Adsorbent natural gas tanks are revolutionary.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adsorbed_natural_gas

http://www.ngvglobal.com/blog/ang-technology-to-collect-boil-off-gas-on-lng-ships-0524#more-112010

https://cenergysolutions.com/ang-cylinders/

https://cenergysolutions.com/conformable-ang-tank/

https://cenergysolutions.com/ang-home-fueling/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261996000153

https://www.automotive-fleet.com/132899/adsorbent-natural-gas-tanks-applied-to-first-fleet-truck

https://www.truckinginfo.com/130790/carbon-adsorption-to-reduce-cng-costs

 

Adsorbent natural gas tanks use special materials such as carbon to absorb large amounts of natural gas without using high pressure tanks. They can be used in spaces that are not normally used and minimize loss of cargo space. This is because they can be made into irregular shapes, not just as cylinders. This technology has been pursued for years and is now coming to fruition. 

One potential use would be for quickly fueling automobiles and pickup trucks or vans, at home or elsewhere, with low pressure natural gas pumps. Cenergy Solutions states that their ANG low pressure tanks can hold more natural gas and flow better than existing natural gas tanks. 

Edited May 27, 2019 by ronwagn

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

The original material for adsorbence was ground-up iron in filings form, tocreat a vast surface area for the gas to adsorb to.  For those of our readers who do not have English as a first language, please note that the process of adsorption is different that absorbtion. The adsorption process here is the clinging of new molecules of material onto the surface skin of the adsorbent. 

In old tests, a large cylinder was filled with hydrogen gas and an adsorbent of iron filings.  A bullet was fired into the tank, and the escaping gas set aflame.  They hydrogen burned with a soft flame only.  And that is the big advantage of low-pressure  (in this case, 200 psi) gas storage.  Even if mounted on a vehicle and then ruptured in a collision, the flame would be this soft burn, not a massive explosion. 

There is great promise in this technology.  I was not aware of the use of carbon as a material.  However, in retrospect that seems logical! 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

3 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

The original material for adsorbence was ground-up iron in filings form, tocreat a vast surface area for the gas to adsorb to.  For those of our readers who do not have English as a first language, please note that the process of adsorption is different that absorbtion. The adsorption process here is the clinging of new molecules of material onto the surface skin of the adsorbent. 

In old tests, a large cylinder was filled with hydrogen gas and an adsorbent of iron filings.  A bullet was fired into the tank, and the escaping gas set aflame.  They hydrogen burned with a soft flame only.  And that is the big advantage of low-pressure  (in this case, 200 psi) gas storage.  Even if mounted on a vehicle and then ruptured in a collision, the flame would be this soft burn, not a massive explosion. 

There is great promise in this technology.  I was not aware of the use of carbon as a material.  However, in retrospect that seems logical! 

Other advantages are the conformability in the diverse shape of tanks, the ability to fuel at home with low pressure pumps, lower priced tanks (eventually) and the lower price for filling stations to add CNG to their products. Lower investment for fleets also. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

I would like to see a lot of big investors take advantage of the potential ramifications of this leap in technology. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

6 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Other advantages are the conformability in the diverse shape of tanks, the ability to fuel at home with low pressure pumps, lower priced tanks (eventually) and the lower price for filling stations to add CNG to their products. Lower investment for fleets also. 

All true. And the logical first place for this technology to be adopted is in the Midwest and Texas, in the oil basins, where all that gas is being flared off.  Instead of that, the gas could be captured and then used to fuel the trucks of the oil industry and pick-ups of the field employees.  Basically, it would be "free fuel."  

Now, will  they?  Probably not.  Society has developed a rather cavalier attitude towards fuels.  Lots and lots of the stuff is wasted.  There is this scene in a film on Rommel where a recon plane makes a low pass over Rommel's staff car and the driver puts it into the field off the road and dives out.  Upon return, Rommel castigates the driver, saying:  "Hans, next time, shut off the engine.  Fuel is precious."  

Edited May 26, 2019 by Jan van Eck

[ronwagn + 6,290]

I am in California, visiting again, and paying over four dollars per gallon. This is another great place to take advantage of natural gas vehicles. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

Just now, ronwagn said:

I am in California, visiting again, and paying over four dollars per gallon. This is another great place to take advantage of natural gas vehicles. 

California is best abandoned by intelligent people. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Just now, Jan van Eck said:

California is best abandoned by intelligent people. 

I lived half of my life in California and abandoned it for the cornfields of Illinois which is my wife's home state. I have enjoyed life a lot more there but have adult offspring and family in California. My nephew just moved his family to California, Missouri which is a small town near the State Capitol. He got 25 acres and a massive house for the price of an average sized home in California. 

I have a small home on a great acre in Illinois but the liberals just took over again and things are getting worse fast. I also have two adult children in my town there. We will probably stick it out because of our age.  

California has great weather and is the most beautiful state in the Union. Northern Calfornia still has plenty of space to hide out in. The problem is the state government. 

