digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

New process generates hydrogen from aluminum alloy to run engines

physorg.com — A Purdue University engineer has developed a method that uses an aluminum alloy to extract hydrogen from water for running fuel cells or internal combustion engines, and the technique could be used to replace gasoline.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • timewarrior, on 10/11/2007, -0/+20http://hydrogen.ecn.purdue.edu./2005.10.28-Woodall/viewer.swf
    Go to slide 15 for the video.
    • cosmikdebris, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9Thanks for that, watched slide 15, extremely interesting. Will view the rest later.
    • robdiggity, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13Caption for the three gentlemen in the photo:

      "Eureka!" "Yarrrrr!" "'Sup?"
    • SteaminTmann, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11dugg for the patch over that man's eye
    • DrDragun, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4That's pretty cool. I wonder if you can restore your aluminum/gallium slug at home like rechargeable batteries. They said it was some kind of salt electrolysis to restore it.
    • aussieNickuss, on 10/11/2007, -5/+24Isn't aluminium a non-renewable resource? And doesn't the mining and production of aluminium consume huge amounts of energy?
    • asauterChicago, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14^^^ I was thinking the same thing... what's up with the Pirate in picture? Although if you believe in the Church of the FSM, reduction in Pirates has caused global warming. This is a good example how pirates are solving such serious issues such as generating Hydrogen, in between swash-buckling...
    • dpb33300, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I hope this process becomes more efficient. I understand they are just scatching the surface. Maybe they use a different alloy which would be lighter and create more energy. 350 Miles = 350 lbs of aluminium? that is allot of weight.

      This needs to get better. I hope it can
    • DrDragun, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5@aussie

      you don't actually consume the aluminum, just oxidize and reduce it. Thus it can be restored with an electrolysis reaction (much like rechargeable batteries).

      the problem is supplying the power to recharge it. They mentioned using off-grid power sources. This allows you to use intermittent power generators (like windmills) to restore your aluminum slug. The problem with windmills and solar is that they don't generate power on-demand when people need it, rather they depend on the sun and wind cycles. But if you design your recharging cycle to match a wind or solar cycle, and keep and inventory of aluminum slugs so you can always have a buffer if it's a bad wind-generation day, then you can run this whole industry on renewable power.
    • mikesbaker, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3I didn't know pirates did chemistry. Maybe thats why the kid is rocking the fat goggles. Its like the shop teacher who is missing a finger. Kid on the right doesn't really care though.
    • oesj, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2bury
    • Otto, on 10/11/2007, -1/+18@DrDragun: No, you cannot separate the Al-O2 bond quite that easily...

      Aluminum oxide, or "alumina" as it's more commonly called, is what they actually dig out of the ground in the first place (in the form of bauxite). After they separate the alumina from the other stuff in the bauxite, they use the "Hall-Heroult process" to remove the oxygen. This requires IMMENSE amounts of power. We're really talking ridiculous levels of power here. Some estimates say that 1% of all energy used in the United States goes into making aluminum.

      Not only that, but the Hall-Heroult process itself works by forcibly combining the oxygen with carbon, to produce carbon dioxide and molten aluminum. So you're taking all that oxygen off the water to get hydrogen, and then putting all the oxygen onto carbon to recycle the aluminum.

      That's pretty crappy for what's supposed to be a "green" process.
    • carve, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3Aluminum takes a ridiculous amount of electricity to produce (about 6 kilowatt hours per pound) so if this permenantly consumes the aluminum it is a terrible idea. However, if the process is reversable AND efficient, the huge amount of electrical energy stored in the aluminum could be an advantage (coincidently, gasoline also has an energy content of 6 kwh/lb). Think of it as a new type of battery. If only we could find a way to extract the electricity directly from the aluminum rather than converting it to hydrogen, and then through a fuel cell (50% energy loss) or motor (75% energy loss), this could be truely revolutionary.
    • carve, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10Aluminum takes a ridiculous amount of electricity to produce (about 6 kilowatt hours per pound) so if this permenantly consumes the aluminum it is a terrible idea. However, if the process is reversable AND efficient, the huge amount of electrical energy stored in the aluminum could be an advantage (coincidently, gasoline also has an energy content of 6 kwh/lb). Think of it as a new type of battery. If only we could find a way to extract the electricity directly from the aluminum rather than converting it to hydrogen, and then through a fuel cell (50% energy loss) or motor (75% energy loss), this could be truely revolutionary. We could have electric power with a power source of equal energy density, and greater energy per volume, than gasoline!

      I suppose the biggest disadvantage would be that your fuel would get heavier as you used it, rather than the other way around with petro-fuels. This would particularly be a problem with airplanes. Of course, if we were using 90% efficient electric motors rather than 35% efficient turbines, I suppose this disadvantage would be offset. Cool stuff- this is very exciting.

      Edit- that's weird. My comment didn't show up the first time, so I reposted and now I have two here.
    • BESTenemy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1- Is this new extraction method safe?
      - It is! Swear on my gaping eye socket!
    • bkleynbok, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3This methods is not for commercial large scale use.
      Yes you in theory could turn lead into gold.
      1. Get particle accelerator and bombard certain kind of lead with certain particles and you should get gold.
      2. Invent some process where particles of gold replace particles of lead hence gold plating.
      Imagine how much energy you need to run this?

      We need a renewable source of energy. Self sufficient plants which convert organic matter into electric energy. Wind Turbine Farms. Solar Panel Plants. Tide Hydroelectric Plant. Fusion reactors.

