Angstore Completes Adsorbed Natural Gas (ANG) Motorcycle Road Test
17 October 2007
 |
| ANG storage material. Click to enlarge. Source: Angstore |
Energtek Inc.’s Israeli subsidiary, Angstore Technologies Ltd, has successfully completed a set of road tests of an Indian scooter that was converted to run on ANG (adsorbed natural gas). This is the first reported motorcycle to operate utilizing ANG technology. Based on these successful tests, the company expects to begin serial conversions of motorcycles during 2008.
The ANG technology allows natural gas to be stored under lower pressures than does compressed natural gas (CNG), which is the prevalent technology for natural gas vehicles (NGV). The lower pressure used by ANG technology allows significant infrastructure cost savings for filling stations, lower fuel costs for the end-user, and may enable more efficient use of the vehicle’s space.
The low-pressure Angstore fueling tank for 2- and 3-wheelers introduced earlier this year stores natural gas at a working pressure of 60 bar in quantities similar to regular CNG tanks.
Additionally, at the same pressure levels, ANG technology permits storing greater amounts of natural gas than CNG does, thus enabling longer driving ranges.
In a conventional high-pressure storage tank, gas is forced into the tank under pressure. The maximum pressure, and therefore volume of gas held in the tank, is limited by the physical properties of the tank and its valve. The addition of a microporous material, such as activated carbon, into the tank makes it possible to do one of two things:
Store a larger volume of gas in the same container, at the same pressure.
Store the same volume of gas in the container at a lower pressure.
In June 2007, Energtek purchased a controlling interest in Angstore; in August, it purchased full ownership.
In the US, the Alliance for Collaborative Research in Alternative Fuel Technology (ALL-CRAFT), is among the organizations exploring the development and use of ANG materials. (Earlier post.)
Nat-gas is not far behind. Nearly 7,000,000 vehicles are running on CNG worldwide and atleast 100 LNG powered ships are there.
Parallelly improved fiber based cylinders helps lower cost of CNG transport.
This technology seems to be revolutionary. Let it come to the market, time is ripe with Oil hitting a max of $ 89 / barrel.
Posted by: Max Reid | 17 October 2007 at 06:08 PM
This is one of the greatest development in the quest for petroleum independence.
What has been limiting mass acceptance of CNG-car, in spite of NG energy costing 1/2 that of petroleum, has been the heavy CNG tank and the trunk volume that it takes, thus reducing luggage space and payload capacity.
Now, with a low-pressure, compact, and light-weight CNG storage available, many car owners can install a modest NG compressor at home and can enjoy petroleum independence on par with the PHEV without the problem of battery cost and battery weight. An ICE-HEV adapted to run on CNG can have comparable well-to-wheel efficiency as a BEV or PHEV.
The methane in NG can be synthesized from solar and wind energy, or can be produced from the gasification of waste cellulosic biomass, algae oil, trash, sewage fermentation, livestock waste products, etc...and thus is a form of renewable fuel.
Posted by: Roger Pham | 17 October 2007 at 09:49 PM
but for how long will the price of nat gas stay low, if millions of people start using it in cars
Posted by: antigravity | 18 October 2007 at 01:32 AM
"but for how long will the price of nat gas stay low, if millions of people start using it in cars
It doesn't matter, because it is a renewable fuel that can replace petroleum. Once the synthetic pipeline is established, then the price of methane will stabilized. Meanwhile, it would be nice if the governments world-wide will favor the use of renewable fuels over fossil fuels.
Posted by: Roger Pham | 18 October 2007 at 06:18 AM
Current CNG cylinders on the market can store gas at a pressure of 350 bar
, but newer cylinders developed in the labs can take 700 bar which is better
than LNG.
Now we are seeing new development with ANG, let us see what is the cost of
this cylinder. Also, it is better to have a Bi-fueled vehicle with a 60 mile
nat-gas range with remaining 300 miles coming from gasolene.
Even at 10 miles / day and 300 days / year, we can drive 3,000 miles/year
on nat-gas which is around 25 % of driving for someone who drives 12,000 miles/year.
So, we can fill the tank once a week. If we can fill from our home-gas, then
a 10 mile range cylinder will do. This will cut down the cost of cylinder
drastically and also will not take a lot of trunk space.
As for the cost of nat-gas, we have nat-gas not only in gas fields, but also
it can be extracted from waste, from Hydrates in the sea and all this will
more than double the Gas Reserves compared to Oil Reserves.
