing this event since it is a good market for their corn production, and the local politicians consider it as job producing, and tax revenue to some degree.

    There is almost no dissenting debate except NIMBY due to the stench from such plants. The full economic and social aspects of this technlogy is being white-washed. Production pollution both air and water is astronomical.

    From my review of the current information, bio-ethonol production is a disaster in the making. Many posters and the media are utilizing glowing comments and reports without giving a true picture of the ramifications of implementing this technology.

    Durgan
  5. andy c from Canada writes: big oil will never allow this.... unless they get a cut
  6. Jeff Larsen from Toronto, Canada writes: It would be interesting to see if this process could be used as a safer and cheaper alternative to LNG shipping of natural gas.
  7. BC Refugee in AB from Canada writes: James..of course the farmers love it.....long term contracts at high prices. Have you seen those ads on TV from the "renewable fuels producers association" or whatever name they have come up with to try and put an enviro spin on ethanol. That and the diesel "save the world" clothing line are signs that the enviro movement has been taken over by the marketers and is no longer in the hands of scientists....not a good sign for the long term future of the enviro.
  8. James Young from Brantford, Canada writes: Maybe this will enlighten you M.B.

    M B from Victoria, Canada writes: JH, do your own research. The article does not refer to the use of food corn to produce ethanol. It refers to the use of corn cobs, i.e. inedible corn waste, to produce a storage medium for natural gas. I don't see how this technology could possibly affect the corn food supply.

    “It would be a unique opportunity to bring corn to the market for alternative fuels &8211; corn kernels for ethanol production, and corncob for natural-gas tanks,&8221; Dr. Pfeifer said.

    Bio-ethonol production generally requires high quality food stock to be anywhere "efficient". Bio-ethonol production should be listed on the Skopes Hoax website.

    Durgan.

    Durgan.
  9. Rob Florio from Vancouver, Canada writes: It seems that some posters are more interested in ranting, rather than read the article for what it says. The article has absolutely NOTHING to do with ethanol and everything to do with an alternative storage technique for methane. Let's try to intelligently debate the article rather than crowd the forum with irrelevant comments. Thx.

    Cudos to M.B. for trying to steer the conversation back once already.
  10. F Roosevelt from Canada writes: Not too mention the impact on my bowl of Corn Pops in the morning. I might have to switch the Cheerios!!!
  11. Pat Thompson from Toronto, Canada writes: Has everyone forgotten about the numerous once-tobacco farmers still looking for a viable cash crop? Growing corn for sale as both food and fuel could be the answer they've been looking for. The fossil fuel companies could purchase the crops themselves, sell the edible portion for a profit, and then use the leftover waste to create fuel for even more profit. We're not talking about creating ethanol anymore. THAT is the fuel source that cannot be supported on a global scale using corn. This article is talking about methane, a resource already powering some landfill stations in Ontario today (while at the same time producing excess energy); this idea definitely deserves further study.
  12. James Cyr from Balmertown, Canada writes: It will be interesting to see where this leads to! The fact that corn cobs are used does not detract from the food value of corn. However, I can not comment on it too much, as my knowledge of this is quite minimal!
  13. Edward Thomas from Kingston, Canada writes: The corn cobs are raw material for a natural gas tank -- not the raw material for any kind of fuel. That said, I know Canadians aren't interested because we're busy burning our natural gas to heat up low quality tar up north. India, on the other hand, gets it -- all new buses, lorries and taxis in large Indian cities are natural gas powered. New storage technology will only expand this trend. The world has dwindling supplies of oil, but huge supplies of untapped natural gas. Canada will end up as a fossile fuels backwater if it doesn't get smarter about how it uses its relatively small, dwindling gas reserves.
  14. Andrew E from Calgary, the Heart of the New West, and soon to eclipse Toronto., Canada writes: andy c from Canada writes: big oil will never allow this.... unless they get a cut ...
    newsflash, andy c: big oil is already in on ethanol production, as evidenced by Husky's ethanol plant near Lloydminster
  15. French-Canadian Freethinker (Alain S.) from Deep in the Ditch, Canada writes: If it can fuel my SUV ecologically, so that the extremists would get off my baskets and drive their tin cans happily without imposing their religion on me...
  16. s mac from Canada writes: Pat Thompson wrote that the Tobacco farmers could switch to growing corn. The soils that tobacco is grown here in Ontario is very sandy, not as good for growing corn as other areas of the province. However, we used to have a sugar beet industry here in Canada at one time. That may actually better, although I am not sure for ethanol than using corn.
  17. Harvey Mushman from cambridge, Canada writes: Promising technology! Good stuff...of course any advance which comes from research and technology is instantly critisized by lots of uninformed "save the planeteers." Interesting to see the reptilian brain response of some of the posters out here...corn...ethanol...bad. I thought the article was clear enough...but apparently not. It's about methane gas storage...not ethanol. And oh yeah...JH (et.al.) the corn is the part you eat...the cob is the long round piece you don't.
  18. Art Vandelai from Burlington, writes: An interesting technology, but one we're sure not to see offered at the local gas station or at Canadian Tire any time soon. What would be the potential if someone wanted to use these 'briquettes' for more sinister purposes?