      Large scale massive construction projects instead of stupid ass war.
      Construction of Wind Farms will take time and money, also create jobs. Here in US.
      Software needs to be written to control it. Again here in US
      Operation of these projects will need skilled people which can be trained here in US.

      Maybe I am just dreaming... Sure someone thought of something what I am trying to say.



    • jamdogg, on 10/11/2007, -5/+0Take a look at the 'joe cell'. Google it or something (Google video). We can get fuel from water - more than enough for the whole world. Just that oil companies DO NOT want this info out there otherwise the Bush family might have to take a few hundred million dollars less per year....
    • vikingcoder, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Here's a brilliant concept for everybody bemoaning how energy intensive aluminum processing is - RTFA.

      >>
      "Most people don't realize how energy intensive aluminum is," Woodall said. "For every pound of aluminum you get more than two kilowatt hours of energy in the form of hydrogen combustion and more than two kilowatt hours of heat from the reaction of aluminum with water. A midsize car with a full tank of aluminum-gallium pellets, which amounts to about 350 pounds of aluminum, could take a 350-mile trip and it would cost $60, assuming the alumina is converted back to aluminum on-site at a nuclear power plant.

      "How does this compare with conventional technology? Well, if I put gasoline in a tank, I get six kilowatt hours per pound, or about two and a half times the energy than I get for a pound of aluminum. So I need about two and a half times the weight of aluminum to get the same energy output, but I eliminate gasoline entirely, and I am using a resource that is cheap and abundant in the United States. If only the energy of the generated hydrogen is used, then the aluminum-gallium alloy would require about the same space as a tank of gasoline, so no extra room would be needed, and the added weight would be the equivalent of an extra passenger, albeit a pretty large extra passenger."
      >>

      @Otto

      Why vent the resultant pure CO2, instead of capturing it and using it as a commercial product - thus reducing the overall cost of the process? It is also possible to chemically convert it into other commercially useful substances.

      http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0810371.html
    • Sabarok, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3If one has to recharge the aluminum using electricity, why not just skip the whole hydrogen part and use a battery anyway? That's all some of these ideas sound like for turning the aluminum oxde back into aluminum, I think there are more effecient ways to store energy
    • vikingcoder, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@Sabarok

      Batteries are a good solution. That doesn't mean other possibilities should be ignored simply because we have a "good solution".

      Key questions need to be answered concerning "top off" time, total process energy consumption & commercial viability, fuel / electricity distribution, distribution discreteness, etc...

      From TFA:
      >>
      Because the electricity would not need to be distributed on the power grid, it would be less costly than power produced by plants connected to the grid, and the generators could be located in remote locations, which would be particularly important for a nuclear reactor to ease political and social concerns
      >>
    • apeweek, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I have to agree with one of the other posters here - it's an interesting process, but it's not likely that hydrogen or hydrogen-aluminum will ever be as energy efficient or as cost-effective as battery technology, especially some of the newer batteries coming out now.

      A hydrogen fuel-cell car is an electric car (including some batteries, because the fuel cell can't output large surges of current needed for acceleration.) So any fuel cell car will be more expensive and heavier than a plain electric car (The Chevy Sequel FCV, for instance, is twice as heavy as the Tesla EV, despite similar driving ranges.) And since it takes energy (some of which can not be recouped) to separate hydrogen - and/or aluminum - fuel cells will always be less energy efficient than plain electric cars.

      The only advantage hydrogen had was fast fueling - but now that 10-minute recharge EV batteries are on the market (see http://phoenixmotorcars.com ) what's the point?
    • BESTenemy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2You'll love this part! Taken off wikipedia:

      "Some flue dusts from burning coal have been shown to contain as much as 1.5 percent gallium."

      Despite it being used only as a catalyst in proposed hydrogen production, it does not exist in raw form. Each purification method is highly toxic and wasteful in terms of energy. Gallium is currently priced at $400/kg. If demand rises it will make it even more expensive. Purification relies on compounds that are even more rare and expensive. Gallium can be extracted using reverse salt fusion electrolysis. Guess what? We're using electricity! Aren't we converting hydrogen into it at the end having wasted 90% of juice on countless transitions?

      This project is a run-around and a waste of energy. It offers no benefits. We're not using electrolysis to get hydrogen, but we still need it to convert byproducts back into reagents. That's a slide of hand trick. This is no solution.
    • BIllyBobFett, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The benefit that they're saying here is energy density: the article says Al is 2kWh/kg, versus 0.16kWh/kg for Li-ion batteries (Wikipedia). So it can store enough energy to power a car for long distances, unlike batteries (though you'd have to store water onboard, too; I'm not sure if they included that in that number). It does seem like it's pretty energy-inefficient, though; even nuclear/wind energy has costs. So I think I agree with the other posters that a better bet is improved batteries or supercapacitors for energy storage. The free market will decide in the end, though.
    • BESTenemy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Benefit of Li-Ion is that the material doesn't get used up. Sure, Al might store more energy, but it makes little difference, if we're only able to extract less than 45% of that energy out of dual conversion into hydrogen and electricity. Why not just link Li-Ion straight to the engine?

