Above is a detailed layout of our plan for next semester. The tasks are organized in order of importance. We hope to have our design completed construct by the beginning of March. We will then begin to perform test in the laboratory on our design.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Plan for Next Semester
Above is a detailed layout of our plan for next semester. The tasks are organized in order of importance. We hope to have our design completed construct by the beginning of March. We will then begin to perform test in the laboratory on our design.
Enviornmental Benefits
Biodiesel fuel reduces carbon dioxide emissions because the CO2 is cycled. According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and as shown in Figure 1, the use of 100% biodiesel fuels can reduce CO2 emissions by 78.45% compared to petroleum biodiesel.
Why is "The Green Machine" the Way to Go?
The Green Machine project is novel because it sets out to eliminate the time-consuming, expensive steps involved with traditional batch testing to make biodiesel. Batch testing involves homogeneous catalysis in which a catalyst is dumped into a tank of the reactants and agitated to make the reaction go. In batch testing, the catalyst does not go away, and it is sometimes poisoned, meaning it cannot be reused. Formerly, sodium hydroxide (or NaOH) was used as the catalyst. However, this formed an unfavorable byproduct, which was soap. This leads to numerous time-consuming steps needed to obtain the actual biodiesel. After the reaction occurs, the soap must be strained out, then the catalyst must be strained out, and finally the product must be purified to separate out the biodiesel.
Biodiesel has never before been produced using microreactor technology and a solid NiO catalyst. There are several benefits to producing biodiesel in this way, which will now be addressed. The microreactor testing involves heterogeneous catalysis, meaning that the catalyst is fixed. In this case, the NiO is coated on the walls of the microreactor channel and is not consumed in the reaction. Consequently, the microreactor can be consistently re-used to produce more biodiesel. Also, because the catalyst is fixed, there is no need to separate it out after the reaction has carried through. Lastly, the NiO does not produce an unfavorable byproduct when used to catalyze soy oil and methanol. Hence, another separation step is eliminated. Unfortunately, however, there are a few drawbacks to the use of this fixed catalyst. For example, the molecules of the liquid reactants must come in contact with the catalyst at the walls in order for them to react. Sometimes this can be difficult to do. However, that problem is combated by making the dimensions of the channel really small—hence, “micro”. The fact that the dimensions are so small for the microreactor channel enables all the reactants to reach the surface of the catalyst. To give an idea of the actual dimensions of the channel, the reactor in Figure 3 has a channel depth of 50µm and a width of 500µm. Additionally, there are some drawbacks to the use of microreactors themselves. First, microreactors will produce only one drop of product at a time. One would argue that this would take far too long to produce a substantial amount of biodiesel. However, to counter that, the plan is to eventually scale up the Green Machine design and possibly put a thousand microreactors in parallel to produce a couple of orders of magnitude more fuel at a time. But, one may argue that using a thousand of these reactors would be far too expensive. Currently, a microreactor is about $200. Therefore, it is true that this idea would be expensive, but, if people learn the technology better, they can learn how to make these reactors efficiently and cheap. This is outside the scope of this project though so that issue cannot be addressed in any more detail at the current time. As one final point on microreactors, it is important to note that they are continuous flow reactors. The continuous nature of microreactor flow avoids the typical workup delays of isolating and purifying the biodiesel that are associated with batch testing. Therefore, microreactors are generally regarded as more efficient and easier to control, which can save time and money.