    If the stored energy in these things is enough to power an automobile for everyday use, imagine what would happen if all that stored energy was set alight?
  19. Gerald Olchowy from Ottawa, Canada writes: Corn ethanol is going to lead to large increases in food and meat prices. Topsoil is not really a renewable resource, so corn ethanol and canola or soy biodiesel are mistakenly considered to be renewable fuels by urban and suburban dwellers who have never set foot on a farm. Putting food in your gas tank is a bad idea. Putting topsoil into your gas tank is a bad idea. (The Europeans are getting green credits for using biodiesel from palm oil, but they've deforested most of Indonesia in the process.) As for using natural gas or methane for private automobiles, as the article proposes...it will double or triple home heating costs for many people. IF natural gas were sufficiently plentiful, which it isn't, this would be a good idea.
  20. Douglas R. Swanson from Okotoks, Canada writes: An interest science story, but unfortunately we are no further ahead in finding an alternative fuel for oil. Natural Gas, the medium stored in the briquettes, is fast becoming a disappearing resource. Conventional sources are diminishing and new sources need to be found. As for the "bio-fuel" aspects of using corn to produce ethanol, the indications are that it is an inefficient use of resouces to produce an alternative to oil. The costs to benefits don't add up. It requires more energy put into producing ethanol than what is returned as usable fuel. The other point is that it will reduce the availability of corn to be used for other processes, such as corn syrup and animal feeds. The end result, while for the farmer is good, as he will get more for his grain, the average consumer will end up paying more for their food. It's simple supply & demand. A better alternative for bio-fuel would be canola or soy beans as bio-diesel. Less energy is required to process it, as the seed is crushed for its oil. However, neither ethanol or bio-diesel is a panacea for replacing oil at this time. Bio fuels required engergy put into the growing & harvesting of the grain/oil seeds, in the way of energy needed to operate the machines required to sow & reap the crop. As well energy is required to produce the fertilizer required by the crops to grow. This comes from natural gas that is converted into NH3 & NH4. As stated before bio fuels are not the answer, other technologies are required.
  21. Austin Powers from Canada writes: Some people are confused here - they are talking about using an agricultural waste (the cob of the corn - not the corn kernels you eat) as the basis of the new storage medium. This has nothing to do with the ongoing corn as food vs fuel debate. Basically, from what I've read here, these briquettes will act as a "sponge" that holds the gas.

    Natural gas does burn cleaner than gasoline, but it still produces nitrogen oxides (a smog precursor) and carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas). However, from a lifecycle perspective though, it sure beats gasoline derived from oil sands. Still good news for Alberta though - directs natural gas towards a higher value end use.

    Keep those green innovations coming...
  22. Joe Mead from Winnipeg, Canada writes: 24,800 kPa fuel tanks - nice bomb to be sitting on.
  23. Robert Pike from Kitchener, Canada writes: And yet again Alberta has it! Maybe these are tactics to further diversify Alberta's economy? I bet you could fuel plenty of vehicles if you better used the land available in corn-growing areas alone. If you looked at the number of places where land is never used for anything or under-used you might have a better appreciation of how renewable corn is. I can't believe people are actually argueing that it will increase the price. Do you honestly think that corn being sold now is influenced by studies into using it for fuel? The only real problem here is that people want global warming to stop but they are too selfish to give up anything in their lifestyles to help. Go down a street on garbage day and see how many bags of garbage there are compared to blue boxes or the number of people who recycle at all. Count the number of hummers and other gas guzzlers are out there. Count the toxics released each time someone high-maintenance does their make-up and/or hair. If corn is cleaner then an attempt has to be made to use it regardless of higher prices, people need to adapt.
  24. Edward Thomas from Kingston, Canada writes: Art, the nanoporous structure allows a very large fraction of methane molecules to adhere to the coked corn cobs. That is why you can store so much methane at a low pressure, since the adhered molecule does not have the same mobility as the molecules in the free gas state.

