digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Producing hydrogen with water and a little metal

news.com.com — Purdue professor makes hydrogen by mixing water, gallium and aluminum, eliminating the need to store hydrogen.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • 11arrows, on 10/11/2007, -4/+21I can't wait for this. If America is going to survive we have to get off of oil. So Godspeed to this guy.
    • i6koi, on 10/11/2007, -4/+44this article conveniently assumes that aluminum is available for ripe picking from our flower gardens without any kind of energy expenditure whatsoever
    • sid0, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4Hell yes. Ethanol from corn sucks because the energy ratio is 1.2-1.4 (various sources). That is, you only get 1.2-1.4 times the energy needed to extract it from corn. A highly inefficient fuel. I doubt if this would be better.
    • gcnaddict, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5"Purdue professor makes hydrogen by mixing water, gallium and aluminum, eliminating the need to store hydrogen."

      Because lithium and/or sodium in water didn't do the job? They are easier to find than gallium, so I'm surprised that an alternate method wasn't devised. Hell, all you need to do is drop the damned lithium into the water and let it bubble. The bubbles are Hydrogen gas (Sodium tends to set the hydrogen on fire)
    • emjaymj, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4Francium would be even better than lithium
    • benjie, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5How is this news? We did this in 10th grade chemistry.

      (Theoretically) Better yet, if you use a closed system, burning oxygen and hydrogen together (as in an internal combustion engine) can cause them to recombine into water(/water vapor). I don't know that this has been done, and there would be a significant energy requirement, which could cause it to not be worth it, but it's at least theoretically possible.
    • DavidBGie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+16It takes tons of electricity to make aluminum. To convert it back to electricity with a 98% loss of energy is retarded. This is just another junk science story ... move on ....
    • Al3x, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1I'm at Purdue now (current student) and this is the first I've heard of it. Sounds like some cool ***** though. Hydrogen is the way to go. If people think we can stick with oil and move to hybrids, they're just treating symptoms of the problem.
    • rachieleibz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7@emjaymj

      no, francium would not be better than lithium, the reaction would be too violent. and its radioactive.

      The last element, francium, is radioactive and will not be considered here.

      Chemical Properties
      The alkali metals are strong reducing agents. The standard electrode potentials all lie between -2.7V and -3.0V, indicating a strong tendency to form cations in solution. They can reduce oxygen, chlorine, ammonia and hydrogen. The reaction with oxygen tarnishes the metals in air, so they are stored under oil. They cannot be stored under water because they react with it to produce hydrogen and alkali hydroxides:

      2M(s) + 2H2O(l) ® 2M+(aq) + 2OH-(aq) + H2(g)

      eg 2Na(s) + 2H2O(I) ® 2NaOH(aq) + H2(g)

      This reaction illustrates the increasing reactivity on descending the Group. Li reacts steadily with water, with effervescence; sodium reacts more violently and can burn with an orange flame; K ignites on contact with water and burns with a lilac flame; Cs sinks in water, and the rapid generation of hydrogen gas under water produces a shock wave that can shatter a glass container.

      source:
      http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.corrosionsource.com/handbook/periodic/periodic_table.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.corrosionsource.com/handbook/periodic/&h=480&w=580&sz=19&tbnid=G4wY8RtD2Q3CMM:&tbnh=111&tbnw=134&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dperiodic%2Btable%26um%3D1&start=1&ei=zI5ORsCcOp-QigHzo9SQDA&sig2=TpQ0gbH8_Ghd4czMj9woIQ&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=1


      (holy ***** thats a huge link.)
    • Charlotte_Web, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6"this article conveniently assumes that aluminum is available for ripe picking from our flower gardens without any kind of energy expenditure whatsoever"

      Well, it just so happens that there is already a significantly large recycling industry around aluminum. And I'm sure there would be recycling of the aluminum oxide.

      And moving any fossil fuel burning out of the automobile is a huge plus, since the combustion engine is horribly inefficient.
    • Charlotte_Web, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3"I can't wait for this. If America is going to survive we have to get off of oil. So Godspeed to this guy."

      Yeah, but it could take 40-50 years to replace oil. None of the big automakers are mass-marketing an alternative energy vehicle right now.

      Toyota introduced the Prius in 1997, ten years ago. They recently announced that by 2030, all of their vehicles would be hybrids -- another 23 years. And that still has an internal combustion engine in it.

      The car industry does not move quickly, and if there is infrastructure that needs to be built to support alternative fuel vehicles (like hydrogen refueling stations), it'll take even longer.