Biodiesel has never before been produced using microreactor technology and a solid NiO catalyst. There are several benefits to producing biodiesel in this way, which will now be addressed. The microreactor testing involves heterogeneous catalysis, meaning that the catalyst is fixed. In this case, the NiO is coated on the walls of the microreactor channel and is not consumed in the reaction. Consequently, the microreactor can be consistently re-used to produce more biodiesel. Also, because the catalyst is fixed, there is no need to separate it out after the reaction has carried through. Lastly, the NiO does not produce an unfavorable byproduct when used to catalyze soy oil and methanol. Hence, another separation step is eliminated. Unfortunately, however, there are a few drawbacks to the use of this fixed catalyst. For example, the molecules of the liquid reactants must come in contact with the catalyst at the walls in order for them to react. Sometimes this can be difficult to do. However, that problem is combated by making the dimensions of the channel really small—hence, “micro”. The fact that the dimensions are so small for the microreactor channel enables all the reactants to reach the surface of the catalyst. To give an idea of the actual dimensions of the channel, the reactor in Figure 3 has a channel depth of 50µm and a width of 500µm. Additionally, there are some drawbacks to the use of microreactors themselves. First, microreactors will produce only one drop of product at a time. One would argue that this would take far too long to produce a substantial amount of biodiesel. However, to counter that, the plan is to eventually scale up the Green Machine design and possibly put a thousand microreactors in parallel to produce a couple of orders of magnitude more fuel at a time. But, one may argue that using a thousand of these reactors would be far too expensive. Currently, a microreactor is about $200. Therefore, it is true that this idea would be expensive, but, if people learn the technology better, they can learn how to make these reactors efficiently and cheap. This is outside the scope of this project though so that issue cannot be addressed in any more detail at the current time. As one final point on microreactors, it is important to note that they are continuous flow reactors. The continuous nature of microreactor flow avoids the typical workup delays of isolating and purifying the biodiesel that are associated with batch testing. Therefore, microreactors are generally regarded as more efficient and easier to control, which can save time and money.
Background on the Green Machine
Biodiesel production makes use of a chemical process known as transesterification, which involves a catalytic reaction of vegetable oil with an alcohol, generally methanol. The molar ratio of methanol to vegetable oil is 3:1; however, excess methanol is often used because it helps to drive the reaction since methanol and vegetable oil do not readily mix. Both the catalyst and the excess methanol are therefore key elements to help spur the reaction forward. Although biodiesel production has become increasingly available over the past several years, improvements are necessary in order to make the process more efficient and cost effective. Two studies in particular, conducted by Loyola affiliates, have provided a basis for the Green Machine project. These studies are as follows: 1) “Going Green: A Better Way to Make Biodiesel”—Kerri Ruggiero and Paul La Plante’s 2008 Hauber Summer Research project, and 2) “Micro Chemical Processing Technology for Production of Biodiesel Fuel”—a project in which both Dr. Bailey and Dr. Lowe participated.
In essence, the Green Machine is a continuation of the two previous studies mentioned above. Because this project is adding onto the findings of prior work, not every possible alternative to making biodiesel fuel will be considered. That is, this project deals with some predetermined constraints. First, the reactants set forth by the Hauber Summer Research project will be used. Specifically, these reactants are soy oil, methanol, and a solid catalyst of nickel oxide (NiO). Additionally, microreactor technology will be used to contain the reaction needed to produce the biodiesel.
In essence, the Green Machine is a continuation of the two previous studies mentioned above. Because this project is adding onto the findings of prior work, not every possible alternative to making biodiesel fuel will be considered. That is, this project deals with some predetermined constraints. First, the reactants set forth by the Hauber Summer Research project will be used. Specifically, these reactants are soy oil, methanol, and a solid catalyst of nickel oxide (NiO). Additionally, microreactor technology will be used to contain the reaction needed to produce the biodiesel.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Exploring Alternative Components to the Green Machine
As you can see from this image, the final design of the Green Machine has changed somewhat:
With some new ideas, the Green Machine's overall design has seen some great improvements. Now, we'll go over some of the reasoning behind our choices for the Green Machine's parts and other ideas we've considered.
Keeping in mind that this project’s ultimate goal is to create a device that produces biodiesel fuel run solely on solar-powered energy, it was determined that there are four essential components to the design. First, some type of infusion mechanism is needed to pump the reactants through the microreactor. Second, there must be an element used to heat the reaction. Third, a solar power source must be implemented to power the infusion mechanism and the heating element. And fourth, a microreactor configuration must be chosen to provide for optimal mixing of the reactants.