    If you set a gas-containing brick alight, only the portion of the nanostructure exposed to oxygen can burn. A methane-saturated brick, would burn from the outside in if exposed to air and set alight. The methane would burn much more quickly than the coked cob, so the rate of burning would only be as fast as the diffusion of methane through the brick. The methane-saturated brick would burn much more slowly than free methane gas ever could and I'd be utterly shocked if you could achieve enough of a burn rate for an explosive shock wave.
  25. Scot Affleck from Prince George, Canada writes: Who would have thought a long time ago that Mammy Yokums corn cob pipe could be used to power an automobile? What will they think of next? Machines that fly?
  26. Jim **** from Canada writes: More fiddling while Rome burns. The corn cobs should be made into fuel. We should eat the corn. We should use the natural gas judiciously over the millenia for very critical purposes.
  27. Jon P from Burlington, Canada writes: Not a bad stop gap to ween humans off of gasoline engines. Just one step in, hopefully, an eveolution to a truely renewable resource.

    btw Joe Mead, that figure isn't all that impressive. If it was Mpa, i'd be more impressed.
  28. Paul G from Toronto, Canada writes: Hey Joe Mead from Winnipeg: Read the article again, this will allow storage at much lower pressure of 3,450 kPa than the current storage of natural gas vehicles which are already proven as safe.

    With this kind of safe and efficient storage a power plant in your back yard for an electricity back-up generator starts to make a lot of sense...
  29. kris foston from Mississauga, writes: Edward Thomas,,,, Would you know if this technology would also be good for other fuels such as Hydrogen?? If so why use Methane? Hydrogen is the over all best choice for alternative fuels. The only problems withstoring it like we do gasoline in cars is it's volatility in a sealed container is highly explosive. ???
  30. Eric of Windsor from Windsor, Canada writes: 180 to 1 storage capability for natural gas in a briquette form made from corn cobs is a great idea. The question I would have is the time involved in charging this with the natural gas/methane. To fill all the spaces to reach the 180-1 capacity would take some time especially at 3,500 kpa. I guess you would just plug your car into your natural gas line at home overnight and it would be all charged up by morning. No more gas stations, sign me up for one. Oh by the way if you punctured such a thing it would not explode since all the energy could not be released at once.
  31. Ice Ko from Steveston Harbour, BC, Canada writes: Just as long as enough corn cobs are set aside so Sylvester's in Montgomery Center, Vermont, can continue to turn out those world's best, go-to-the-wall-for, and absolutely unrivalled, corncob-smoked hams....
  32. Eric Kirkpatrick from Vancouver, B.C., Canada writes: Yes, a good stop-gap measure to help us cut back from petroleum production and eventually its entire us. As for the cost? It was mentioned that the state of Missouri could supply enough for 10 million autos, with the current world wide use of corn and go old competition the price will stabilize if not go down. heck we grow acres here in the Lower Mainland as they do in Central Canada. Might force the price of oil down though, encouraging it's continual misuse.
  33. Above 60th parallel from Snowy Country, Canada writes: I think top soil will be the issue here. Great idea but we need top soil to survive long after the oil is all gone.
  34. Ken Stevens from Toronto, Canada writes: Um, aren't we supposed to be finding fuel sources that don't generate CO2 as a byproduct? Methane combustion produces CO2.

    If we want to slow down global warming, this is not the way to go. We need to drive electric cars and find ways of generating electricity that don't spew CO2.
  35. J Law from Canada writes: I wonder what kind of mileage this will get? Would it be the same as the tanks now used or would it be more efficient?
  36. David Bruce from Vancouver, Canada writes: Informative for those without a background in chemistry. Aside from the corncob fuel storage system, the fuel source itself remains problematic.

    -- Natural gas is in finite supply and creates its own set of problems.

    -- Organically derived ethanol requires high energy input. Soil, fertilizers, machines to harvest and produce it. On a global scale -- adding China and India into the mix -- is this even feasible?

    -- Methane has limited sources (and we can't yet tap into the frozen methane in the Siberian permafrost.) Anyone have info on methane sources?

    Add to this the vast material and energy input required to convert the planet's oil-based combustion engines to an alternate fuel source. Making machines, to make the machines, to make... you get the picture.

    Excluding some as-yet undeveloped fuel source or technology, with a rapidly industrializing planetary population of 5 billion (increasing exponentially) these current fuel alternatives appear to be stop-gap measures. Theoretically, the planet may be able to feed 10 billion human beings. The planet cannot provide them all with a western-style industrialized lifestyle.
  37. Karol Karolak from Canada writes: Eric of Windsor problem is that natural gas is delivered to your home at much lower than 3500 kPa, (that is still 35 times atmospheric pressure).

    What is promising with corn briquettes is weak chemical bonding of methane molecules to briquettes that facilitates storage of methane at roughly five times greater volume per given pressure then straight compression.

    Your concern regarding time it takes to fill up the tank is with methane might be the greatest drawback of such idea. There is a possibility of using standardised tanks just like propane tanks that could be exchanged at the gas station. This invention might make fuel cell cars idea viable option, as methane is the best practical alternative to pure hydrogen as a fuel. Fuel density still looks like an obstacle at it provides for about 130 kg/m3 of methane not counting weight of the tank and corn briquettes (gasoline 735 kg /m3).
  38. Ozzy Rules The World! from Canada writes: (unlock the secret to methane-fuelled cars)

    Heheh There are just too many jokes that can be made here.