      Aluminum, has higher atomic weight of almost 27. Hydrogen has 1. There is absolutely no way Al + Ga + H20 is going to be lighter than H2 that gets produced during the reaction. Water required to produce hydrogen sufficient for subsituting 1L of oil, as far as I remember is close to 9L. So, we're carrying more than 9 times the weight on board before we even come close to what we used to have with gasoline engine. Also there is aluminum and oxidation catalyst galium that is even heavier that the aluminum. Have you watched the experiment? Thy had a beaker fool of galium with a few visible pellets of Al. If that is the actual required volumetric proportion, then I'm not impressed at all. Gallium, regardless of being a catayst is quite expensive. Expect that initial payment on your car being no less than that of a lithium battery pack at $400/kg... that is if they choose to stick with hydrogen conversion unit on board. I'm now hearing that they would do it at a stationary location. Perhaps gas station that look like grain silos.

      Anyways, the article presents a complex multi-step solution. It fails to elaborate on all the potential implications. It only picks a few. Burried down the fact it produces large quantities of weight by volume, compared to the fuel extracted. Aluminum might be abundant, but it's not the only cyclable element in the equation. Put all the elements together, combine mining, refining, transportation, loss of energy due to multiple conversions, transportation and decomposition of waste product and you'll realize that simple electrolysis of water and electrochemical alternatives aren't as inefficient as they once appeared.

      Article fails to elaborate on atomic wights of the components, total loss of energy and financial implications of required transportation to make the whole economy possible. It also fails to mention construction cost breakdowns. Electrolysis plants are simple. They're just too inefficient at this point compared to oil. But if we're talking hydrogen plants next to eachother - electrolysis one would win over Al,Ga plant effortlessly. Simplicity of setup and application is a huge factor.
  • Scopitone, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1Yes, but can it turn invisible?!
  • jlebrech, on 10/11/2007, -5/+11Invent vapourware oil replacing technology, get bought out by oil firms for millions of dollars, Profit.

    Not that this is the case.
    • Error601, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Because all science articles lead to a conspiracy theory of some sort....dumb.
  • LazyLiberal, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Umm, don't we use aluminum for almost everything, just like corn.
    Can they come up with ways to use ***** we done use (iron-oxide), to make fuel
  • nerdvernacular, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9This article represents why I like digg.. I can check my rss feed and read real news.
  • lukehh, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4FTA
    "Right now it costs more than $1 a pound to buy aluminum, and, at that price, you can't deliver a product at the equivalent of $3 per gallon of gasoline," Woodall said.
    However, ... aluminum could be produced at competitive prices if the recycling process were carried out with electricity generated by a nuclear power plant or windmills
    • RicktheBrick, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6It cost a lot more than $3 a gallon of gas if one adds the cost of protecting the oil fields and their transportation from the middle east. One should add the cost of the Iraq war and all the cost of our navy and troops stationed in that area to the cost of the oil we get from the middle east by placing an import tax on each barrel. Than and only than would we see the true cost of a barrel of oil from the middle east. We need to add to that all the cost of unemployment that we would not need if we would employ those people making and distributing the aluminum.
    • asaturn, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4they forgot to mention their other technology where they can generate small amounts of fuel by mixing gold and platinum.
    • Error601, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5Except most our oil comes from domestic sources, Mexico, and Canada.
    • vikingcoder, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@Error601

      shhh... People don't like having their preconceived concepts disrupted.

      * The US imports approximately as much petroleum from Canada as they do from the entire Middle East (Saudia Arabia, Algeria & Iraq).
      * US imports from Mexico are ~ 3.5x imports from Iraq.
      * Iraq imports account for 4% of the total US imports.

      http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
      (total petroleum YTD 2007 figures used)
    • BIllyBobFett, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1vikingcoder: thanks for the link; I hadn't seen that information before.
    • vikingcoder, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0You're welcome. It was found by typing - oil imports - into google.
  • break99, on 10/11/2007, -12/+7Sadly, oil companies will buy the process for billions and bury it.
    • zarex, on 10/11/2007, -8/+4Idiot.
    • jmccgod, on 10/11/2007, -6/+0Hydrogen Car? Talk about a timebomb.
    • Error601, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The cliche conspiracy theory twice in such a short time. Is thinking old fashioned? It's all about brainless repeats of the same nonsense.
    • BIllyBobFett, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Conspiracy theories like that are always popular among the uninformed: e.g. "someone invented free energy/free transportation/cure for cancer, and the evil corporations are keeping it down." That never turns out to be true though; any time you investigate those claims about a technology, you see that there's a much more mundane answer: either the given technology is in development but far from production, or it's too expensive to be competitive (as is the case here). If you disagree with me, find me an example where such a conspiracy theory has actually happened. I think fairy tales like that discourage people from going into careers in science and technology, where they could develop real beneficial technologies.
  • jotatmo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3That's a pretty promising idea. The picture is ridiculous, though.
  • 3DPeruna, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3It's not new... There's a patent out there that does the same thing. A guy has been driving an Audi (or was it a VW?) for 20+ years using this idea.
    • jonnyeh, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14nice references
    • mesoed, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I agree, using aluminum to generate hydrogen from water is most definitely not new. Generating hydrogen has never really been a problem. Efficiently using it and safely storing it is.
  • asaturn, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7So where are we going to get enough aluminum and gallium to make enough hydrogen to run 150 million cars (in the US alone)? Where will all that leftover gallium and aluminum oxide go? The gallium could be re-used over and over but all of that aluminum oxide will make a mess. It can be recycled and turned back into aluminum again but then you're back to using electricity to generate the fuel. It's just oil all over again.

    "Right now it costs more than $1 a pound to buy aluminum, and, at that price, you can't deliver a product at the equivalent of $3 per gallon of gasoline," Woodall said. And it's nice to see they've already started AlGalCo to commercialize and profit off of the process.
    • jdog2050, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Umm, well, as to your last comment, that's how innovation happens in the non-internet world...people need profit (if you were being sarcastic).

      also, look closer at the article; both the aluminum and gallium are completely recyclable after the reaction. It'll really, REALLY change the idea of a gas station, but this looks promising.