Discussion and research regarding the infusion mechanism focused on two main delivery systems: a gravity feed and metering pumps. A gravity feed arrangement would allow for a relatively inexpensive, easy to use method of infusion that would not require any power to run. The main issue with this mechanism however, is that as gravity is the only force acting on the reactants, it would be extremely difficult to control the flow rates of the reactants. Additionally, this method would require consideration of the viscosity of both fluids and the required pressure for the reactants to enter the microreactor. These properties would determine the length of the tubes and their diameters. Though possible, this method was found to be impractical for the two very different reactants that are being used.
Using a metering pump for the delivery method proved to be more promising and practical. There are various different kinds of metering pumps with varied limits to flow rates and pressure. After examining a detailed chart that compares the different types of metering pump specifications, which can be found in Appendix B, the syringe pump was determined to be the best alternative. Syringe pumps have several benefits. First and foremost, this project has a limited budget, and consequently any equipment that can be used without making new purchases is invaluable. As it turns out, the Physics Department has generously donated a syringe pump, Pump 33, to the Green Machine. Second, in terms of specifications, the syringe pumps handle the lowest flow rates. In the performance specifications section, it is shown that flow rates below 0.01 mL/min are needed. The syringe pump is actually the only metering pump that can handle flow rates this low (see Appendix B) [ref 6]. Additionally, as the desired pressure for the microreactors is still unknown, the Pump 33 Syringe Pump allows the operator to simply input the desired flow rates for each reactant, and the pump mechanism pushes the syringes at whatever rate is necessary to achieve the flow rates.
For heating the microreactor, several different alternatives were considered. In preliminary laboratory experiments, heating tape has been used by placing it under the microreactor and controlling it with a variac. A multimeter was connected to a calibrated thermistor which was in turn attached to the heating tape. The multimeter provided readings of resistance as a result of the heat through the thermistor. These resistances are shown in Appendix B, and they indicated the temperature that the heating tape was at. Adjustments were made using the variac to provide more or less power through the heating tape which kept the temperature at about 60ºC. This safely allowed for heating of the reactants to achieve mixing while avoiding the boiling point of methanol, which is roughly 64.5ºC. Though this method allowed maintenance at a constant temperature, there was a big safety issue regarding the use of heating tape that could not be ignored. If the heating tape were to fold over onto itself, it would burn the fabric and could potentially start a fire. Thus, the heating tape could not be left unattended at any time and required extremely careful placement on safe surfaces. Therefore, heating tape is not practical for use in the final design.
Next, a heating lamp was considered to heat the reactants. It was difficult to concentrate the heat directly on just the reactants, and even more difficult to monitor the temperature. One consideration made was the possibility of incorporating the heating lamp into a circuit with a built in temperature sensor, wherein the sensor would turn the lamp on and off depending on the need for more or less heat. However, this would run the risk of burning out the bulb too quickly. Next, a hot water bath was considered to heat the microreactor. Specifically, it was determined that the use of a miniature immersion heater would allow for a constant temperature reading, and would result in very evenly distributed heating throughout the reaction. Because the main purposes of the heating element are to heat at a constant temperature, monitor and control that temperature, and avoid temperature gradients, the hot water bath immersion heater was chosen for the final design.
Although the hot water bath was ultimately chosen, it should also be mentioned that using solar power to heat the microreactor via focused solar radiation with a lens was an option that was considered. However, this would be a completely different type of solar power than what is used throughout the rest of the Green Machine system. That is, the use of this focused lens requires concentrating solar power energy, but the Green Machine makes use of photovoltaics. Precisely what that means and why that type of solar power energy was chosen will not be addressed in greater detail.
