Twitter headlines« Renault-Nissan and Project Better Place Sign MoU for Mass Marketed EVs in Israel; Implementing New Ownership Model | Main | Corporate Express US to Pilot Isuzu Diesel Hybrid Truck; Enova Providing the Hybrid Unit »
New MOF Methane Storage Material Exceeds DOE Goals for Adsorbed Natural Gas Storage by 28%
21 January 2008
 |
| A nano-sized crystalline cage that shows promise as a superior storage material for methane. Click to enlarge. Courtesy of Shengqian Ma, Miami University. |
Researchers have developed a new metal-organic framework (MOF) material with what they believe to be the highest methane storage capacity yet measured. Methane adsorption studies of the new material—PCN-14—at 290 K (16.9°C or 62°F) and 35 bar show an absolute methane-adsorption capacity of 230 v/v (standard temperature and pressure equivalent volume of methane per volume of the adsorbent material), 28% higher than the US Department of Energy (DOE) target (180 v/v) for on-board methane storage.
The PCN-14 compound, composed of clusters of nano-sized cages, has a high surface area of 2,176 m2/g and a pore volume of 0.87 cm3/g. Hong-Cai Zhou and colleagues describe the development of PCN-14 in an report in the 23 January edition of the Journal of the American Chemical Society.
The DOE has established a target for on-board methane storage at 180 v/v under 35 bar, near ambient temperature, with the energy density of adsorbed natural gas (ANG) being comparable to that of compressed natural gas (CNG) used in current practice.
A number of different types of porous materials have been evaluated for ANG storage, but until last year, no material had hit the 180 v/v target. In February 2007, researchers at the University of Missouri-Columbia (MU) and Midwest Research Institute (MRI) in Kansas City created carbon briquettes with complex nanopores capable of storing natural gas with 180 v/v. (Earlier post.)
Metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) are a relatively new class of nano-porous material that show promise for gaseous storage applications—hydrogen, methane, CO2, etc.—because of their tunable pore size and functionality. MOF compounds consist of metal-oxide clusters connected by organic linkers.
The researchers first developed an anthracene-based ultramicroporous MOF (PCN-13, PCN stands for Porous Coordination Network), but it had very limited methane uptake because of its confined pore size.
To enlarge the pore size and to continue our theme of building metal-organic frameworks containing nanoscopic coordination cages for gas storage, we have adopted a new ligand, 5,5'-(9,10-anthracenediyl)di-isophthalate (adip). Under solvothermal reaction conditions, the reaction between H4adip and Cu(NO3)2 gave rise to a porous MOF designated PCN-14.
The work was supported by the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation.
Resources
Ma, S., Sun, D., Simmons, J.M., Collier, C.D., Yuan, D., and Zhou, H.-C. Metal-Organic Framework from an Anthracene Derivative Containing Nanoscopic Cages Exhibiting High Methane Uptake. J. Am. Chem. Soc., 130, 3, 1012 - 1016, 2008, 10.1021/ja0771639
January 21, 2008 in Nanotech, Natural Gas | Permalink | Comments (31) | TrackBack (0)
Comments
Posted by: arnold | January 22, 2008 at 06:07 PM
70% of oil is used for transportation and less than 40% of that is used for personal transportation, so that makes less than 30% of oil used for personal transportation.
Of that, let's say 30% or more than 40 million personal automobiles convert to ANG or CNG. Since only 20% of the natural gas usage is for home heating and let's say your car would use as much as your house, you would have .3 x 20% or about 6% increase in natural gas usage.
That is with 40 million cars converting. We would be lucky to get 4 million to convert which would be .6% increase in natural gas usage. If we pipe the natural gas down from Canada instead of them using it on expensive tar sands we could have more than enough. 15% of our natural gas is imported from Canada.
If we installed biomass gasification facilities to make SNG (synthetic natural gas) out of corn stalks, wheat straw, rice straw and forest wood product waste (bark and sawdust not used for lumber or paper) we would have more than enough.
If those 4 million homes would install solar geothermal heating and cooling on their homes, we would have more than enough and they would save $2000-3000 dollars per year in energy costs.
There are SO many ways that we can make things better, but we have to think of them all, we have to do them now and we have to do them together.
Posted by: sjc | January 23, 2008 at 07:24 AM
@ Neil -
a) biogas is the only truly renewable biofuel technology that can process domestically produced cellulosic feedstocks at industrial scales today. The gas does contain CO2 and H2S which have to be scrubbed out before the biomethane is suitable for the existing NG distribution network. Ergo, vehicles could easily drive on a blend of fossil and renewable methane. If the amount of biomethane fed into the grid is equal to the amount taken out at CNG/ANG filling stations, there is no net increase in fossil fuel use.
b) our on-road transportation eggs are basically all in one basket today, i.e. crude oil. If a significant fraction of the total fleet were CNG/ANG vehicles, that would represent diversification of the energy mix in this critical sector of the economy.
Also note that plenty of homes along the East Coast of the US still rely on heating oil (i.e. low-grade diesel) to keep warm in winter.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | January 23, 2008 at 09:54 AM
Good points people.
Posted by: Neil | January 23, 2008 at 02:38 PM
I think there are some definition differences in v/v.
The v/v definition of DOE is STP equivalent volume of methane per internal volume of vessel. The v/v definition of this paper looks STP equivalent volume of methane per volume of the PCN-14. I think the v/v values in this paper needs to be recalculated according to packing density instead of crystallographic density.
Posted by: Hangkyo JIN | May 29, 2008 at 06:15 PM
Lately, I’ ve been freezing when I go to bed, but wake up in the morning having kicked off most of the blankets because I’ m way too hot. Last week, I started using my own version of a hot brick to warm the bed at night: a microwavable hot pack (like the kind you’ d use on an injury). I’ m not saying that hot packs are especially eco- friendly— they’ re plastic and goodness knows what that blue stuff actually is— but we already had one around the house, and the energy savings potential is great.
Posted by: http://www.makeafireplace.com | August 19, 2008 at 07:31 AM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef00e54feb0d2e8833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference New MOF Methane Storage Material Exceeds DOE Goals for Adsorbed Natural Gas Storage by 28%:
NG is relatively advanced for auto use, and could well play a large part in the short term as the modifications required from current deiel or gasoline is comparitively small, but for large scale implemenaion this "absorbed technoloy is ver desirable. The cost of liqifiying is estimated at 10 -15%.
This new storage operates at 35 bar or 500 psi, I gather the distribution operates at 20 bar so some extra pumping would be required. LPG closer to 330 psi and is relatively easy to work with.
ANG at these pressures would utilize similar parts to the LPG technology that is very well established.
The NG could we are refering to is not in short supply globally, but the limitations in storage and transport have held the industry back and will continue to unless this low er presure storage is realized.
Curently (guess)the majority, a byproduct of oil ,and coal production is flared off so no one benifits.
Coalseam mine plants are operating in NSW reducing explosion risks and providing gas turbine generation to backup and supplement the grid.
As are methane plants located at waste disposal tip sites.
Both these commercially viable sytems use otherwise 'lost' GHG.