      What I believe will happen first is that synthetic petroleum alternatives will hit the market soon, if oil prices keep climbing. Auto fuel made from coal is a good alternative, but it hasn't been cost-effective to produce. I expect that to be a big industry in the next decade.
    • mikesbaker, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4this seems so familiar oh wait:
      http://www.digg.com/general_sciences/New_process_generates_hydrogen_from_aluminum_alloy_to_run_engines
      there is a pirate doing chemistry in yesterday's article check him out. also one of the guys working with prof. cyclops isn't wearing goggles. I mean isn't standing next to a dude with only 1 eye or at least 1 hurt eye going to make you want to wear those cool chemistry goggles?
    • HellifIno, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Funny thing about a nearby aluminum plant:

      A few years ago energy prices hit a spike at about the same time one of their energy contracts ran out. They were unable to get an acceptable rate, so they pondered their account books. Then someone had a brilliant idea - shut down a good portion of the plant, and pay everybody the same amount as if they were working full time. Yes, that's right. It was cheaper to pay everybody for NOT working than to pay the energy bills + their labor.

      Obviously there were more details involved, but that's how it ended up. : ) BTW, this wasn't just for a month or two. If I remember correctly, it was for over a year.
    • davidrools, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5I'm all for alternative fuels and research but nothing looks as promising as solar/wind/hydro/tidal electricity production along with full electric battery or ultra cap vehicles. As far as range and recharge times, there are prototype batteries that will recharge in 10 minutes for another 100-200mile range, the ultra capacitors recharge in minutes as well, and there's always the possibility of exchangeable battery systems as well. The future looks great for electric vehicles. Hydrogen still sucks, even if you can make it out of Al and Ga with water.
    • stevenvh, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@benjie:
      "How is this news? We did this in 10th grade chemistry."

      Aluminium reacts so easily with oxygen that it oxidizes immediately in contact with air. The aluminium you see every day is most likely aluminium oxide, which is impenetrable to oxygen. Which means that the reaction will stop once the aluminium on the surface has oxidized. I guess your high school experiment stopped there as well.
      Looks like the patent is about how gallium can be used to at least slow this process down, and create a practical (i.e. out-of-lab) way to produce an aluminium powder which doesn't readily react with anything before you want it to.
    • piesforyou, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9There's more oil left than the media likes to tell us. For example, we only just started being able to drill for oil in water depths of 2km - before now all the seafloor at this depth had never been explored for oil.

      Secondly, extraction of oil from oil fields only gets 10-20% of the oil from the reservoir. Secondary extraction might retrieve another 10-20%. So on a good day, only 40% of the oil in a typical reservoir is extracted. Our methods will get better.

      Oil will be around for much, much longer than the media likes to tell us.
    • BESTenemy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Byproduct of the reaction is Al2O3 - something they call "alumina". They propose recycling the substance. They do not mention the fact Molecular weight of hydrogen gas is 2.02 and of alumina - 101.96. That means the recyclable waste weights 50 times as much as the fuel. Gallium that used as a catalyst is in greater proportion to aluminum pellets, which makes the conversion setup much much heavier than the fuel it prodices. It is more cost efficient to produce H2 though standard water electrolysis.

      Gallium and Aluminum need to be refined to achieve high purity in order to be used. Gallium costs $400/kg. Can be extracted though use of various toxic purificaiton methods. One of them is from ash created guring Coal burning, which contains up to 1.5% of the substance.

      The only reason this new technology looks appealing is that the fact are quoted selectively. In reality this method makes already inefficient hydrogen economy even more inefficient.

      Ni-Mh cells are at 90% efficiency. Hydrogen fuel cells at 45%, aslo energy loss has to be factored in throughout every conversion step. Don't get too excited. This new method is impractical, cost and energy inefficient.
    • BESTenemy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2By the way, H2 chemical energy by volume is at 1/9th compared to gasoline. Which means to drive an equal distnace you'll need 9 times as much hydrogen as you'd need gas. Factor molecular weight of alumina and it would be as if your car ran on 1L of gas, while spitting 9x50=450L (rato of H2 mass to Al2O3) of waste.

      As I said - this new method is nothing but hype.
    • diggsIt, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Damn, water will soon go to $3.50 a gallon.
    • mishabear, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3"this article conveniently assumes that aluminum is available for ripe picking from our flower gardens without any kind of energy expenditure whatsoever"

      I find soda cans in the street all the time. :)
    • Jernej, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Everybody complaining about aluminium price needs to ACTUALLY see the slides, he says that using SOLAR FARMS (aka sunlight) you can convert the aluminium back to original state with only temperature collected from the sun and no electricity is needed.