      As far as where to get all the gallium? That's a toughy; it's an uncommon material, but I don't think that, for this reaction, you need as much of it as the aluminum since that was the metal the scientists seemed most concerned about.
    • Mittop, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Your objection is interesting, but I think you will find that in this case economies of scale will come into play. It would be inefficent and wasteful to put the aluminum-gallium generators in cars, but creating centralized processing facilities in urban centers would go a long way to eliminating H2 distribution problems. Add in the inherent efficiency presented by the ability to recycle the materials used in this process and it could make for an interesting solution.
    • asaturn, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2it WOULD be reasonable if the hydrogen was generated and fed to the cars just like gasoline rather than having the car do the aluminum-gallium reaction. gallium is hard to find but the reaction would work with cheaper low-grade gallium (which may help). still I don't see this taking off any time soon.
    • Elliuotatar, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2Energy is not free. No matter what solution we untimately come up with, you have to put energy in to get energy out. That oil sitting underground? Millions of years of sunlight went into producing that. The problem with oil is that you can't burn it cleanly, or produce it easily from more reliable energy sources like sunlight or fusion. Hydrogen can be burnt cleanly and produced easily.




    • Error601, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2No energy system will not use any energy. You can re-process that aluminum oxide from large, high efficiency generators using various energy sources.

    • carve, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3You guys are missing the boat. The whole advantage here is that it is easier to store a chunk of aluminum than it is to store hydrogen. If you converted the Al energy to H2 at the fueling station, Why wouldn't you just put the electricity in the car directly? Or, alternatively, use the elctricity to make the hydrogen through electrolysis? Anyway, the whole point of this is about storeability- not a new SOURCE of energy.
  • zeeky, on 10/11/2007, -6/+5and what happens when the world starts demanding more aluminum? suddenly aluminum is the new gas and we're right back where we started. not to mention the massive amounts of energy that go into creating aluminum...
    • Magnimac, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2But we would no longer be as dependent on the middle east for our daily supply of power. That means leverage.
    • Elliuotatar, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7The aluminum gets recycled. The process forms aluminum oxide and gallium. The aluminum oxide can be converted back to aluminum and oxygen with a process which requires you to put energy into it. Essentially, that's where the energy comes from to power your car.
    • Mittop, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11Aluminum is available in abundance. Not only that, but it is readily recycled (the aluminum in the process detailed in the presentation is constantly being recycled and reused). Combine this with recycling programs for aluminum and there is no shortage issue. World wide reserves for aluminum are measured in the trillions of tons.
    • floorman56, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5You put beer back in bottles and you will have more than enough.

      Now excuse me I have to go to the highway and pickup some cans if this works I have a billion $$$$ in my trash right now.
    • mlw72z, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4@magnimac:

      It is a common misconception that most of the oil consumed in the US comes from the middle east. The reality is that approximately 20% of our petroleum is imported from that region. One third of our oil is acquired domestically and the rest is imported from a number of counties.

      http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
    • carve, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2it doesn't matter where the oil actually comes from- it is a global commodity, and the middle east is the prime producer, not to mention the prime cartel manager.
    • BESTenemy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1 Aluminum is recycled not through re-composition of it from the waste chemical product but from one shape into another - melting pop cans into bikes, cars etc. Aluminum is abundant, but if we start using it at the same rate as oil the price will go up. It's vital for construction due to its qualities - conductivity, magnetic passiveness, lite weight, durability. Nano technology is not sufficient at the current state for replacing aluminum, and if we can't do that, I'm hesitant to wasting aluminum on fuel.

      If aluminum is so cheap and abundant, how come car bodies aren't all made of aluminum yet? Huh? Shouldn't the benefits of weight reduction, rust resistance and consequent fuel saving outweigh the cost difference between iron and aluminum? I'd rather save fuel though costs associated with transportation and maintenance, than turn renewable resource (that does not get chemically altered) into a non-renewable offset for the problem.
    • vikingcoder, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@BESTenemy

      The "spent" fuel is what is normally dug out of the ground as "virgin" aluminum. Hence, the method of reforming the "spent" fuel into a reusable form is the exact same Hall-Heroult process. Nothing is lost.

    • BESTenemy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1 What about gallium? I know it doesn't get used up, but it does not exist raw. It has to be purified and that is a toxic process.

      Have you watched the slide show demonstration? Sure, there is no electrolysis involved in the production of hydrogen, but it is used for the recycled waste material. How do they solve the cost implications? They offer locating refineries close to power plants. As if we couldn't do that with hydrogen. If we're factoring in transportation costs, then it makes more sense to go though multiple conversions than through single one.

      This new idea is like a perpetual motion hoax. Factors are spread around to cause confusion and take away from realization that you still need energy to create materials and you're producing less energy than you consume.

      "Hydrogen's abundant in form of water"? Hell yeah! And so is oil in form of carbon dioxide and hydro-sulphuric acid. The only problem is that it takes energy to convert that stuff into oil. More energy that is produced during burning of oil. No conversion process is 100% efficient. Energy is always lost to heat, friction and other factors that allow it to escape taking other forms.