    I know this guy if he were to recieve a constant supply of Chilli he would probly create enough methane to supply most of New Brunswick. We may not need gas after that but I have a feeling GHG'd would skyrocket.
  39. bill thecat from calgary, Canada writes: Thanks Eric of Windsor. The first logical comment in the discussion. Kris Fosten in the comment above would do well to pull out a chemistry or physics text. The energy required to generate your hydrogen would likely come from a coal or natural gas fired power plant. Does not do much for the hydrocarbon budget.
    Hey Jon P. 24.89 MPa is a lot of pressure is it lets go and ignites under your seat. Could make the Pinto look like a firecracker.
  40. bill thecat from calgary, Canada writes: Thanks Karol:
    Do you know if methane is also a by-product of the briguette making process? Can they ferment the cobs to produce methane/ethanol and then create the briquettes? If not, one wonders how many green-house gases are contributed by the process of making however many millions of tonnes of briquettes that would be required.
  41. Cecilia Firth from New Westminster, Canada writes: I find it interesting how people become fixated with these alternative fuel sources that would replace "like for like" gasoline. We already have electric car technology down, have had for a long time. When you consider the fact that the production of any of the alternative sources for powering your vehicles has an ecological impact, I would rather have my vehicle, in turn, emitting zero.
  42. A V from Canada writes: Cecilia Firth, perhaps electric cars themselves produce zero emissions but producing the electricity the cars require is not an emissions free process. Electric cars are not quite as environmentally friendly as you suggest.
  43. Gordon Franks from Carleton Place, Canada writes: Come on now guys, I can't believe that anyone takes this stuff seriously.

    So the The U of Missouri, that receives most of it's funding from the State of M says that "The S of M can supply the raw material for more than 10 million cars from corn cobs grown by the farmers of the S of M. Sure, sure, and the U of Georgia says that the farmers of Georgia can supply enough peach stones to fuel a hundred new power plants, and the U of Toronto says that the farmers of Ontario can supply enough pumpkins to power 10 million cars.

    Where do you guys keep your brains? Have I got a deal for you, I have discovered this magic liquid that doubles the miles per gallon in the average car. Just send $100 and you can have the formula.
  44. David Rouleau from Canada writes: Whew!!! Thanks for the info Mr. Franks...I was dreading trying to find another way to smoke my tabackee. Long live the corn cob pipe! Cheers!!
  45. gilles monenemie from Montreal, Canada writes: Its easier to produce biogas from plants than liquid fuels, sweden uses more biogas today than natural gas. This could be a promising option to convert biogas from manure, sewage, food wastes and energy crops into a sustainable transport system. Makes more sense than canada importing corn from the US and natural gas from alberta to make "green ethanol". That is Bush's bozo bioenergy plan that Harper is dubiously trying to sell to canadians. Corn ethanol is just another example of Harper "green wash". Building corn ethanol plants to clean the air is as bright an idea as using a Zamboni to clean parking lots of snow. Yes it can be done but at what price.
  46. Cecilia Firth from New Westminster, Canada writes: A V - Read my post again. I think I covered that here;

    When you consider the fact that the production of any of the alternative sources for powering your vehicles has an ecological impact, I would rather have my vehicle, in turn, emitting zero.

    Now read carefully.....get it?
  47. Bob Rollheiser from Canada writes: And another wonderful idea to join the 500 mile per gallon carburetor. The conspiracy plot thickens.
  48. brian ess from winnipeg, Canada writes: One thing MB has plenty of, is pig manure (no jokes!), and I understand there are pilot projects to convert to methane...not sure of the scale yet.
    Another thing MB has is hydro...convertable to hyrdogen. can 'corn briquettes' be used to transport H2?
  49. A V from Canada writes: Cecilia Firth you are incorrect, using electric cars would not result in zero emissions, do you think electricity is produced with no emissions?
  50. Doug Dewan from Canada writes: If this is accurate and they can use the corn cob for the brick that holds the methane this is also good news for developing countries where thier main crop is corn....as in several areas in Africa. They could use the corn for food and the cobs for energy - perhaps this could be an export that they could sent to the West and bring in an income to thier county - this would solve many issues there with poverty.
  51. Eric Kirkpatrick from Vancouver, B.C., Canada writes: These are just ideas that are aimed to wean us from high priced imported petroleum while a true alternative is found. By true alternate I mean one that is environmental sound, sustainable, economically viable so that just about all can/will purchase it and the rich continue to control and profit form it.
  52. Cecilia Firth from New Westminster, Canada writes: A V - Of course the production of electricity has environmental effects. What I'm saying is that the production of gasoline and other "like for like" substitutions have an impact on the environment and then when we actually use those technologies (running our vehicles) we have a further impact on the eco-system.

