Grelinette wrote:Hello,
Since a few days I am attentive thread of this discussion, but I confess not to be expert in the matter (production of hydrogen). On the other hand, the debate is interesting and well explained, especially for neophytes; I learned some things and thank you ... so I went to vote on La Fabrique Aviva!
Hello Grelinette,
Thank you for your interest and your vote, it is important for us. We had started very well our vote collection but after a week, we see that we go down in the rankings. Feel free to relay the message if you think our project deserves it.
Some questions come to mind:
- As Phil53 wrote ("It seems too good to be true, I wish you success"), the arguments you put forward, C moa seem so clear and convincing that it actually looks "too good"!
But perhaps it is precisely the clarity of the explanations that gives this impression of "such a simple and ideal solution"? ...
If we want the approach to be understood, we need to be simple without it we only talk to scientists of the game and it's not funny (especially when we come here or that we go see a banker or investor).
Otherwise, as I said above, we have not finished our work yet, far from it. For the moment, it works but tomorrow ...? We still have some obstacles to overcome. SInon, we would not be research phase but in the development phase.
In short, my first question is:
Given the important issues in terms of energy production and consequently of financial returns, are there no other large, financially and materially sound laboratories working on the same subject?
Bacteria capable of producing hydrogen have already been identified a long time ago, with a little scientific literature we can find quite a few. "Big" labs working on the subject as well. CEA has been working on it for many years, for example, and INRA has also been working on it, but the paths they take are not the same as us. that does not mean that they are wrong and that we are right, it is just an observation. it is part of the state of the art. As an example, here are a few routes used:
- Photobioreactor fermentation: light is the energy provided to the bacteria to produce hydrogen;
- Methanization in two stages: during the first phase of methanation, hydrogen is rejected, it disappears either because it is lost or because it is consumed in the following phases. The idea for some would be to biogas with two bioreactors. In the first one produces hydrogen and then produces methane;
- Use of bacterial consortia: other research units are also working to produce hydrogen using natural bacterial consortia such as anaerobic digestion. By adjusting certain parameters, they could use the metabolic pathways that produce this hydrogen.
Other teams have been working more recently on approaches similar to ours, but for all we know, they do not use the same microorganisms as we do.
For my part, all these experiences stimulate me, it is interesting to see that it moves even if some projects are more than 10 years sometimes.
Maybe other teams are also working in secret but that's obviously we can not know ...
The second question, which stems from the first, we know that the research, innovation and, more broadly, the industrial milieu is a jungle, that the competition is formidable with all that it implies of rivalry, copying and other hacking.
Does not explaining step by step your research and giving some technical details risk opening the door to some competing laboratories or researchers?
Yes it's true but even if you feel that you say a lot, we keep the essentials for us. With what is said here or about the AVIVA factory, no one can exploit our results. It is our know-how, a bit special, that makes the difference and allows us to have a powerful process. After that, it can reassure people who would hesitate to embark but you must know that to get there. we tested about fifteen bacteria (and we could have tested 50 ...) and that it took 2 years. There is no reason for it to be much faster for another team.
I understand that it is not easy to expose research results by giving no information, in order to convince investors, but conversely the risk of being cut off under the feet seems good present.
(... and moreover Christophe must be able to count and identify the Internet users who follow this discussion!)
It's actually a bit of a balancing act but it's part of the game precisely ...
Do not hesitate if you have other questions,
