InnovaTek's hand-sized microreactor converts liquid fuel into hydrogen

While oil prices continue to soar to new heights, the gurus at InnovaTek are peering into the future. After years of work, said company is finally testing its hand-sized microreactor that can reportedly "convert virtually any liquid fuel into hydrogen, producing a portable hydrogen stream for use in adjoining fuel-cells." In a perfect world, the technology would come built-in to vehicles, where we'd bypass the dangerous act of transporting hydrogen and instead convert biodiesel (or similar) right within the confines of the car. As it stands, the outfit has already signed a half-million dollar joint development agreement with Chevron to "pursue fuel processing technology for hydrogen refueling stations," and while this stuff isn't apt to be an option on any showroom models next year, InnovaTek is still aiming to commercially license the microreactors by 2009.

[Jesse S @ Mar 20th 2008 4:23PM]

I don't think water qualifies as a liquid fuel. Turning water into H_2 and O_2 requires lots of energy, or chemicals.

Can someone tell me what exactly is wrong with having each fuel station convert public water into H_2 using solar power (or by other means, there are actually many ways besides electrolysis, Sciam had an article on it last year that was very good, I think I have a pdf of it somewhere), and barring public water, having water shipped instead of Hydrogen?

And Hydrogen is actually safer to run around with than gasoline (I forget exactly why, it has to do with gas being denser than air or something, thus creating huge clouds that ignite, and Hydrogen dissipates almost instantly, or something), it's just harder to transport (H_2 molecules are very, very small...).

Nice editorial job Engadget, as usual.

[Jesse S @ Mar 20th 2008 4:25PM]

Also, fuel cells are terrible in almost every way possible, and just using straight Hydrogen is much better (like in that Bimmer or http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/).

[matt @ Mar 20th 2008 4:44PM]

people are going to call you a big oil sympathizer now

[Jesse S @ Mar 20th 2008 4:49PM]

I don't get it, because I support Hydrogen fuel for cars (and I have for years and years), nuclear power, and solar power?

[Bob @ Mar 20th 2008 6:20PM]

Jesse S, from what I've read, burning straight hydrogen is much less efficient than using fuel cells, but this is just a news article, so maybe it's a government (or "big oil") conspiracy:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/03/18/hydrogen.buses/index.html

[CraigJ @ Mar 20th 2008 6:36PM]

Firstly, by liquid fuel, they mean gasoline and diesel, not water. Secondly, a fuel cell is about 75% more efficient than an ICE, so, think plug-in hybrid; instead of an ICE to generate electricity, you use a micro reactor and fuel cells. You still use hydrocarbon fuel, but instead of getting 60 MPG you get 105 MPG.

If this actually works, I do wonder what they are doing with the carbon. Since there is no combustion during the reaction there should be no CO2 or CO generated.

[SuperQ @ Mar 20th 2008 7:16PM]

@CraigJ

You're exactly right. If the process of turning hydrocarbons into mechanical energy via splitting to H2 and then into a fuel cell is more efficient than burning in ICE, this is a huge deal. There are other big wins you get out of this. The system could be completely silent. It could weigh less than an ICE, improving fuel economy. It could last longer, as it has no moving parts. It could take up less space in the vehicle, leaving more room for people/cargo. Improved fuel economy would reduce the size of the gas tank, another weight saver.

[Chris @ Mar 20th 2008 10:27PM]

@CraigJ
This is exactly what it is. It will still produces CO2 (lots of chemical reactions besides combustion do).
The army has been looking at similar technology as a generator for years. Think about it, you could burn diesel to run a generator and loose ~80% to heat, or strip the diesel of its H's and use them in a fuel cell. Early efficiencies where 50%, and I am sure they have improved.