    It's called a double whammy.

    In a perfect world everyone wouldn't need to go long distances, would work close to home and have a grocery store around the corner. But that's never going to happen. It's a good compromise to introduce and promote electric cars because it actually addresses a good deal of the emissions issue. All of these half measures of fuels that produce lower emission and hybrid vehicles isn't going to cut it.

    Are you being obtuse on purpose?
  53. Bill Smith from Chicago, IL, United States writes: A V - About 10 years ago, the US Dept. of Energy did a study to determine which vehicle has a lower ecological footprint (i.e. harms the environment less)--an electric car that gets recharged nightly, or a standard gasoline vehicle (assuming an efficient 4-cylinder). They found that the ecological damage caused by power-producing sources (nuclear, coal, and gas) was NO LESS than an efficient car.

    Something else to consider... The creation of electricity for use in electric cars is wasteful by definition. Do you think you get the same amount of mechanical energy (motion) when you take natural gas, burn it to create steam to turn a turbine making electricity, send it over transmission lines, charge a car battery, then drive vs. if you drive directly by burning natural gas??? NOWHERE CLOSE... Even if the batteries lose no power (yeah, right), every time you "convert" energy, some of it gets lost/wasted.

    Electric cars are an abberation (sp?). Hybrids are interesting technology with practical uses but purely electric cars just shift pollutants from cars to power plants...
  54. T K from Phoenix, United States writes: I can hear the commercials now: "Back in the old days, we used corn cobs all the time. And now corn cobs and methane are together again!"

    (Sorry, this is as good as my jokes get...)
  55. A V from Canada writes: Thanks for your post Bill Smith, I agree, electric cars simply shift the pollutants from the cars to the power plants.
  56. Cecilia Firth from New Westminster, Canada writes: Uh.....boys......That's a pretty limited mindset. Consider logically this;

    Ever wonder who sits on the commitee for the US Dept. of Energy? I wouldn't be suprised if it were individuals that had a stake in the current state of affairs, or something like the current state of affairs.

    There are many offshoot industries from the production of gas powered vehicles that would persist in the production of hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles. There would be a considerable drop in the general draw of energy if they had output at a drastically lower rate, which a robust electric car industry would create.

    This is senseless what you two are agreeing on....but it's good that you've found each other.
  57. A V from Canada writes: Cecilia Firth although I don’t agree with your position that electric cars would reduce pollution (not that it really matters, it’s not like we are all going to be driving electric cars anytime soon), I have to admit I have found your posts entertaining. If it makes you feel any better I don’t even own a car, I try to walk most of the time. (By the way you’re assuming I’m male). Enjoy your evening.
  58. David J Parker from Edmonton, Canada writes: Isn't it amazing how all these, previously not feasable, technological breakthroughs are coming on-line all of a sudden?
    Once the incentives are there and the cultural shift has taken place, whoosh, it's like, why did we do it the old way?
    Hang onto your seat, there is going to be a lot more paradigm shifting before this thing settles down.
    The US is about to "get it" and when that happens SUV drivers will become pariahs, leaving lights on will be a faux pas and energy saving will become the new virtue, par excellence.
    You think smokers were treated badly? Think again.
  59. Karol Karolak from Canada writes: Funny how people like Cecilia Firth from New Westminster, Canada who have absolutely no clue about second law of thermodynamic become instant experts on energy storage on this forum. Cecilia, please try to take some courses on elementary physics before you decide to speak out. Cheers, Karol Karolak P. Eng.
  60. Cecilia Firth from New Westminster, Canada writes: Wow....Karol, Of course the forum of opinion should only have contributions from omniscient souls.....much exclusivity in your world?

    Having done the quick once over of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, I would have to put you in the "Leave it and it will fix itself" camp. Very proactive.....kudos. Yes, let's continue raping the planet, I'm sure it won't mind....and uh, nice title to prove your intelligence.

    A V, sorry for the assumption of your gender, however, it's the risk you take when posting initials. Thank you for staying respectful in the face of my assault on your stance. BTW for my part, I've positioned myself so that it will now be feasible to take the LRT to work.....in three weeks.

    I just thought that it's interesting that people don't give electric cars any thought but will debate the alternative fuel option until it's a bloody pulp.
  61. harry carnie from NORTHERN,B.C., Canada writes: Several years ago the B.C. Provincial Government..had a "push on" for everyone to convert to natural gas..where possible, furnaces ,autos. ect

    Special prices were offered to have vehicles converted to burning natural gas( and gasoline.)
    Driving company vehicles with this conversion;
    The biggest handicap WAS the size of the tank required(Too bulky)
    The conversion also required high maintenance to keep it operating properly(maybe the "techs" were unfamiliar with the equipement?) The power produced was very poor..the vehicles were incredibly "gutless"when burning natural gas...OVERALL A FLOP.