Also with more households conserving electricity by using fluorescent bulbs
and portable A/C and heaters, this could reduce gas consumption in power plants
and the saved gas can be used for vehicles.
Posted by: Max Reid | 18 October 2007 at 06:53 AM
This is an interesting project. Anything to help break the oil addiction is good.
On the down side natural gas is still a fossil fuel that does produce some amount of pollution when burned.
My electric motorcycle is fueled by solar power and does not have this problem. www.zevutah.com
Does anyone know how much the ANG motorcycle costs? I did a quick look on their web site, but did not find any pricing.
Posted by: zevutah | 18 October 2007 at 08:52 AM
before hydrogen was appointed king, mercedes made a fuel cell a-class using methane for fuel.
it seems that technologies such as this may lead to the first practical fuel cell cars being powered by something other than H2.
Posted by: shaun | 18 October 2007 at 09:23 AM
My electric motorcycle is fueled by solar power and does not have this problem.
No one cares about your silly little homemade scooter.
Posted by: jack | 18 October 2007 at 11:07 AM
Their technology is quite interesting indeed but I doubt it will help america to cure from its oil addiction.
First of all : NG production has already peaked in US in the early 90s. the interesting thing is that this peak hadn't been anticipated by the experts(in contrast with the oil american peak prediction which was perfectly on time...)
2nd: Main NG producers happened to be also main oil producers so it doesn't really shift the problem from a geopolitical point of view.
3rd the transportation of NG over long distances is a real problem given the poor density of energy of this medium unless it is compressed at very high pressure which translates in heavy containers and expensive loss of energy. The NG is a nice solution for countries who are producer of NG only (like IRAN or EGYPT).
4th this technology reduces the pressure you need to store a given amount of NG but it is probably heavy in itself. the question is how much percent of its weight it can absorb, a few percent? then 10KG of NG will translate in few hundred of Kg.
5th CH4 would be the perfect carburant for aircraft, right, since it is the highest specific energy after H2, it is also the cleaner carburant after H2. So far it is abundant and cheap, but so far not a single aircraft use CH4, there might be good reasons...
6th Asides I concede that this technology could be an interesting storage for H2 for fuel cell in automotive. Given the high efficiency of the fuel cell you would need only a third or a quarter of the amount you need for a ICE powered car, then the penalty of the additional weight of this absorber could be less of a problem. Will see...
Posted by: Treehugger | 18 October 2007 at 01:23 PM
Posted by: jack | Oct 18, 2007 11:07:50 AM
Reported.
Posted by: jack | 18 October 2007 at 01:28 PM
Treehugger,
Please read carefully before you post! (but thanks for posting anyway, since others may also share your concerns)
CH4 can be synthesized from various renewable energy sources, as I and Max Reid have posted. As such, CH4 can be a renewable fuel just like H2 or solar&wind electricity.
The article mentions that the adsorptive material can be "microporous material such as activated carbon" . We (I) know that porous meterial is light, such as styrofoam, due to the large amount of internal micro-bubles or micro-voids.
We (I) further know that carbon is also much lighter than most metals, which gives carbon fiber such a high-strenght-to-weight property.
We (I) know even further that low pressure tank means light-weight tank casing. The weight of a high-pressure tank is the bulk of the weight of a CNG storage system.
The 3 factors above will guarantee that this method of NG storage will be lighter than previous CNG system.
Posted by: Roger Pham | 18 October 2007 at 02:38 PM
Roger
I think I did read carefully before I post. I am happy to learn that this material is as light as styrofoam, but what matters is the percentage in weight it can absorb of CH4. That's the right question to ask, the density of the matrix is not the point. Again I doubt that it is more than a few percent in weight. But would be happy to read that it is better.
CH4 can be produced from renewable sources, yes but not very efficiently so far. Biomass is essentially C more than H means producing CH4 from biomass will leave a lot of C on the ground and as a result a limited amount of energy can be produced this way. So far methanisation of biomass is not seen as significant way to produce energy, contrary to cellulosic ethanol or BTL via Fisher Tropsh or flash depolymerisation. About CH4 from wind or solar, I don't see what process you are referring to..but would be happy to learn about it
Posted by: Treehugger | 18 October 2007 at 04:36 PM
I think the bigger issue on natural gas is that we will be using it more and more for electricity production because:
1. It is the cleanest fossil fuel
2. Natural gas cogeneration turbines can be turned on and off faster than most other large scale technologies to respond to spikes in demand power demand
3. The more we build out intermittent solar and wind, the more we're going to need the flexibility of natural gas. California in particular has invested heavily in natural gas electric power generation.