[Chris @ Mar 20th 2008 10:47PM]

@Jesse S
You have several flawed notions in your post-
First and foremost, gaseous is Very dangerous to travel with. As you mentioned, it is very very light, and will easily leak. The problem is, unlike most gases, expanding H2 has a positive Joules-Thompson coefficient, which means it will heat up as it expands. It can and will heat pass its ignition point. Once an H2 fire starts, there is no way to put it out, except for removing fuel. It burns clear and intense (I have a friend who works at a Sunoco plant, and the old operators check for H2 fires by sticking a broom where they think fire is. If it spontaneously combusts, they know there's a fire.) Anyway, you get the idea, H2 as a gas is not ideal.
As for the first part of your post, you must remember energy cannot be created, only stored and converted. Solar panels are quite inefficient, and cracking H2 from water is a hugely energy-intensive reaction. The water->fuel->water cycle is a nice idea, but I really only see it as feasible if we have huge amounts of energy from some source, maybe fusion.
And as was pointed out, burning H2 in an engine is hugely inefficient compared to fuel cells.

Remember people, thermodynamics must be obeyed!

[Zhalfim Deyn @ Mar 21st 2008 4:47AM]

@Jesse S

remember the Hindenberg...

[Jesse S @ Mar 21st 2008 10:48AM]

The Hindenburg fire was started because the canvas cover was coated in what was essentially thermite, the hydrogen just fueled the fire.

And because electrolysis is so inefficient, we should use something like solar panels...No nasty hydrocarbon-based fuels or dams.

[Jesse S @ Mar 21st 2008 10:57AM]

Also, I found the Sciam article, but you have to pay for it. It is a very good read, I suggest you go down to your local library and find an April, 2007 back issue to read it.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=gassing-up-with-hydrogen

[matt @ Mar 20th 2008 4:28PM]

rofl, where does the carbon from the hydrocarbons go?

[Dan Davis @ Mar 20th 2008 4:31PM]

Through the carbonator... DUH! :)

[Sean O @ Mar 20th 2008 4:43PM]

Excellent point, and it's pathetic this article doesn't discuss that. So what's the friggin point? Other than being more expensive and less efficient, how is this advantageous to simply burning biofuel in a combustion engine?

Maybe this technology being used at a clean power plant that has a Carbon Collection System in place. Maybe this process makes it easier to collect the CO. But the way that works is that they inject CO into underground reservoirs. So obviously this ain't gonna work in a car.

There's like a thousand emerging battery technologies ( http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/23/better-batteries-through-nanotechnology/ ). All these other hair-brained ideas (like hydrogen filling stations) are just distractions.

[Chris @ Mar 20th 2008 10:50PM]

Carbon dioxide. Lots of reactions end with carbon dioxide, not just combustion!

[kilgary @ Mar 20th 2008 4:32PM]

It's interesting that Chevron has already swooped in with a joint development agreement with them on this. I wonder how many great energy innovations have been stifled over the past 30 years after being "partnered" with big oil?

[Brian @ Mar 20th 2008 4:33PM]

Tons, I am sure...more than we will ever know.

[matt @ Mar 20th 2008 4:34PM]

I bet alex jones knows!!!

[Jesse S @ Mar 20th 2008 4:39PM]

Woo, conspiracy theorists.

Get out.

[macona @ Mar 20th 2008 4:43PM]

Very little if any. When the technology to create something become readily available an invention will be simultaneously developed by several people at one. Past examples: the airplane, the telephone, the transistor. All of these were independently developed and invented. Some within days, some within a few years. Its just the Wright brothers, Bell, and Bell Labs were the first ones submit for a patent.

Even of the oil companies squashed an invention it would eventually be re-invented by someone else. If you believe in the Pogue Carburetor, colloidal silver, and free energy then there is nothing I can say. TANSTAAFL

[Kamokazi @ Mar 20th 2008 4:51PM]

I kinda agree with Jesse there. It would be in any company's best interest to come up with a better solution than fossil fuels...they could make a killing patenting the technology. They would love nothing more than for their competitors to have to pay them royalties.