The concept of solar power, as in the conversion of sunlight into electricity, is anything but new, dating back at least to the late 19th century. Paving the way for alternative sources of energy, solar power use has seen dramatic rise in popularity and effectiveness from home usage to megawatt-scale power plants. For the generation of electricity, there are two methods that we briefly just mentioned: photovoltaics (PV) or concentrating solar power (CSP). CSP uses lenses, mirrors, and other systems to focus a wide area of sunlight into a narrow beam, which is then used as a heat source for a power plant similar to coal-burning. The other method, PV, converts light directly into electric current by making use of the photoelectric effect. In addition to these two methods, solar energy (the term used to broadly describe the energy from the sun that reaches Earth) is harnessed using solar thermal systems which convert the energy from the sun to heat. This method is most commonly used as an alternative water heating system.
With some new ideas, the Green Machine's overall design has seen some great improvements. Now, we'll go over some of the reasoning behind our choices for the Green Machine's parts and other ideas we've considered.
Keeping in mind that this project’s ultimate goal is to create a device that produces biodiesel fuel run solely on solar-powered energy, it was determined that there are four essential components to the design. First, some type of infusion mechanism is needed to pump the reactants through the microreactor. Second, there must be an element used to heat the reaction. Third, a solar power source must be implemented to power the infusion mechanism and the heating element. And fourth, a microreactor configuration must be chosen to provide for optimal mixing of the reactants.
Discussion and research regarding the infusion mechanism focused on two main delivery systems: a gravity feed and metering pumps. A gravity feed arrangement would allow for a relatively inexpensive, easy to use method of infusion that would not require any power to run. The main issue with this mechanism however, is that as gravity is the only force acting on the reactants, it would be extremely difficult to control the flow rates of the reactants. Additionally, this method would require consideration of the viscosity of both fluids and the required pressure for the reactants to enter the microreactor. These properties would determine the length of the tubes and their diameters. Though possible, this method was found to be impractical for the two very different reactants that are being used.
Using a metering pump for the delivery method proved to be more promising and practical. There are various different kinds of metering pumps with varied limits to flow rates and pressure. After examining a detailed chart that compares the different types of metering pump specifications, which can be found in Appendix B, the syringe pump was determined to be the best alternative. Syringe pumps have several benefits. First and foremost, this project has a limited budget, and consequently any equipment that can be used without making new purchases is invaluable. As it turns out, the Physics Department has generously donated a syringe pump, Pump 33, to the Green Machine. Second, in terms of specifications, the syringe pumps handle the lowest flow rates. In the performance specifications section, it is shown that flow rates below 0.01 mL/min are needed. The syringe pump is actually the only metering pump that can handle flow rates this low (see Appendix B) [ref 6]. Additionally, as the desired pressure for the microreactors is still unknown, the Pump 33 Syringe Pump allows the operator to simply input the desired flow rates for each reactant, and the pump mechanism pushes the syringes at whatever rate is necessary to achieve the flow rates.
For heating the microreactor, several different alternatives were considered. In preliminary laboratory experiments, heating tape has been used by placing it under the microreactor and controlling it with a variac. A multimeter was connected to a calibrated thermistor which was in turn attached to the heating tape. The multimeter provided readings of resistance as a result of the heat through the thermistor. These resistances are shown in Appendix B, and they indicated the temperature that the heating tape was at. Adjustments were made using the variac to provide more or less power through the heating tape which kept the temperature at about 60ºC. This safely allowed for heating of the reactants to achieve mixing while avoiding the boiling point of methanol, which is roughly 64.5ºC. Though this method allowed maintenance at a constant temperature, there was a big safety issue regarding the use of heating tape that could not be ignored. If the heating tape were to fold over onto itself, it would burn the fabric and could potentially start a fire. Thus, the heating tape could not be left unattended at any time and required extremely careful placement on safe surfaces. Therefore, heating tape is not practical for use in the final design.
Next, a heating lamp was considered to heat the reactants. It was difficult to concentrate the heat directly on just the reactants, and even more difficult to monitor the temperature. One consideration made was the possibility of incorporating the heating lamp into a circuit with a built in temperature sensor, wherein the sensor would turn the lamp on and off depending on the need for more or less heat. However, this would run the risk of burning out the bulb too quickly. Next, a hot water bath was considered to heat the microreactor. Specifically, it was determined that the use of a miniature immersion heater would allow for a constant temperature reading, and would result in very evenly distributed heating throughout the reaction. Because the main purposes of the heating element are to heat at a constant temperature, monitor and control that temperature, and avoid temperature gradients, the hot water bath immersion heater was chosen for the final design.