      Also, most of aluminium is these days recycled, not mined from actual ore, and i can tell you, aluminium alloy is not expensive to obtain.
    • cwhitt, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@piesforyou:

      Have you ever lived/worked in an oil-producing area? Known any petroleum engineers? Know anything at all about oil exploration and recovery?

      Yes, there is an enormous amount of oil left in the ground, but we're long past the point where you can punch a hole in the ground and oil comes bubbling up. Recovering more oil out of already exhausted fields and drilling at 2km depths of ocean are both very expensive. The likelihood of technological breakthroughs that dramatically lower the cost of oil production is vanishingly small (speaking as an engineer who has lived in several oil-producing areas and known engineers involved in oil&gas, though I am not myself).

      It is disingenuous to argue that there is more oil left than the media lets on. There will ALWAYS be some oil left in the ground, because it is unlikely to ever be economical or even possible to recover it all. As the amount we can recover dwindles, prices will continue to increase dramatically. Since SO much of the world economy depends on oil energy, if we wait too long to change the possibility of some kind of apocalyptic collapse IS real. The more effort we put into alternative energy now the less pain we (and our children) will suffer later - to say nothing of the environmental cost of oil-based energy.

      I don't think the concern about alternative energy in the media is at all overblown, because it takes a lot to wake some people up to reality. I suspect you may be one of those people.
    • piesforyou, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1@cwhitt (#6783254)
      Yep. I'm a student of Geology in my third year, and have just finished an entire module's worth of Oil Exploration. I haven't worked in the industry, but my words come second hand from those who have. I find oil tremendously boring.

      Apocalyptic crash won't happen because like you say price will demand these new technologies. It's already happening. Companies are already realising there is a market, right now. The market is there, and set to continue to grow at a rate inversely proportional to oil price. Apocalyptic collapse simply won't happen because there will be a point where oil price approaches renewable energy price, and then people will switch.
  • jckantor, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4This story is getting some attention, but journalists are missing the key point. This a mechanism for transporting electricity (used to turn alumina into aluminum) to cars (where the aluminun turns back into alumina in the process of producing Hydrogen which then produces electricity in a fuel cell). Thermodynamically, an absolute maximum of 43% of the electricty can be transferred, and efficiency losses are sure to keep this much less.

    So why not just use batteries?
    • superal1394, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Batteries are heavey, difficult to manufacture cleanly, you don't have instant re-charges, not to mention they are a nightmare to dispose
    • skyshock21, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5And that's not even counting the energy expended to manufacture and process aluminum. Apparently it counts for as much as 1% of the USA's total energy expenditures. This is *NOT* an acceptable solution for a renewable energy resource!
    • astromatt, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I thought most aluminum processing plants were located in close proximity to large Hydro-electric power stations, at least in Canada. So at least it's clean energy that's being used to make it...
    • betacmag4u, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1why not just use UltraCapacitors? ............isn't that what Honda is going to do?
    • BESTenemy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Why not use batteries? Cause anyone can charge them and it cuts out the middle man, eliminates the gas station. We can't allow that, can we?!
    • nonymous666, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3"So why not just use batteries?"

      Take your electric car to a city that has winter weather in January. Let it sit outside all night in 3 degree weather while you sleep. Then come outside in the morning and see how well it works - Check out how it's limited range is shortened even more because the battery is colder than ice cold.. And how much of its reserve goes to just heating the passenger compartment, let alone to actually moving the vehicle.
    • apeweek, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1So we take latest whiz-bang hydrogen technology to come along - and compare it to 100-year old battery technology to make it seem more viable?

      Instead, let's compare it to the latest batteries on the market, the Altairnano batteries in the Phoenix electric car.

      http://phoenixmotorcars.com

      These batteries charge in just 10 minutes. The Phoenix has a range up to 250 miles (with expanded battery pack), and another EV using these batteries, the ZAP-X, has a range of 350 miles. They also have a lifespan of about 250,000 miles.

      Since batteries store energy more efficiently than hydrogen does (80-90% versus under 50% for hydrogen fuel cells) I don't see what the point of using hydrogen is. The process of making, transporting, and storing hydrogen is pointless and expensive versus just taking the same electrical energy and putting it into a battery.
    • apeweek, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@Nonymous666

      I drive an electric car in Michigan, one of the coldest states there is. Do you know why cold weather doesn't matter to electric cars?