    Propane gas..on the otherhand was succesful ,very GOOD power and range.These vehicles were NOT duel fuelled and it was fortunate they had a good range.(Still required a comparatively bulky tank.)
    Austin Powers ..Good post....
    Edward Thomas....Would it be possible to use this for hydrogen storage? The same idea("sponge type" fuel tanks) was tried for jet fuel... to no success(unfortunately)
  62. Corn on the Cob from Canada writes: This technology will ruin the corn cob pipe manufacturing industry. What willlwe use to make pipes???.
  63. aloysuis paczjoskteyochuk from Canada writes: I seem to recall that the city of San Antonio converted the majority of city owned vehicles to natural gas a few years ago.
    Are the corn cobs just stuffed in a tank or are they processed somehow.Would lava rock do the same?
  64. Kjel Oslund from Canada writes: Interesting technology. Too bad natural gas production in North America has been in decline since 2000, despite a massive increase in drilling. In Alberta, which accounts for 80% of Canada's natural gas production, wells drilled per year increased from 5,000 in 1999 to 15,000 in 2003 while production continued to fall. The Alberta EUB reports that Alberta produces about 4.9 Tcf per year while its reserves are being replaced at a rate of about 3.8 Tcf per year. Alberta has about 100Tcf of reserves, of which 40 Tcf are proven and 60 Tcf are undiscovered. The US situation is just as bad. Canadians will soon be queuing up with the Europeans to sign deals with Russia for gas imports, a process Harper began at the G8 summit in Russia.
  65. Corn on the Cob from Canada writes: lava rock would be a poor substitue to corn cobs for pipe making.
  66. Bengt Lindstrom from Campbell River, Canada writes: Compressed methane gas to fuel combustion engines in cars was used by the Swedes during WWII over sixty years ago.
    This concept is nothing new.
    Benny 38
  67. Michael H from Edmonton, Canada writes: methane is still a carbon-based fuel and its combustion with O2 still generates CO2. Natural gas is not the solution to GHGs and biofuels even less so. The interesting point of the article is that waste from corn can be used to store methane. The purpose of alternative carbon based fuels is to reduce reliance on oil not to make a significant dent in the CO2 problem. To reduce CO2 we are limited to nuclear, wind, solar, and tidal energy sources at present. Hydrogen fuels may have a future but the impact on GHGs depends on how the hydrogen is generated.
  68. Bob Rollheiser from Canada writes: Meerschaum pipes are a type of stone and last longer than corncobs. But probably of limited use in automotive fuel tanks.
  69. Corn on the Cob from Canada writes: ah yes but would the meerschaum pipe burn cool and smooth like a corn pipe. I never saw General Macarthur with a Mmeerschaum pipe in his mouth.
  70. Bob Marshall from Calgary, writes: This is a little of the subject of corn cobs but producing ethanol from corn or any other grain requires fermentation. Apart from the multitude of inputs to the energy balance fermentation produces lots of CO2. (Ask any home wine maker). What's the magnitude of the global warming potential from this CO2 emmission ?
  71. doctor business from vancouver, Canada writes: The problem is exactly layed out by:
    French-Canadian Freethinker
    If it can fuel my SUV ecologically, so that the extremists would get off my baskets and drive their tin cans happily without imposing their religion on me...

    This is what ethanol and natural gas and all other 'green' car fuels are about. Sewing doubt. Just like tobacco. Just like Global warming. The point is to make people think that an Ecological SUV is possible. It is not. It is not extreme to point that out. It is actually common sense. But we are brainwashed into thinking cars are safe, necessary, convenient. We can't even see that 40 feet in front of our doorstep [depending on the size of your front lawn] is a ticking time bomb.
  72. Kevin Chew from Germany writes: Gerald Olchowy, just to correct any misunderstanding that your brief aside concerning the European Union and bio-diesel from palm oil may have created: 80% of the EU's bio-diesel is currently derived from rapeseed grown in Europe. And the EU's bio-diesel directive is currently under review because of concerns about the negative environmental impacts of palm oil production to which you rightly refer. See: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/IB08Ae01.html
  73. Gordon Franks from Carleton Place, Canada writes: Remember the scam in the 60's when a guy said he had a process to convert grass directly into milk? All he needed was a few million dollars to develop his lab results into a full blown commercial process and presto, you fed grass in one end, throw in a few enzymes and milk came out the other.
    Eh, if a stupid cow can convert grass into milk it can't be too difficult.
    I wonder if the same guy has now turned his attention to corn cobs.
  74. gilles monenemie from Montreal, Canada writes: Michael H and others, trees and agricultural plants absorb carbon from the atmosphere, and the plants cycle continually cycle carbon, the only net co2 is that used in runnign tractors, fertilizers trucks etc. Bioenergy from dedciated energy crops is largley carbon neutral. Its the nuclear industry that is green washing us on its co2 benefits, lots of energy is embodied in the cement etc, uranium mining, fuel processing etc, waste storage etc.