Although the hot water bath was ultimately chosen, it should also be mentioned that using solar power to heat the microreactor via focused solar radiation with a lens was an option that was considered. However, this would be a completely different type of solar power than what is used throughout the rest of the Green Machine system. That is, the use of this focused lens requires concentrating solar power energy, but the Green Machine makes use of photovoltaics. Precisely what that means and why that type of solar power energy was chosen will not be addressed in greater detail.
The concept of solar power, as in the conversion of sunlight into electricity, is anything but new, dating back at least to the late 19th century. Paving the way for alternative sources of energy, solar power use has seen dramatic rise in popularity and effectiveness from home usage to megawatt-scale power plants. For the generation of electricity, there are two methods that we briefly just mentioned: photovoltaics (PV) or concentrating solar power (CSP). CSP uses lenses, mirrors, and other systems to focus a wide area of sunlight into a narrow beam, which is then used as a heat source for a power plant similar to coal-burning. The other method, PV, converts light directly into electric current by making use of the photoelectric effect. In addition to these two methods, solar energy (the term used to broadly describe the energy from the sun that reaches Earth) is harnessed using solar thermal systems which convert the energy from the sun to heat. This method is most commonly used as an alternative water heating system.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Final Design Idea
After a couple months of brainstorming and testing with the equipment we have in our lab (syringe pump and a few microreactors of differing designs), we have settled on a design which we will implement next semester.
The overall setup will be thus:
For delivery, we will try to use an IV bag-and-infusion pump to store materials and deliver them to the microreactors. This setup will allow for a degree of autonomy not viable with a syringe pump due to the greater amount of reactants which can be stored in the IV pump upon loading. The infusion pump will also allow for the small rate of flow which we are finding necessary to cause a reaction in the microreactor.
Difficulties which presented themselves during testing included not actually generating biodiesel with the reactors. Since the batch tests indicate that the reaction can and should occur, we will experiment with altering the reactor design, temperature of reactants and reaction zone, and perhaps recycling the reactants back through the reactor.
- The current tests were run with a reactor path such that the reactants came together and travelled in a straight line thus: [_____________________]. What we will attempt is a microreactor with a serpentine path of repeating S-curves, allowing the reactants to remain in a high-temperature zone and in contact with the catalyst longer.
- For the temperature of the reactants, we will preheat the soy oil and the methanol before they are introduced in an effort to induce the reaction.
- Lastly, after the reactants pass through the microreactor, we will experiment with taking the output and either looping it back into the reactor to run through it again or running it through multiple reactors in series.
For the reaction zone, we will use, instead of heating tape, a heating lamp. This will, in addition to cutting back on power consumption, allow the reactants to be heated before they enter the reactor and during their path through it.
This is still a flexible design, but we elected this general setup for increased autonomy, more time for the reactants to form biodiesel, better power consumption, and more ways to heat and thus agitate the reactants.
The overall setup will be thus:
For delivery, we will try to use an IV bag-and-infusion pump to store materials and deliver them to the microreactors. This setup will allow for a degree of autonomy not viable with a syringe pump due to the greater amount of reactants which can be stored in the IV pump upon loading. The infusion pump will also allow for the small rate of flow which we are finding necessary to cause a reaction in the microreactor.
Difficulties which presented themselves during testing included not actually generating biodiesel with the reactors. Since the batch tests indicate that the reaction can and should occur, we will experiment with altering the reactor design, temperature of reactants and reaction zone, and perhaps recycling the reactants back through the reactor.
- The current tests were run with a reactor path such that the reactants came together and travelled in a straight line thus: [_____________________]. What we will attempt is a microreactor with a serpentine path of repeating S-curves, allowing the reactants to remain in a high-temperature zone and in contact with the catalyst longer.