      First of all, if the car was connected to the charger (overnight, it would be), then the batteries will be warm in the morning. When I get to work, I usually plug it in there, too (hey, free electricity, why not.)

      The battery pack is a large thermal mass, so it takes a long time to change temperature. I would have to leave the car away from the charger for quite a while for the batteries to get really cold.

      When they do get cold, yes, the car can be sluggish - but just for a couple of minutes. Driving the car pulls about 200 amps, continuously, from the battery pack. At 100 volts (my battery pack voltage), that's 20,000 watts. That gets the batteries nice and toasty pretty quick.
    • clnydk, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The key point not stated directly, I think, is that the reverse conversion of alumina to aluminum only uses a very small percentage of electricity, I saw something like 5-10%.

      There is no storage of hydrogen; it is produced as needed.

      Lightweight and innocuous as aluminum and water can be.
  • DeskFlyer, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Great news, but a dupe....here's the one that made the front page:

    http://digg.com/general_sciences/New_process_generates_hydrogen_from_aluminum_alloy_to_run_engines
  • nubnub, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9This has been done before by another guy. He created a water car. Started to work for the military then DIED. I wonder why he died
    • Dundasbro, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Natural Causes?
    • CDHarrisUSF, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8My money's on water intoxication.
    • dunezone, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3His car didn't run on water it ran on hydrogen peroxide which conveniently looks exactly like water. And not only that but the hydrogen peroxide he burned was highly concentrated which is very expensive and tedious to manufacture.
    • stevenvh, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4"He created a water car."

      A boat?
    • apeweek, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4The hydrogen in water is like a big, big boulder. If that boulder is perched at the top of a hill, it represents energy waiting to be harnessed. All we have to do is push it down the hill.

      A boulder already at the bottom of a hill, however, is not a source of energy.

      Hydrogen in water, already 'burned' , is the boulder at the bottom of the hill. If you use electrolysis to separate the hydrogen from the water, you are using the energy of the electricity to push the boulder up the hill. Ditto other chemical processes to get hydrogen - there is always a source of energy somewhere - THAT's the energy you're using - it didn't come from hydrogen, or water.

      The external source of energy made that happen, and that's all the energy available. You won't get more energy from the boulder than you spent pushing it up the hill. This is why water is not a fuel.
  • MioTheGreat, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Yes...because it doesn't take a hell of a lot of electricity to make aluminum....
    • Artifez, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1You have to look at it in terms of efficiency.
    • bjornski, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1And there's NO such thing as scrap aluminum in this country.

      Can't find a scrap of it anywhere. Damn, that's one elusive metal to find....

  • trogdoor, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7And you can get coal easily from burning diamonds too!
  • MacBandit, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Aluminum is the most common metal on earth and and it's unlikely that you would have to used refined aluminum to get this reaction. Gallium on the other hand is actually fairly rare.
    • MioTheGreat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4FTA: "Aluminum has a strong urge to react with oxygen, which is why aluminum is an accelerant in rocket fuel. The aluminum thus extracts the oxygen from water and frees up hydrogen from the water molecule. "

      Aluminum is normally found as Aluminum oxide, which isn't reactive with oxygen. Getting actually metallic aluminum is a very energy intensive process.

      From the wikipedia article on Aluminum oxide:
      "Alumina is also the byproduct of hydrogen generation for the purposes of fuel generation when water is added to pellets comprised of aluminum and gallium. The other byproduct of the reaction is of course gallium."

      This reaction looks like it produces Aluminum oxide, so you would probably have to use refined aluminum to start it.
    • Artifez, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2It's the most common metal on the surface but it's only 8% of the crust in totallity but that's just splitting hairs.
  • nicxvan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Ummm..... has anybody seen the price of gallium? Incidentally I was looking at it today, 24.20 per gram or 151 for 25 grams, plus it is corrosive. An interesting fact though, your hand is hot enough to melt it. :)
  • astromatt, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I think the whole point is that you can easily store water, aluminum and the gallium "magic dust" and you don't have to worry about the storing or transporting liquid hydrogen at 20 Kelvin/-253°C (that's cold in °F too). Rather than store it, you could make it as you use it - I've seen numbers suggesting you could make anywhere from 10-100 litres of H2 per hour... but burning diamonds works too!!
  • Greer70, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Here are your choices:

