Catalyx Nanotech Begins Converting Landfill Gas to Nanofibers, Hydrogen at a Southern California Landfill
20 June 2009
Catalyx Nanotech, Inc., has started operating a pilot project to convert landfill gas (LFG) to nanofibers and hydrogen at a closed southern California landfill. Previously, this pilot unit was operating as a production plant in Burnaby, Canada, using natural gas as the feed source and producing 2.0 kg of nanofibers per day.
The pilot project currently operates on a reduced capacity for a single shift each day producing approximately 0.5 kg of high value Platelet Graphite Nanofibers and 2,000 liters of hydrogen from a completely renewable resource. The materials are not being produced for commercial sale and will be used for extensive analyses and tests for design of large-scale commercial production plants.
The pilot will help determine the operating limits of the proprietary process, which relies on a patented catalyst to selectively crack methane and produce structured graphitic platelet fibers and pure hydrogen, with no other byproducts.
Our advantage is that we are able to produce nanofibers at greater than 99% purity, as well as 100% green hydrogen in a one-step process. Purification of nanomaterials from typical carbon batches is an extremely expensive undertaking for commercial applications. Catalyx Nanotech is eliminating the extra work and, consequently, the expense of separating nanofibers from byproducts, such as amorphous carbon, soot, etc., that make nanomaterials so costly today. We expect to commoditize nano-scale graphite materials at prices comparable to high quality synthetic graphite used in electrodes and refractory applications.
After some preliminary test runs, we will also integrate a small fuel cell to demonstrate how the electrochemical reaction of hydrogen and oxygen can produce electrical energy, as opposed to the direct combustion of hydrogen and oxygen to produce thermal energy. This in situ generation of green electricity with a zero-carbon footprint is just one possible use of the hydrogen.
—Yinan Jin, Catalyx Nanotech Chief Research Scientist
The only working source of energy on a large enough scale and at a cheap enough cost to support an industrialized state that has very low C02 output is nuclear fission reactors. Technology is now available to reduce the nuclear wastes of a persons total share of national energy for a lifetime to less than a pint. This pint can be inserted into the bottom muds of the pacific ocean where it will stay for millions of years. This is millions of times safer, on the average, than eating food at a fast food restraunt or driving a car for ten miles. Or it can be put into an exact duplicate of the WIPP.
It would be cheaper to reduce all organic materials into carbon before they are put into landfills. A quick high pressure process is available at a university in Hawaii.
Perhaps all of the CO2 that a person breathes out can be collected and reinjected into their intestines along with the much beloved hydrogen where micro-organisms will convert it into ethanol or other digestible substance so that people can now run mostly on hydrogen. ..HG..
Posted by: Henry Gibson | 20 June 2009 at 08:30 AM
"nuclear fission reactors"
When we could produce half the power from renewable methane combined cycle plants and the rest from solar, wind and geothermal, I don't think we need nuclear. Besides the waste, there is only so much uranium, thorium and other elements on the planet. This is NOT sustainable, but as long as the wind blows, the sun shines and the earth generates heat, we will have energy.
Posted by: SJC | 20 June 2009 at 01:56 PM
Lets see if the new Nukes can cut the mustard.
As we all know Nukes 1.0 cost like sin and took forever to build.
The only way existing nukes in the US make money is that they were bought from their bankrupt owners for cents in the dollar. The new Finnish plant built by the French company Areva is the poster boy for Nukes 2.0. But it is, surprise, surprise, way over budget and no completeion date yet announced.
If I had to bet, (and I'm not putting $5 billion on the nose in a capital contrained world like Areva) Nukes 2.0 will fail in the market,their power costing too much, just like Nukes 1.0. There are just some things you can't polish.
Posted by: SVW | 20 June 2009 at 06:49 PM
The economics of nuke power are simple.
Take one nuke plant with say 3 1180 mw reactors.. they will put out 300 billion worth of power over thier lifetime.. if sold at 10 cents per.
But they dont plan to sell it at that.
Instead they make deals with the state and the state and others gobble up the starting cost of the plant. The result is the plant now sells industrial power at say 3.3 cents per. 100 billion.. BUT the state garners 100s of billions in industry and because residential power is also cheaper.. they get various moolas from that as well.
And in the end everyone is happy because they all get billions. And because on paper the power company never makes a profit they never pay any taxes on the billiosn they actualy do make. But the state and fed dont care because they also get far more in taxes from people USING the power then they could have ever gotten from the power plant operators.
But this sort of... tangled tax orgy only works if the power is VERY dependable.
What does this all have to do with landfill gas and h2? Well landfills are VERY dependable and once you store ANY electric power as hydrogen you know exactly how much you will have.
Now since we are in that giant tax orgy it doesnt actualy matter how much gets lost in the process as long as enough makes it through to fuel the entire system and that system its fueling results in enough money for that tax orgy to fund itself.
Now because of the magifying mature of this system you can lose a fair amount at each step and still result in a snowballing of money thus resulting in a 5-10 billion power plant netting 3-400 billion even tho it never on paper ever made a profit.
Posted by: wintermane2000 | 21 June 2009 at 10:49 AM