- For the temperature of the reactants, we will preheat the soy oil and the methanol before they are introduced in an effort to induce the reaction.
- Lastly, after the reactants pass through the microreactor, we will experiment with taking the output and either looping it back into the reactor to run through it again or running it through multiple reactors in series.
For the reaction zone, we will use, instead of heating tape, a heating lamp. This will, in addition to cutting back on power consumption, allow the reactants to be heated before they enter the reactor and during their path through it.
This is still a flexible design, but we elected this general setup for increased autonomy, more time for the reactants to form biodiesel, better power consumption, and more ways to heat and thus agitate the reactants.
Monday, October 11, 2010
TOPIC: Past Attempts to Generate Biodiesel
It is important to remember that our project is not an entirely new creation. History shows that great original ideas often arose out of work already completed, and this biodiesel project is of a similar vein. Research done by undergraduates at Loyola, notably under the Hauber Scholarship program, has shed much light on the generation of biodiesel for a greener fuel alternative. Our project follows directly on the heels of their work with microreactors (discussed later), but also with other previous attempts.
Early biodiesel generation was performed in several ways, one of which was via rotating drums. The main components of biodiesel, methanol and soy oil, do not mix well and in fact resist reaction; furthermore, when that reaction takes place soap is naturally generated as a by-product and contaminates the fuel. The use of a catalyst is needed to encourage the two ingredients to react, and a rotating drum would have its interior coated with the catalyst. This led to a problem of not having enough of the mixture come into contact with the drum walls and thus not be converted into biodiesel.
Another attempted method involved pouring the mixture over nodules of catalyst in an effort to increase the total surface area the mixture would be exposed to. This also led to not enough of the mixture being converted to biodiesel.
The microreactor method we will be attempting takes a small piece of glass roughly the size of a microscope slide and imprints in silicone the path for the materials to flow. That flowline is coated with nickel-oxide, the catalyst we will be testing. The yield rate for this reactor will be small, but we hope to increase the quality of biodiesel generated.
Getting Started..
Hello all!
Just a quick introduction to start.. my name is Kyle Slusarski and I am a senior materials engineering major here at Loyola. I acted as team leader for the past two weeks and I am quite excited about our early progress thus far. I'll use this post to highlight some of our accomplishments and to explain how the blog will be used throughout the year. I'll also give some personal reflection of my time as team leader.
On a personal level, my feelings regarding the project have undergone a great transformation. Early on, I felt overwhelmed and apprehensive, often wondering how and where I should begin to tackle the "unenviable task" (as Mike put it) of getting the team started on the right foot. Even though I was technically the team leader for the past two weeks, I felt there were even contributions from each member of our group, which I greatly appreciated. In light of this, I decided that my primary role should be to guide our group in the right direction, which lead us straight to our project advisor, Dr. Bailey. After meeting with him and unloading questions, I was overcome with a sense of clarity that replaced the ambiguity that had lingered just days before. The big picture finally came into view.
During our meeting, we established a workspace where we can begin initial testing of existing microreactors and syringe pumps, which we hope to investigate as a possible method for delivering reactants. We also established primary and secondary responsibilities for various phases of our project. The phases include (but are not limited to) laboratory testing, biodiesel product analysis, computer software modeling, solar panel design and testing, and analysis of societal relevance. I will be leading the analysis of our fuel product, while also participating in the lab testing. I'll let the others talk about their responsibilities as they post.
On to the blog: each team leader will post an entry to the blog after their two weeks as team leader has expired. These posts will give an account of our group's progress. I suspect that the communication will pick up as we get further into the project (you can expect to see A LOT of pictures once lab testing gets underway), so be sure to stay tuned!
-Kyle
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Welcome to the Future of Green Energy!
Greetings, and thank you visiting the Loyola University Maryland Engineering Department's Biodiesal Generator Project! Subsequent posts will cover the project's progress as well as give glimpses at the group's communication.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)