So, we're going to see more liquified natural gas tanker terminals, which bring many concerns, but we need them.
Posted by: HealthyBreeze | 18 October 2007 at 07:47 PM
"CH4 can be produced from renewable sources, yes but not very efficiently so far. Biomass is essentially C more than H means producing CH4 from biomass will leave a lot of C on the ground and as a result a limited amount of energy can be produced this way. So far methanisation of biomass is not seen as significant way to produce energy, contrary to cellulosic ethanol or BTL via Fisher Tropsh or flash depolymerisation. About CH4 from wind or solar, I don't see what process you are referring to..but would be happy to learn about it"
Anaerobic fermentation of wet biomass or pyrolysis/gasification of drier biomass. Even wood or coal can be gasified to H2 and CO, and with proper catalyst, be converted to methanol and then CH4. This can be done faster than F-T process, the latter will require refining of a mix of hydrocarbon molecules, hence an additional step. The water supply the extra H2 for the CH4, without having to leave the carbon behind.
H2 produced from high-temp electrolysis of solar or wind electricity, then the H2 is combined with the CO2 exhaust of the power plant to produce CH4 via the Sabatier process. Or, the solid oxide electrolytic cell can produce CH4 directly during the high-temp electrolytic process of water if CO2 is added to the water (steam at 800 C).
Posted by: Roger Pham | 18 October 2007 at 08:06 PM
Sabatier process :
CO2 + 4H2 = CH4 + 2H20
half of the H2 is transformed in water so in term of efficiency doesn't look good.
But ok if you add H2 the the process conversion of biomass to CH4 the efficiency could be improved greatly. almost triple if I remeber a post on this sometimes ago.
So in short biomass + H2 from wind and solar = plenty of CH4.
But still I'd like to see how much percent of its own weight this porous graphite can store. Would be surprise than it is more than a few percent, but again I would be happy to read that it's more
Posted by: Treehugger | 19 October 2007 at 12:29 AM
@ Treehugger -
perhaps a more useful data point would be total tank system weight per MJ of stored fuel energy. The whole point of adsorption is that it reduces the containment pressure per MJ, ergo specific tank wall weight is lower.
At present, the total weight of CNG tank + CNG is greater, MJ for MJ, than that of a gasoline tank + gasoline.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | 19 October 2007 at 10:56 AM
but with CNG, MJ for MJ, there is much less CO2 exhaust than with gasoline.
Posted by: Alain | 19 October 2007 at 05:08 PM
Raphael
Agree but they haven't reported any value, that's why I doubt that it is that good compared to a gazoline case
Posted by: Treehugger | 19 October 2007 at 08:17 PM
Treehugger,
Forget about gasoline...it's time to move on to renewable fuel and petroleum independence. Even if the CH4 storage system takes up twice as much space as weighing twice as much as an equivalent amount of gasoline storage system, it will still be OKay with a full hybrid HEV since with a full HEV, only 1/2 the gasoline fuel tank will be needed. The Prius has a 12-gallon tank and can go over 600 miles to empty, which is more than needed. A 12-gallon CH4 tank at comparable weight for the same in gasoline, for a range of 300 miles would still be acceptable.
Sabatier process is only 70-75% efficient in converting the energy of H2 to CH4. Now do you see why H2 is still the champ of efficiency as far as synthetic fuels are concern?
But, until more advanced H2 absorptive storage system will be invented, this will be good enough to overcome petroleum dependency. Cars should be made smaller, lighter and with smaller engines. People should drive less, walk more, and more advanced public transportation systems should be considered to ease the ever-worsening road congestion. Better urban planning to reduce sub-urban sprawl is imperative.
Wells has made a good point in this latter regard.
Posted by: Roger Pham | 19 October 2007 at 10:24 PM
Too bad we get most of our NG from the same hell-hole
as we get our oil. If we cut them off and get it elsewhere
or produce renewable, fine, but I don't foresee it
happening. We'll still be in league with those who hate
us.
Posted by: swen | 22 October 2007 at 10:49 AM
Will this technology store Hydrogen as well as NG?