    I think methane from agricultural sources fro transport could be a major breakthrough if the carbonized corn cob storage system works.
  75. Stephen John from Farm Country, Canada writes: I got one word for everyone

    HEMP!

    That's the answer to all our problems.
  76. Karol Karolak from Canada writes: Michael H from Edmonton, Canada writes: methane is still a carbon-based fuel and its combustion with O2 still generates CO2. Hydrogen fuels may have a future but the impact on GHGs depends on how the hydrogen is generated.
    Posted 21/02/07 at 12:11 AM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment

    Michael, methane consists of one atom of Carbon and four atoms of Hydrogen per molecule, that is the least amount of Carbon to carry maximum amount of Hydrogen. There are no other more effective practical alternatives for portable chemical storage of energy when end products of chemical reactions have to be released back into environment.
  77. Cycling Commuter from Delta, B.C., Canada writes: Part I of why Cecilia Firth is right about electric cars being cleaner than gasoline cars: 1) Electric or hybrid vehicles are capable of saving substantial amounts of energy through regenerative braking. With regenerative braking, the motor acts as generator when you go downhill or stop at a traffic light. Energy that would have been discarded as heat in the brakes is used to partially recharge the battery. Gasoline engines can't do this. 2) Here in BC, electric cars can always be recharged with 100% windpower by using our many hydro dams as storage for intermittent wind power in the same way they are presently used to store intermittent rain. 3) Even in provinces without hydro storage, the car batteries themselves are the perfect storage medium for wind energy. Most people only drive their cars less than 2 hours per day total. The rest of the time, the cars can be plugged into a garage electrical outlet at home or into a block heater outlet at work. Since a full 22 hours per day of charging time is not required, the recharging can be activated to coincide with times of peak power availability from wind, etc., then temporarily suspended when system electricity demand exceeds supply. PG&E and other utilities are working on the necessary communications infrastructure to make this work. I've worked on the R&D side of large digital communications systems. Communications equipment costs are trivial when spread out over a lot of customers. 3) Most of the energy released by burning hydrocarbons in an automobile engine is discarded as waste heat through the radiator. If the same hydrocarbons are burned in cogeneration units that are located in industrial buildings where waste heat can be utilized for industrial processes, the overall system efficiency is much higher. For example, some of the industrial greenhouses where I live utilize waste heat from cogeneration facilities.
  78. Cycling Commuter from Delta, B.C., Canada writes: Part II of why Cecilia Firth is right about electric cars being cleaner than gasoline cars: 4) In a centralized cogeneration facility, there is no size or weight limitation on smokestack scrubbing technologies, so it's much more practical to remove all Nox and other pollutants from the combustion exhaust in an economical manner. In a centralized cogeneration facility, carbon sequestration is a possibility. Carbon sequestration can't be done with a gasoline engine in a moving car. 5) The cost of energy produced by car rooftop photovoltaic panels is already lower than the cost of gasoline energy and the cost per watt of photovoltaic energy continues to drop. While a car rooftop photovoltaic panel doesn't produce enough energy to fully-power a standard vehicle over a long distance, it can make a fairly significant contribution on a sunny day. In a case where a plug-in hybrid vehicle is driven only 10km to work and sits in a sunny area of a parking lot all day, the panel can provide enough electricity to completely replace the battery energy consumed driving to work and do that at a cost that's less than the cost of gasoline. Aftermarket car rooftop photovoltaic panels are available for Prius hybrids that have been converted to plug-in hybrids. The only point where I might disagree with Cecilia Firth is that I prefer a plug-in hybrid over a pure electric vehicle. I would hate to run out of battery power in the wrong time and place. The ideal vehicle would be primarily electric with a very small backup generator in the trunk for emergency purposes running off methane stored in one of these new corncob storage systems. For occasional longer trips, I would hook-up a small trailer that carried a methane/gasoline dual-fuel electric generator large enough to provide unlimited vehicle range. It's hilly enough here in B.C. that the regnerative braking efficiency advantage of a hybrid will usually more than make up for additional weight of a full plug-in hybrid vehicle.
  79. David Rouleau from Canada writes: To Mr. John from Farm Country...I could not agree more but given the present political position of our "leaders" ( I use the term loosely...lol) THAT is not going to happen any time soon. Is everybody enjoying this wonderful S. Ontario Day? Cheers!!
  80. Michael Manning from Mississauga, Canada writes: Karol Karolak from Canada writes: . . . methane consists of one atom of Carbon and four atoms of Hydrogen per molecule, that is the least amount of Carbon to carry maximum amount of Hydrogen.