      None of our hydrogen economy propositions are solving the energy issue. They all make us more wasteful. The problem we have is not that there's no stuff to fill the gas tank with, but that there is no source of energy sufficient to substitute the consumption demands. Any problem that contributes to the energy crisis is not a solution. We're inventing oil alternatives not because we're running out of ways to store energy, but because we're running out of energy.
    • vikingcoder, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0> we're running out of energy

      You win the prize for the most ignorant statment, and frothing at the mouth FUD, of the day!
    • magus_melchior, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1@BESTenemy: Did the article mention that the gallium had to be purified?

      Maybe you should step away from the keyboard and take a walk. This has clearly got you riled.
    • BESTenemy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Did you watch the video? They did not use ore to extract hydrogen. They used liquid gallium - it does not exist in such form in nature. It has been purified. Commercially available form of substance is 99.9% pure - the one that costs $400/kg. The article puts high emphasis on cost effectiveness and efficiency. It mentions no other compounds except aluminum and gallium, so it implies they are in their elemental form. The ones they use to conduct the experients are pure. I'm sure if they intended to use raw ore, they would've demonstrated it in the experiment.

      As for the energy crysis comment - prove me wrong. You're probably thinking nuclear, wind, solar and hydro. Fusion has not been perfected. Fission's been running on a "not in my back yard" principle for the last 30 years. Solar panels are inefficient, rely on expensive materials such as high purity silicon, wind got a bit of NIMBY mixed with low efficiency and hydro can only be put in places where there are high currents. There is no replacement for the current energy demand. Hydrogen economy turns already inefficient lifestyle into even more wasteful one. If we were more efficient and used half oil, there'd be twice as much of it. If we weren't so negligent in our consumption, we'd not need solutions for our energy problem so desperately. Hydrogen extraction method proposed is more wasteful as it relies on extraction of chemical energy that does not exist in raw form.

      You don't get lakes that boil with hydrogen gas cause they happen to be located on top of alluminum and gallium ore deposits. You have to take energy to produce raw materials. You also have to spend energy to recycle waste. If they talk alumina recomposition, then they imply inputting more energy into the substance than was originally extracted. That reveals the nature of the proposal - we offer a way to store energy, so that it could be converted into hydrogen, so that it could be converted into electricity, and eventually we'll be using electricity to recycle the waste. My question is - how that is better that using electrochemical batteries, such as the lithium ion? How is it less wasteful? How does it solve the problem of us running out of sources of energy? How does it make the new aluminum-hydrogen economy more efficient than the existing one?
    • vikingcoder, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0We aren't at heat death [ http://www.physlink.com/ae181.cfm ] quite yet.

      Solar cells currently have a energy payback time of 1-3 years, depending on type, on a lifespan of 25-30 years. The sun isn't likely to stop shining any time in the relevant future.

      The alumina could be bulk transported from filling stations to disconnected hydro, wind and fission powerplants - just like it is discussed in the article.

      We are not "running out of sources of energy". That concept is nothing but willfully ignorant FUD.
    • BESTenemy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1 We're not running out of sources of energy, we're running out of cheap renewable sources of energy. There are plenty of expensive non-renewable ones (such as the one proposed here) and there is expensive renewable ones such as wind, solar, there are geographically dependant ones such as hydro and nuclear. First one directly dependant, second one "psychologically" dependant for the reason people want clean energy but are more afraid of Cernobyl than they were of Communism during the cold war.

      There's been a huge demand for solar energy, yet it has gotten only marginally cheaper.

      Since we're at the stage where we're allowed to throw links at eachother I'll give you a few on hydrogen economy.
      http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html - compares chemical energy battery technology with hydrogen tech. Although the current article is too recent to have been a part of this publication, you can substitute the 50% alumina recycling efficiency into the equation in replacement of existing 75% electrolysis of water part.

      http://www.thewatt.com/article-901-nested-1-0.html - efficiency comparison of battery technology to fuel cell alternative.

      http://www.thewatt.com/article-1238-nested-1-0.html - has an audio link, if you're not into reading lengthy paragraphs. Gives a series of comparisons

      My favourite quite there is: "If the entire traffic at Frankfurt Airport was all done with hydrogen, one would need the water consumption of the City of Frankfurt plus about 25 nuclear power plants. Using hydrogen for all public air and road transport in Germany, it would take the power output of about 400 nuclear power plants plus enormous amounts of water. You need nine kilograms of water to make one kilogram of hydrogen. The Rhine river and all other rivers would be dry in the summer because the water is used to make hydrogen. So, we are really approaching limits and we have to talk about these limits before we talk about a hydrogen economy."

      I see our problem is in our consumption demands. If we keep throwing energy away, as if it was free, it won't matter where we extract it from. There'll never be enough of it.

      I'm for physical efficiency and that implies fewer conversions. Aluminum method has too many steps. Through each one energy is lost. We're using some to mine aluminum, some mine gallium, transportation of ore, reaction, transportation of either hydrogen or raw materials the atomic weight of which is higher than that of hydrogen. Compression of hydrogen. Inefficient conversion into electricity through fuel cells. Transportation of waste product back to the power plants.

      The most important part is the weight of alumina - Al2O3 has the atomic weight of 101.96 compared to 1.01 for hydrogen. Which means, for every kg of hydrogen fuel you get from the plant you have to move 100kg of recyclible waste. How's that more efficient than just using the damn nuclear plant to extract hydrogen through electrolysis out of the same water that's supplied for chamber cooling and steam turbines?

      The method proposed in this article leaves out tons of details each one of which costs money and energy. The sum of all makes already inefficient hydrogen economy even more inefficient. It does not solve anything. It only creates a bigger problem.
  • surf314, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1So yea this is really good news right?
  • JasonPrini, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Very cool.