What probably happens is this research gets bought out, allowed to bake a couple years and then shut down when they realize the tech isn't going to be cost effective or feasible, which is often the case. I suppose you could argue that they might have stopped a potential breakthrough by doing that, but the point is the oil companies buying out alternative energy tech is not about shutting down competition from non-oil sources.

[Sam Winter @ Mar 22nd 2008 3:20AM]

@JEsse, Kamokazi, et al

To the "it will be re-invented" idealists, there are things called PATENTS! It doesn't matter if some revolutionary technology is public knowledge.. they can just lock up the patents and not license the technology. If you think this doesn't happen, you are beyond ignorant. Don't believe me?
Why do you think hybrid cars aren't more popular and haven't been around until only recently?
Lead acid batteries are heavy, have a poor energy density, etc. Lithium Ion batteries as a whole are still too expensive and dangerous for mainstream hybrids. The only cheap, reliable, high energy- density battery technology for hybrids is nickel metal hydride (NiMH).
You see any hobbyists/amateur inventors working on hybrids in their shop with NiMH batteries? How about small startups like Tesla? Or even larger industrial companies wanting to make Hybrid engines to sell to car manufacturers? Nope you don't. Why is that, you wonder?
Maybe the reason has something to do with the fact that Texaco, now owned by Chevron bought up the patent to large form factor nickel metal hydride (NiMH) batteries and won't license the technology nor will it manufacturer them. It's been this way for 10 years, and only recently did they finally give in and actually manufacture some for Toyota and ONLY for a massive order. Look it up if you think I'm full of B.S.

To the "conspiracy theories" person... I don't have a tinfoil hat, but more goes on then we know about...

[Brian @ Mar 20th 2008 4:32PM]

It will never sell without hotter models...

[Josh @ Mar 20th 2008 4:32PM]

Please tell me they plan to call this thing Mr. Fusion...

[matt @ Mar 20th 2008 4:33PM]

since it's splitting hydrogen atoms off of hydrocarbon molecules, it'd be more mr. fission.

[Nate @ Mar 20th 2008 4:55PM]

lol mad prop's for the BTTF reference

[Josh @ Mar 20th 2008 6:29PM]

Details details:P

[macona @ Mar 20th 2008 4:33PM]

Burning Hydrogen in an internal combustion engine in inefficient. Dont think the efficiency of feeding the fuel into a fuel cell aint going to be great either.

And what happens to the byproducts created when you strip the hydrogen out? Sludge?

[Bob @ Mar 20th 2008 6:24PM]

Um... with fuel cells emissions is clean water... H20... You know, what you drink...

[macona @ Mar 20th 2008 6:38PM]

No from the section that is converting hydrocarbon fuel to hydrogen gas. All sorts of other things in fuels than hydrogen. There are impurities such as sulfur. What happens to all the carbon and sulfur that is left behind?

[Tek @ Mar 21st 2008 5:48PM]

Hydrogen ICE vehicles use a regular combustion engine modified to use gaseous hydrogen instead of liquid gasoline (much like a natural gas vehicle is modified). They burn hydrogen, but since there is no carbon in hydrogen, there are no CO2 emissions and only trace amounts of NOx (oxides of nitrogen--the air we breathe is 79% nitrogen). Hydrogen ICE vehicles are typically about 30% more efficient than comparable gasoline vehicles.

[ieko @ Mar 20th 2008 4:37PM]

Jesse S:
Using public water systems in places like the Los Angeles or Phoenix because of water shortages.

But like everyone else I really can't wait to say good bye to gasoline! In the meantime I don't really understand why we haven't made the move to hybrid diesel. I know it's more expensive to create vehicles that are hybrid diesels but it's a lot more efficient as well.

[Jesse S @ Mar 20th 2008 4:40PM]

People in the US think diesel = big, noisy, bad, smelly, etc.

People are dumb.

[tcc3 @ Mar 20th 2008 5:01PM]

No people are misinformed and with good reason. Theyre used to the crappy diesels of the 70' and 80 that were all of those things. Not to mention those ideas being reinforced by black smoke belching big rigs.