    Karol - pardon a basic question from someone who has forgotten what little chemistry he knew - how does the 1:4 ratio of carbon to hydrogen compare with gasoline, oil-based diesel and bio-diesel?

    What I'm trying to get down to is the relative impact burning these four fuels have (leaving aside the ecological impact of their production).

    Thanks for you input.
  81. gaetan diotte from ottawa, Canada writes: If everyone ate beans and stored the gas in bottles to be redeemed at your nearest 'gas station' think of the fuel we could generate.
  82. T. H. from Canada writes: could this technology eliminate the need for LNG ships? sounds a lot safer to me
  83. Samual Williamson from Canada writes: Food riots in Mexico, sounds like Bush has decided that it would be easier to fight terrorists closer to home. How long do you think the American labour force will put up with their families starving back home? This is removing dependence on MidEast Oil to replace it with Central American corn, eventually the governments of Central America will nationalize corn production to ensure adequate food supplies and the Americans will have to go to war in their own backyard. Could be hard with a vast portion of your armed forces coming from Central America. This will also affect world food supplies further hurting developing and 3rd world countries and promoting more anti-American sentiment. But hey, 3 cars in every garage, sorry 3 trucks or SUVs.
  84. mike h from snowland, Canada writes: I really wonder if this corcob idea could work. Have there been any actual tests? or is it still on the drawing board? It sounds like it could work. And I think many of the posters (and the moderator) would agree: It is nice that that jerk luft is not interested in topics that dont draw a line down the middle of a crowd(so that what the J stands for). cycling commuter: thats really interesting, that could work too.Why havent we harnessed all the "free "energy from the sun? the technology has been there for a while now. Has anyone heard of Stan myers? apparently he was the inventor of a water powered car and the big oil companies snuffed him out. all his work was never recovered.
  85. Michael H from Edmonton, Canada writes: Karol Karolak is correct about the transport of hydrogen by methane. Michael Manning, gasoline is largely octane-8 carbons and associated hydrogens. The end carbons have 3 hydrogens while each of the linking carbons have two hydrogens. When methane is burned (combustion with oxygen) the product of every methane molecule is one CO2 and 2H20. Hydrogen can be collected as a fuel from methane. The problem right now with hydrogen fuel cells is the rapid loss of effectiveness of the platinum catalyst such that the fuel cells quickly lose their efficiency and are expensive to produce. There is recent progress on this as we make advances in nanotechnology so it may be much more feasible in the not to distant future.
  86. Kevin Slark from Hamilton, Canada writes: Conserve energy, Fart in a jar!
  87. jimmy d from Canada writes: As # of carbon molecules increases, H/C --> 2
  88. Tyler Somers from Canada writes: I am curious why this is considered a step forward. Natural gas remains a non-renewable resource, a resource that we have less of in this country than oil. Modern diesel engines are a more efficient means of transportation for those that still require personal cars.
  89. Donalda Mann from Toronto, Canada writes: So basically, what this article states is that the breakthrough method of storing methane is in the corn hole? Not exactly news, now is it?
  90. harry carnie from NORTHERN,B.C., Canada writes: Well anyone?..would this work for storing hydrogen? This is the main drawback for fuel celled vehicles.
    As for the electricity for producing the Hydrogen ..solar, wave, wind..would be ideal.... as variations in the power source would not be critical (IF the Hydrogen could be stored untill required.)
    Could harness some of the methane, and hot air from some these posts as well.
  91. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: Now, just for fun, imagine the performance and efficiency level of the Ballard fuel cell technology, if an equivalent amount of funding had been invested in the development of fuel cells. There is a most interesting movie out called "Who Killed the Electric Car?" Note that fuel cells generate electricity. Also note that the "waste" emmisions of a fuel cell consist of "dihydrogen oxygen" - aka - water. Another trivial detail worth noting is that all of the petrolium companies are getting monstrous subsidies in the form of tax write-offs, preferential resource lease rates and so on. All while reporting record profits. What's wrong with this picture? And where is Waldo? Most critically, which is the most profitable business in Alberta? And where is the core fo the CPC and Stephen Harper based? OOOPPPS. Coinkidink? NOT!!! And, for even more fun, consider that GWB, Cheney and Rumsfeld are all Texas Oil-men, as are the majority of ther oil executives in Calgary. Another coinkidink? I doooonnnnn't thiiiinnnnnk sooooo. Draw your own conclusions. And any suggestion that the antics Harper is pulling vis a vis things like the proivisionsd of the terror act or the judiciary selection process are unrelated to the behaviour of the "Oil Patch" and its continued power andf influence are naive hooey. To quote Billy Bragg: "It's all about the price of oil". Nothing more, nothing less.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

<