    So gasoline infrastructure becomes Gallium/Aluminum recycling?
  • JQP123, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Wow, fantastic news, the energy crisis is over! Only a couple of tiny problems --- the aluminum/gallium mix costs more to produce and is less efficient than gasoline since it weighs 2.5 times as much for an equivalent energy output. Wonder what an aluminum dispensing station would look like? I'm sure the big oil companies have somehow already rigged the aluminum market in anticipation of something like this.
    • Mittop, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3You assume that the reaction takes place in a car, when it would more likely take place in a more centralized production facility. By placing small production facilities within local municipalities, you get the advantage of local production and ease of distribution. H2 can be produced at a local facility and then trucked over short distances to filling stations. No need to large pressure tested pipelines, one of the current problems of moving to an H2 based fuel up till now.
    • aussieNickuss, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Your local Shell or BP servo could have a small H2 generating facility on-site. The hydrogen wouldn't even need to be trucked anywhere, just the aluminium and gallium to produce it.
    • JQP123, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3@mittop
      "You assume that the reaction takes place in a car..."

      Read the article. This is the scientist's assumption, not mine. Secondly, since hydrogen doesn't occur naturally, any move to a H2 based economy would actually increase our overall energy needs. The principles of thermodynamics insure that there will always a significant overall loss of energy/efficiency in any phase change/material conversion/H2 manufacturing scheme regardless of where/how it actually takes place. At best, H2 is just a wasteful intermediary that can only be justified under extreme conditions such as powering a spacecraft.
    • JQP123, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@aussieNickuss
      "The hydrogen wouldn't even need to be trucked anywhere, just the aluminium and gallium to produce it."

      Since aluminum/gallium is a lot heavier than hydrogen, I wouldn't exactly celebrate this as a major breakthrough. And it gets worse, not only does the aluminum/gallium mix have to be shipped, the aluminum oxide by-product of the hydrogen production would need to be shipped back to a recycling facility. All of which consumes energy, increases cost and reduces the overall efficiency of the process.
  • DASK, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3This seems like it will never be a good idea.. generate electricity, make aluminium, then 50% of the energy goes to heat in the tank!, then 25% lost in a good fuel cell drive, use energy to move an extra 165kg around... not very high total efficiency at all.

    To illustrate the efficiency problem from the other side.. roughly 1500 billion passenger miles traveled in the us alone = 700 Billion kilograms (700 Million tons) of aluminium by their numbers. World production = roughly 25 Mt. So, ramp up aluminium production by ~30x to feed america's car fleet? That would take more than the worlds existing electrical infrastructure to do, and for many other reasons could just be considered silly.

    in a nutshell, although an interesting thought, those nerds haven't done some basic thinking...
    • floorman56, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4although an interesting thought, those nerds haven't done some basic thinking...

      Doesn't work that way

      Nerds figure out "how it works"
      Engineer's figure out the process to make it work
      Marketeers figure out how to make it pay
    • matth1jd, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1bury
    • Gustomucho, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Small steps young padawan, no need to rush.

      1st : Car can be made smaller.
      2nd : Electricity can be alot cleaner than Oil refining.
      3rd : We don't need to replace the whole fleet of cars within 1 year.

      It is a great news, sure they will have to figure out how to produce enough Gallium but in the long run it is a better solution than Oil. Anyway, we need to find alternatives to Oil energy, spitting on a good alternative is pretty dumb, specially when you have only basic understanding of the world energy demands.

      Toyota shouldn't be producing Hybrid if I follow your reasoning, how can they produce 150 millions Hybrid to replace the whole fleet within a year ??

      Useless !
    • DASK, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0**Small steps young padawan, no need to rush.**

      The main difficulty I was pointing at was the amount of aluminium that would have to be reduced from alumina every year to feed the gas tanks.. we're talking about increasing production by orders of magnitude, just for american consumption. Even if doable, there is no way that this solution will be a reasonable use of energy; there would always be something more helpful to do with the required energy. It would be better systematic efficiency for instance to simply electrolyze water to make hydrogen then convert it to methanol (not even counting the possibility of methanol fuel cells), or even to gasify coal with carbon capture. And we may have even better options than those; there are convincing studies that show that battery/electricity systems will be far more efficient than any conceivable hydrogen infrastructure for instance..

      Yes, electricity can be made much cleaner than we do it right now, but because of other limitations on clean energy, the total amount used must also be considered. Under their claims, we're talking about a system that would be monumentally inefficient, and efficiency will be an important part of any future system. Perhaps I was a bit hasty/rash to say so, but this scheme does not appear to be rational for large scale adoption...
  • bmforbes, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Let's get on this! Being an entrepreneur who appreciates the free market economy -- this is a compelling technology that needs to be given the highest priority and resources to develop! If it enables us to become more energy independent - it would have a ripple effect throughout the entire economy (hidden fuel tax on every produced good) and it would diminish global conflict... energy independence needs to become a national agenda and we have the intelligence and will to make it happen... if it is this promising technology or something like it! Let's stop the political BullSh*t and get this going!
  • liuite, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0according to the article - Gallium is a critical component, it is extracted from the crude aluminium hydroxide solution of the Bayer process for producing alumina and aluminum.
  • scabbers, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1
    "The cost of making on-site electricity is much lower if you don't have to distribute it," Woodall said.