Diesels have come along way in the last 30 years, its going to take a while to convince people.

[kaiswil2 @ Mar 20th 2008 4:39PM]

You wanna know the truth, this will NEVER see the light of day. Why you ask? They just were bought out by Chevron, it will fall into a bottomless pit and just be lost in Limbo forever. March on OIL GIANTS march on. You might as well schalack naked girls onto to those card size reactors or she could fancy the ascetics of the them and sell them at Star Trek conventions as Ferengi latinum bars.

[Jesse S @ Mar 20th 2008 4:42PM]

Get out, unless you actually have any proof. Like, I don't know, patents? News stories? Court cases? Etc.

Otherwise, why don't you go watch Loose Change and leave the grown-ups alone.

[mrpoo @ Mar 20th 2008 4:49PM]

Nobody gets "bought out" for only $500k, unless they have bad gambling debts and need fast cash.

[matt @ Mar 20th 2008 4:52PM]

http://www.tekkie.com/news/news_12-21-06.asp

looks like the navy beat chevron to it to the tune of $1.8 billion

[Jared Schnelle @ Mar 21st 2008 2:09AM]

1.8 million, not billion

[Carl @ Mar 20th 2008 4:44PM]

Why is Deobrah Meadan, of UK inventors TV show Dragons Den,in the picture?

[matt @ Mar 20th 2008 4:47PM]

http://www.tekkie.com/index.asp

good question. what the hell are you talking about?

[haydenseq @ Mar 20th 2008 4:52PM]

what happens to a hydrocarbon chain when you strip it of Hydrogens? It usually becomes benzene or any type of ring structure, with carbons double bonding to themselves. This process would probably occur to infinitum but usually only strips a few hydrogens from the carbon backbone. The remaining hydrogens become more energy intensive to remove.

P.S. I am working on biodiesel funded by Chevron. What do you have to say about the Oil giants giving $500 million to UC Berkeley for future research? Will that also fall into your supposed bottomless pit?

[kaiswil2 @ Mar 20th 2008 5:17PM]

That would fall into the Good Faith category for a tax write off. These oil companies are making BILLIONS, these monies also fall into the "R&D" areas that they say they are spending the money on to find newer and better fuel sources. You would think that after everyone spending this much money they would have found a clean, reliable, cheaper and PRACTICAL method of fueling our vehicles. Personally I think electric will eventually win out in the very long run of things.

[nikola @ Mar 20th 2008 6:56PM]

More than likely yes. Your alleged product won't get any further than a closed door and a wood chipper if it proves to be a competent alternative to gasoline. Bottom line.

These are more than just greedy companies. They are ruthless bloodhounds, who operate much more like a criminal cindicate. Guard your research, they might even have you taken out if you learn too much. They've done it before.

[mrpoo @ Mar 20th 2008 4:52PM]

Reforming primarily generates hydrogen and carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide is toxic, that's why your car has a catalytic converter to convert it to CO2. All the other crap in the fuel will need to be cleaned out prior to reforming, including sulfur compounds, etc. That will increase the cost and complexity. CO (or CO2) management will be nontrivial, and the inefficiency of reforming might end up yielding carbon emissions not far from those of a conventional internal combustion engine.

[Markus @ Mar 20th 2008 4:58PM]

They are trying is now for years: http://www.virent.com/

[For2itous @ Mar 20th 2008 5:04PM]

Cesarian Hydrogen Reactor (in a burbling, death-rattle soto voce to Chevron): "H tu, Brute?"

[martin @ Mar 20th 2008 5:11PM]

she looks like that lard-arse from dragons den.

[Examancer @ Mar 21st 2008 7:14PM]

"While oil prices continue to soar to new heights..."

Technically, oil prices have declined significantly in commodity markets over the last couple days. Sure, on a longer time line they will go back up and reach new highs... but they end this week lower than where they started.