Posted by: swen | 22 October 2007 at 11:01 AM
To my knowledge, Canada has large deposits of natural gas and has invested heavily in developing a natural gas pipeline starting near the Arctic Circle and ending near the U.S. border. (Natural gas vehicles are common and conversions are readily available along with tax credits in Canada). The U.S. had the opportunity to tap into this pipeline, thus saving millions (probably billions) bringing a potentially huge amount of NG from Alaska at a reasonable delivery cost. Alaskas esteemed Repuplican ASSenator Stevens used his influence to make sure that any and all oil and gas products coming out of Alaska would make the entire trip thru Alaska, thereby increasing the cost to the lower 48 immensely, not to mention the additional cost to the environment in building another pipeline. And on top of this we still need to figure out how to get it safely and cost effectively to terminals in Puget Sound.
Wake up people. NG is definitely part of the solution. Politics, money and power are, as usual, our main enemy.
Since this has not been reported in the media in the past year I would appreciate any updates or factual corrections.
Posted by: whitewater jones | 27 October 2007 at 08:22 PM
FYI..significant volumes of CH4 are produced from renewable sources and the process is VERY energy efficient but not space efficient. The typical US application is anaerobic fermentation at your local sewer treatment plant and it is now being installed at dairy farms.
However, one of the best new methane/hydrogen technologies is supercritical water gasification of municipal waste and biomass. Since 2000 various labs in the USA, Germany, Japan and The Netherlands have been operating SCWG pilot plants at about 10 to 100 kg/h. Some of the best research in the US has been by the military (developed destroy nerve gas ect.) see recent papers by General Atomics.
This technology can easily convert a significant portion of our garbage to fuel, either mostly hydrogen or methane depending on how you operate the SCWG. Currently the best SCWG raw materials are waste plastic and wood. In the near future applications for raw sewage & industrial water treatment will provide fuel and clean water! This process could easily produce 25% of US fuel demand without using food resources.
The problem with methane/hydrogen fuel is vehicle storage and fueling infrastructure. If we can develop a light weight low pressure (i.e. less than 3000 psi) quick fill system this would solve the biggest stumbling block for methane/hydrogen. In the US we need at least 200 mile trip capacity and quick refueling. In fact most of us choose 300 miles. Looks like Israel's Energtek is about to show us the way.
Posted by: TXDunn | 07 February 2008 at 10:24 AM
One of the best features of natural gas is that you can make it at home. A recent development of the biogas research in India is that methane can be produced very quickly from high carbohydrate(sugar,starch) materials in small digestors. These materials include waste fruits and vegetables and grains. Making methane from corn may be a more efficient way of converting it to automobile fuel than ethanol and it is certainly easier to make but harder to store.
The carbon dioxide, also produced, can be separated in various ways, but it does not take up much space when put under 1500 psi because it liquifies.
With slight co-operation of any modern car manufacturer, any car could be modified to be BOOSTED with ANG or CNG which does not eliminate the use of gasoline but just reduces it. A methane injector needs to be fitted to the piston intake ports and this is controlled by the car computer that reduces the gasoline injection.
It is probably true that a slight bleed of natural gas will be compensated for by the computers and oxygen sensors without any direct modification of the car computer program. Every 125 cubic feet used, saves about a gallon of gas and may cost two dollars or less.
This process has been used for decades to reduce the use of diesel in emergency generators when natural gas is available.
A smart computer program could even eliminate the use of gasoline when NG is available. Cheap night house power can be use for compression. A tank of 125 cubic feet at ordinary pressures is required to hold the same amount of energy as a gallon of gasoline. This is about the size of a cube five feet on a side. Throwing a few large airbeds into the back of a pickup truck(with shell) and a small air pump would allow much commuting without high pressure tanks, about 30 miles. There is a picture on the web some where of a child on a bicycle dragging a big bag of gas home for cooking. Hydrogen would require three bags.
Super-critical-water treatment of biowastes may be far better than letting them rot in a landfill for thousands of years. In fact no organic wastes of any type should go into any landfill. Supercritical water cooks plastics into oils. This is not yet a home process because it requires 6000 psi and 1000 degrees F. Ordinary water submerged oxidation at about 400 F. can be used for much reduction of organics. Wood can be converted to acetic acid which can be be changed to ethanol if needed.
Perhaps cooking for a few seconds at super-critical water conditions will turn any biomass or organic into food for methane making bacteria....HG...
Posted by: Henry Gibson | 25 April 2008 at 04:02 PM
ANG Technology is good for filling stations and also for the end users.
A very nice and informative article.Thanks for posting such nice article.
Wide Circles
Posted by: xs4 | 28 July 2008 at 10:53 PM