    Uh.
    Enough to offset the electricity required to recycle aluminium and then distribute blocks of aluminium? Why not just use the electricity to crack water into hydrogen? Oh wait, that wouldn't involve making money from this aluminium idea.
    • Gustomucho, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I agree with you, but the concept is making Hydrogen on the spot and not transporting Hydrogen. Unless you have a power plant car, you will not be able to produce enough Electricity for the reaction.

      We could also grid the Highways so that car run on electricity, "A la bumper cars" or Tramway.
    • tuqueu, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0The problem with using H2 directly is the storage. H2 is corrosive and is a gas at any reasonable temp/pressure. In other words, DON'T go bump!
  • DragonzKin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Articles like this always excite me until I remember the many billions of dollars it will cost for us to get a hydrogen infrastructure in place to take advantage of such technology. Hydrogen is a promising technology, it just needs a lot of money and the industry to take a leap of faith to get the ball rolling.

    (Oh yeah, and we need to not use fossil fuels to create the electricity that produces it- that sort of defeats the purpose.)
  • sneakypeak, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1If you guys thought this was cool, check out Hydratus at the following link:
    http://www.hydratus.com/
    They use Magnesium for the same type of an effect. The Magnesium is recyclable and the company that is developing the engine already has a Mass Transit type bus that is touring the country running off of this stuff. I think it is COOL!!! I want one now!.
  • freddagg, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1While the Aluminium Oxide IS recyclable, the energy requirements to do so are as much as producing the metal in the first place. Aluminium production uses huge amounts of power, and if that power produces C02, you have not saved anything at all. Plus it eats O2 (Aluminium metal production from the Oxide will not release O2 back to the atmosphere - it releases CO2).

    Interesting concept - no real future.
    • johnhummel, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Hi, - thanks for responding to the issue that the inventors brought up when they said - wait for it! - "We should power the recycling process via nuclear or other renewable systems (like wind, etc)." I think they recognize this is not "free energy", but if you supplement it with other energy processes (again, such as nuclear/wind/tidal/etc) to "recharge" the system, you at least drive down the need for oil (which is not renewable) for things that could be mostly renewable.

      Personally, I think that's a fine idea. Nuclear/green power for as many areas that can do it, powering more local based H2 generation plants that would power individual cars. Include a push for public transportation and a national bullet train system, and within 15 - 20 years, you could have a nation that only needs to import a minimum amount of oil for its power/transportation needs.

      But, that would take a lot of thought, a lot of planning, a lot of work and sacrifice, and lord knows, we're not going to do that until a real crisis hits, or gas starts costing $10 a gallon....
    • Otto, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3You're getting dugg down, but you're correct, of course. TANSTAAFL, folks. You can't get something for nothing.

      While this process is simpler than electrolysis (and possibly cheaper), it's not really any more efficient. Aluminum oxide, or "alumina" as it's more commonly called, is what they actually dig out of the ground in the first place (in the form of bauxite). After they separate the alumina from the other stuff in the bauxite, they use the "Hall-Heroult process" to remove the oxygen. This requires IMMENSE amounts of power. We're really talking ridiculous levels of power here. Some estimates say that 1% of all energy used in the United States goes into making aluminum.

      Not only that, but the Hall-Heroult process itself works by forcibly combining the oxygen with carbon, to produce carbon dioxide and molten aluminum. So you're taking all that oxygen off the water to get hydrogen, and then putting all the oxygen onto carbon to recycle the aluminum. That's pretty crappy for what's supposed to be a "green" process.

      No, this is not how the future will work. Sorry, folks, move along.
    • leszek, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2didn't know this acronym
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TANSTAAFL
  • cr1t, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2from wikioedia
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallium
    "As of 2006, the current price for 1 kg gallium of 99.9999% purity seems to be at about 400 US$."

    That is prity expensive stuff needed there
  • pplant, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3This is really ridiculous, you would need to transport 350 lbs of alumina to be reprocessed every time you needed to refuel.

    Transporting 350 lbs every tank full would be break the laws of logistics and be very energy intensive.
    • johnhummel, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Look up. Up. There you go - to the part where people talked about how this would be useless for personal vehicles and instead would be far more efficient in local plants that could perform the entire H2 processing, distribution, and recycling?

      Yeah. I think we all know that putting this in your car would be rather inefficient. That's why we don't sell crude oil to the gallon to everybody and tell them to make their own gas - part of that whole "processing" step.
  • Skandrannon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I like this idea... however, there is a problem with the article... unless I read it wrong... which could be... but I don't think so.
    They said:
    A midsize car with a full tank of aluminum-gallium pellets, which amounts to about 350 pounds of aluminum, could take a 350-mile trip and it would cost $60.

    But they also said that aluminum is a dollar a pound. 350 does not equal 60.

    Anyone else notice this?

    -Skandrannon
    • dblespresso, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The aluminum act as a battery that is recharged a recycling center. The energy into the system is done as the conversion of the spent aluminum back into usable aluminum.
    • TheSabre, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0Is that really much of an improvement as far as efficiency is concerned? Yes, there are major improvements with the types of waste products emitted, but are people going to pay $60 for a 350 mile trip?

      My 2005 car gets almost 30 mpg highway. At current gas prices - which do not require excess aluminum manufacturing - I can get about 450 miles out of $60 in gas. People aren't going to pay the same amount for less, plus use up all that electricity to manufacture the aluminum.

      Scientists need to find ways that not only address ethical and environmental concerns but ALSO give consumers a better deal. Americans, in general, will always choose the cheaper product and if gasoline is cheaper, people will continue to buy it even if it does more harm to the environment.