    1. End reliance on oil.
    2. Keep having unending wars in the Middle East.

    Number 1 might take a while, but without it, number 2 will go on and on and on and on and on.
    • Artifez, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4That is until the cheap oil in the Middle East runs low.
  • Rickyrab, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I like the idea of hydrogen as a fuel, but I feel the car will have had its day, and probably for good reason: a) cars make suburban sprawl too easy, b) cars make obesity too easy, c)hydrogen doesn't exactly go well with cars, d) one can probably use geothermal energy or perhaps the sun (or wind, or even rain, via mechanisms that would extract some energy from the falling rain and from the blowing wind) and water to make hydrogen with facilities sitting by the sea (or a very big lake.... or a shrinking glacier...) but that hyrdrogen wouldn't get very far in an auto very easily. The best thing to do would be to use geothermal or the sun for energy directly and run it through wires to power trains, plants, etc. For portability purposes, one could use the aluminum alloy hydrogen method or even the bacterial method. Someone might even bring up nuclear energy to the front again, and perhaps point to the "Savannah", America's first (and only) nucular passenger/freight civilian ship as an "example" (just hope the cruise ship I'm aboard doesn't have a meltdown.... LOL).
  • Gothvanhelsing, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Woohoo he made a Battery. It's very simple electronics take 2 dissimilar metals and a dielectric and as the metals break down they make an electric charge. In this case the 2 metals are shorted so in the same process you start what is known as dielectric breakdown. When the Dielectric is water it breaks down into hydrogen and oxygen. As the oxygen bonds with the Aluminum making Aluminum oxide it frees the hydrogen to be used elsewhere. this is all nothing new. this is why when you short out a fully charged car battery they sometimes explode.
  • Artifez, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The microorganism this guy produced is much cooler but probably less feasible.

    http://news.com.com/Stanford+project+mixes+Darwin+with+hydrogen/2100-1008_3-5798402.html
    • tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1You mean the one he discovered? I thought there had been a breakthrough in synthetic biology.
  • scarystuff, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0How did Stanley Meyers do it?
    How do Denny Klein do it?
    How do Daniel Dingel do it?

    Try it yourself, let us know how it works.
    http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/feb2/carplans_doc.htm

  • iamlegend86, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0A car does not run on water. It can't.

    The fact that it can run on Hydrogen doesn't matter. The problem is the efficient ways to produce a hydrogen fuel cell car, are things such as heating methane to get the product of hydrogen. That results in about 9 kg of CO2.

    Also, hydrogen must be kept in a pressurized tank, or it will dissipate. This means you are basically driving a rocket, and a car accident would be awful. Knock over a scuba diving tank, and see what happens.

    Hydrogen can easily combust, and detonate. It would probably burn up, but check out The Hindenberg for an example of how safe hydrogen is. Add that with oxygen that can detonate from grease or even oil. Chances are those are on the road, and on the car.

    Yes, oil will eventually run out, but a hydrogen fuel cell car is inefficient, and even dangerous at this point in tim.

    • bjornski, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2You're right, technology just can't keep up with non-explosive gas canisters.

      It's just BEYOND us!

      Better to stick to oil. I mean, hydrogen might be DANGEROUS!

      We better not go down that road.

      Exxon is going to kill this man.

  • udee79, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I did a little research and it looks like it takes 25 Mega-Joules of electrical power to make 1 lb of aluminum from aluminum oxide using the Hall-Héroult process. As a byproduct of this 1.22 lbs of CO2 are produced.

    In the engine one lb of aluminum will combine with 1 lb of water to make 1.9 lbs of aluminum oxide and .1 lb of hydrogen. The hydrogen can be burned to create 7.2 Mega-Joules of energy. The energy equivalent of .2 litres of gas. Therefore to get the energy equivalent of a 40 litre tank of gas you would need 200 lbs of aluminum and 200 lbs of water and you would have created 244 lbs of CO2 back at the aluminum smelter.

    disclaimer: All this was from a little googling and wikipedia-ing plus a little math. I am sure there are many out there moreknowledgeablee than me.
    • cjme, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0You also need to add in the CO2 from the coal burned to produce the 25 MJ of electrical power.
    • superal1394, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@cjme:
      Wind power? Solar power? Hydroelectric damns? ringing a bell?
  • Gothvanhelsing, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Every time I see this story it makes me laugh. People will say anything will work to get that big Government grant.
  • Telebio, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Start making hydrogen from Aluminum now! Very easy, and cheap. Make a similar experiment but easier!

    http://www.instructables.com/id/ECB3EDDF2FRVK4R/
  •  

    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.