[Meredith Poor + 883]

One other characteristic of adsorption is that it is selective, so it binds to methane (for example) but not H2S or CO2. Depending on the material, this could be used to separate mixtures and flush out impurities.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 hour ago, Meredith Poor said:

One other characteristic of adsorption is that it is selective, so it binds to methane (for example) but not H2S or CO2. Depending on the material, this could be used to separate mixtures and flush out impurities.

Could adsorption possibly be useful in the mining of methane hydrates? 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Another possible use for adsorption tanks would be to provide a less expensive alternative to propane tanks and propane usage. The adsorption tanks could be refilled wherever natural gas lines were available. It would require inexpensive low pressure pumps. The cost of trucking propane would be mostly eliminated. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

57 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

The adsorption tanks could be refilled wherever natural gas lines were available.

You have to wonder if this will morph into a gas equivalent to oil-by-rail.  We could call it "gas by rail."

Railcar tanks filled with carbon adsorbent would hold gas and propane without an explosion risk in the case the train derails and the tanks split.  Rather a nice feature. Given the pipeline shortage, using rail would dramatically expand the reach and ship volume of gas and propane. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

3 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

The original material for adsorbence was ground-up iron in filings form, to create a vast surface area for the gas to adsorb to.  For those of our readers who do not have English as a first language, please note that the process of adsorption is different that absorbtion. The adsorption process here is the clinging of new molecules of material onto the surface skin of the adsorbent. 

In old tests, a large cylinder was filled with hydrogen gas and an adsorbent of iron filings.  A bullet was fired into the tank, and the escaping gas set aflame.  They hydrogen burned with a soft flame only.  And that is the big advantage of low-pressure  (in this case, 200 psi) gas storage.  Even if mounted on a vehicle and then ruptured in a collision, the flame would be this soft burn, not a massive explosion. 

There is great promise in this technology.  I was not aware of the use of carbon as a material.  However, in retrospect that seems logical! 

A lot of people who speak English as their first language do not understand that difference.

As you correctly noted - most of this technology was developed for hydrogen gas when we had hopes of fuel cells going mainstream.  With hydrogen gas there are additional mechanisms on top of adsorption, like metal hydride formation.

Edited May 26, 2019 by Enthalpic

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

8 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

You have to wonder if this will morph into a gas equivalent to oil-by-rail.  We could call it "gas by rail."

Railcar tanks filled with carbon adsorbent would hold gas and propane without an explosion risk in the case the train derails and the tanks split.  Rather a nice feature. Given the pipeline shortage, using rail would dramatically expand the reach and ship volume of gas and propane. 

It does suffer the downside that you have to carry the adsorbent both ways. Ideally it would be extraordinarily light, yet robust enough not to crumble to bits after a few cycles. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerogel

 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

Could adsorption possibly be useful in the mining of methane hydrates? 

Theoretically yes, in practice no. If you are getting selective binding it's a form a solid phase microextraction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-phase_microextraction

Van der Waals and other weak binding forces are not very selective.

Edited May 26, 2019 by Enthalpic

[Meredith Poor + 883]

2 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Could adsorption possibly be useful in the mining of methane hydrates? 

Methane hydrates have to be either warmed up or decompressed for the water to separate from the methane. At that point the two differentiate, since the water remains liquid and the gas floats to the top. If one could pipe the methane into the tank at depth it would already be somewhat pressurized. At 300 meters water pressure is around 450 Psi, the maximum pressure for adsorbed carbon is 900 PSI.300 meters is the depth that clathrates form.

Generally methane clathrates are already 'pure' in that the methane has migrated from it's source and has separated from other contaminants.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

8 minutes ago, Meredith Poor said:

Methane hydrates have to be either warmed up or decompressed for the water to separate from the methane. At that point the two differentiate, since the water remains liquid and the gas floats to the top. If one could pipe the methane into the tank at depth it would already be somewhat pressurized. At 300 meters water pressure is around 450 Psi, the maximum pressure for adsorbed carbon is 900 PSI.300 meters is the depth that clathrates form.

Generally methane clathrates are already 'pure' in that the methane has migrated from it's source and has separated from other contaminants.

Possibly surface water could be warmed (if necessary) and piped to the mining site. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

1 hour ago, Meredith Poor said:

Methane hydrates have to be either warmed up or decompressed for the water to separate from the methane. At that point the two differentiate, since the water remains liquid and the gas floats to the top. If one could pipe the methane into the tank at depth it would already be somewhat pressurized. At 300 meters water pressure is around 450 Psi, the maximum pressure for adsorbed carbon is 900 PSI.300 meters is the depth that clathrates form.

Generally methane clathrates are already 'pure' in that the methane has migrated from it's source and has separated from other contaminants.

When the hydrate melts it conveniently creates fresher water - you end up getting an upward flow of, less-dense, partially desalinated water with the gas.  I feel the desalination effect will be of significance if harvesting is ever of commercially viable.

[EnergyEngineer + 1]

Looking forward to sharing perspectives and learning new things almost 50 years experience in fossil power/process, shale gas, CNG/LNG and now moving into solar.