      If there was a way to harness a car's mechanical energy and transform it to electricity, like in the alternator but with much more output that can be used to recharge the aluminum WHILE driving.. people may go for it. I don't think this particular method will get too many followers though. It's a good foundation and a good starting point for hydrogen power in vehicles, but as it stands it probably won't succeed.
  • MaximumPig, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The point of this technology that some of the commenters seem to miss is that it allows for portable conversion of water + aluminum --> hydrogen + aluminum oxide--this means no dangerous storage & transport issues for the hydrogen itself--presumably it is extracted on demand in the car. But it presents basically the same issue that electric cars do, which is, where do you get the energy for the electricity for the car to run on? Here it is, where do you get the energy to recycle aluminum oxide into usable aluminum? Obviously we all hope, not from the burning of fossil fuels. . .
    • vikingcoder, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Try RTFA.

      >>
      The aluminum could be produced at competitive prices if the recycling process were carried out with electricity generated by a nuclear power plant or windmills. Because the electricity would not need to be distributed on the power grid, it would be less costly than power produced by plants connected to the grid, and the generators could be located in remote locations, which would be particularly important for a nuclear reactor to ease political and social concerns
      >>
  • mrlyons, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I went to high school with Jeff Ziebarth. Congratulations to him and Purdue.
  • Theanderblast, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"Hi, - thanks for responding to the issue that the inventors brought up when they said - wait for it! - "We should power the recycling process via nuclear or other renewable systems (like wind, etc)." I think they recognize this is not "free energy", but if you supplement it with other energy processes (again, such as nuclear/wind/tidal/etc) to "recharge" the system, you at least drive down the need for oil (which is not renewable) for things that could be mostly renewable.

    Personally, I think that's a fine idea. Nuclear/green power for as many areas that can do it, powering more local based H2 generation plants that would power individual cars. Include a push for public transportation and a national bullet train system, and within 15 - 20 years, you could have a nation that only needs to import a minimum amount of oil for its power/transportation needs.

    But, that would take a lot of thought, a lot of planning, a lot of work and sacrifice, and lord knows, we're not going to do that until a real crisis hits, or gas starts costing $10 a gallon...."


    Agree - and even if the recycling is powered by conventional means, I think it still means a lot less CO2 being generated.
  • Spuy767, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0Awesome story, should be entitled, "Pirate discovers Hydrogen generation method" tho.
  • mutatron, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1From the article:

    "For every pound of aluminum you get more than two kilowatt hours of energy in the form of hydrogen combustion and more than two kilowatt hours of heat from the reaction of aluminum with water. A midsize car with a full tank of aluminum-gallium pellets, which amounts to about 350 pounds of aluminum, could take a 350-mile trip and it would cost $60, assuming the alumina is converted back to aluminum on-site at a nuclear power plant.

    Oh yeah, that sounds reasonable. "Only" 350 lbs of aluminum to get me a whole 350 miles, and then just a visit to the local nuke plant and I'm off again. Where do I sign up?
    • Otto, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1>>>350 lbs of aluminum to get me a whole 350 miles

      It would actually be 350 lbs of aluminum, ~350 lbs of water, and then you'd end up taking ~700 lbs of aluminum oxide back to the nuke plant.

      Yeah. Bad idea.
  • SilverBlade2k, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1We all know that this technology will mysteriously "vanish" when it is ready to be used for engines
  • tilleyrw, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Will the Oil Indu$try praise or poison these inventors?
  • hovermike, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Hydrogen generation should occur at distribution points and not on the actual cars.
    1.) Save the weight, if recycling can occur at the generation site, all the better. Otherwise, the spent fuel will need to be transported for recycling.
    2.) Reclaim the heat energy generated - does the reaction get hot enough to generate steam that could be used in turbines? Does the reaction become more efficient with additional heat on the reaction side?

    Hydrates are already very good at storing and releasing hydrogen on demand so that should be all that's on the car as far as fuel storage (this is also how NiMH batteries work). The logistics of loading and unloading 350lb containers seems like an unnecessary step...

    Overall, I'm of the opinion that there should be a closed loop, like with a battery. Of course, there are still going to be batteries on a fuel cell car considering the current limitation is that the fuel cells are better at delivering a steady supply of energy that doesn't work well for driving.
  • astromatt, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1A similiar process that you can try yourself works with Aluminum and Mercury. If you put a small drop of Mercury on a piece of Al and cut the drop into the Al using a sharp knife you can watch the bar of Al oxide forming white feathers. It's not an extremely fast reaction but it works!
    They're also working on a process similiar to that in the article at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver Canada!
  • AtHomeBoy2000, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Where's Mr. Fusion?
  • immrlizard, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1http://www.thejoecell.com/index.html

    Joe cell FTW
  • trollick, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Huge improvement over a process that was using bars of pure gold to run engines.
  • PjsPjs, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Well as expensive as such a process would be, the cost is a one-time investment. You aren't buying new pellets, slugs, every time you employ them.
    the only ongoing cost would be the cost to recharged them.
    Every process that generates energy for practical implementations, for use in machinery, is going to produce waste.
    Even it we use pure hydrogen the water would not be clean once leaving the machine.
    It would be waste water. And millions of gallons of waste water. The roads would be like rain soaked roads all the time and the dirty water would get everywhere.
    The highly explosive relationship between oxygen and hydrogen would require such complicated safety mechanisms and followup procedures to avoid abandoned potential bombs that those costs would be pretty prohibitive.

    This idea seems to me a rather efficacious one.
    IMHO anyway
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.