MAJOR BREAKTHROUGH IN ALTERNATIVE ENERGY -- Cheap method for producing hydrogen FOUND!!!!!!

[cloudythescribbler]

Purdue University engineers have developed a new aluminum-rich alloy that produces hydrogen by splitting water and is economically competitive with conventional fuels for transportation and power generation.

"We now have an economically viable process for producing hydrogen on-demand for vehicles, electrical generating stations and other applications," said Jerry Woodall, a distinguished professor of electrical and computer engineering at Purdue who invented the process.

The new alloy contains 95 percent aluminum and 5 percent of an alloy that is made of the metals gallium, indium and tin. Because the new alloy contains significantly less of the more expensive gallium than previous forms of the alloy, hydrogen can be produced less expensively, he said.

When immersed in water, the alloy splits water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen, which immediately reacts with the aluminum to produce aluminum oxide, also called alumina, which can be recycled back into aluminum. Recycling aluminum from nearly pure alumina is less expensive than mining the aluminum-containing ore bauxite, making the technology more competitive with other forms of energy production, Woodall said.

New aluminum-rich alloy produces hydrogen on-demand for large-scale uses
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.physorg.com/news122655117.html

----------------------------------------------

This doesn't mean that the US and the world will now start down a progressive energy path -- only that one of the major technological excuses, perhaps THE major technological barrier to hydrogen, is no longer valid.

[annabanana]

1. I always love to hear about potential solutions!. . K&R. . .n/t

[Canuckistanian]

100. "solutions" Haha, you're funny

And "potential" meaning a voltage potential.

We science geeks need to get out more.

[ThomWV]

2. Another "free lunch". I can't wait. nt.

[Fredda Weinberg]

4. Actually, this one is real. It's using aluminum's weakness as a strength

In fact, the engineering is brilliant. You cycle through aluminum's oxidation cycle at an affordable rate.

[ret5hd]

8. So it takes less energy to remove the oxygen from the aluminum oxide...

than you get from the hydrogen?

[Recursion]

Ultimately, all energy is solar

It's just a question of how much capacitance we have between the Sun and us.

[ret5hd]

13. Well, that didn't really answer the question, did it?

[FogerRox]

106. I fear the answer is to put solar up to feed the grid, not make Hydrogen.

I can take Carbon and hydrogen and make hydrocarbons, liquid fuel for your car, and power it by solar too.

If I really wanted H2, I would split H20, powered by a solar panel..... no?

[LWolf]

116. I'm sure that making solar cells has become more efficient

since I did it myself in the 70s. In high school, I worked for a man who left a large player in the baby solar industry to start his own company. I worked while he built the company, and continued working into my 20s even after he sold it to a large petro company.

While there, I grew silicon, sliced wafers, and put those silicon wafers through all of the processes it takes to create a solar cell; I also soldered cells together and assembled (and tested) panels, and boxed them and shipped them to buyers, and answered phones, and did payroll...we were a small company in the early years, with a total of 4 employees plus the boss.

When I left in the 80s, the company was one of the biggest in the industry. It still took much more energy to produce a solar panel than that panel would ever produce. It wasn't exactly environmentally friendly, either.

I have no doubt that solar cell, and solar panel production, is much more efficient now than it was during the 70s and 80s, lol. I don't know if it is so efficient that other means of producing energy shouldn't also be given time at the table.

[FogerRox]

117. Currently One house can generate 125% of its use

thats with 15% efficient panels. Production is ramping up on the 20% panels, lets say the 125% will be 130%, at that point 3 houses could power a 4th. Last year Boeing announced it broke 40% with a new panel. In 20 yrs we could very easily get 20% to 25% of our electricity from solar, instead of coal.

Many Eu countries have existing programs whose goals are 20% solar. There is a chance to make some money here, and the US is not competing.

[LWolf]

119. What is the net energy gain in production?

It doesn't surprise me that the US in not competing. When, 20 years ago, the biggest player was a petrochemical corporation, it's obvious why.

I'm sure solar cells and panels are much more efficient today than they were back then, too. I'd like to hear about how production has changed; is it any greener, or still dependent on a myriad of toxic substances to produce solar cells? Do the panels, over their lifetime, produce more energy than it took to manufacture them?

[Buzz Clik]

15. So, the success of this new catalyst depends on our ability to capture solar energy...

... to produce electricity?

Ok.

[Recursion]

19. Name available energy sources that do not derive from solar energy

Bio / petro are stored solar energy, wind is stored solar energy (the sun heats the earth, which perturbs the atmosphere), I suppose tidal energy is mostly lunar, but that's about it. And I guess the heavy isotopes for nuclear came from other stars besides the sun.

[Buzz Clik]

24. You're missing my point completely.

[Recursion]

28. Sorry, let me explain

This process exploits chemical energy released in breaking down water. The water was formed by solar energy. It's still stored solar energy.

[Fovea]

31. Your point is tangential to the question

They are referring to REOI.

You are referring to source and sink.

[davekriss]

49. AKA EROEI...

...Energy Returned on Energy Invested. The KEY ratio in these matters. If more energy is expended to harvest the energy released by the catalytic reaction, then we're looking at an energy sink. Not a good thing. If EROEI = 1, then it's an energy transfer and could have a role in a greener future. If EROEI is greater than 1 then it is an energy source and can soften the ride down the backward slope of Hubbert's Peak.

[Fovea]

50. Thank you

So much for my pre caffinated proof reading.
Dyslexia/Stroke 7 - my morning typing 0

[wtmusic]

59. At best it's an alternative storage solution

but I am immediately skeptical of anything concerning elemental hydrogen as an energy source. Its energy density sucks, but it is nonetheless being groomed by the petrochemical industry as something else they can sell you -- when electricity off the grid is, and likely always will be, a far more efficient energy source.

* how much energy is consumed in creating these exotic alloys?
* how much will the alumina "briquettes" add to the weight of a vehicle?

IMO too many big questions to see any promise in this yet.

[cloudythescribbler]

72. The answer to most of these questions, including 'density' in my other comments. Links:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2907293&mesg_id=2908160

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2907293&mesg_id=2908210

[wtmusic]

87. Density is still a big problem.

Liquid hydrogen, which is obviously more dense than gaseous, still only has 1/8 the energy per unit weight of gasoline, and actually has less hydrogen atoms per unit volume. There is more hydrogen in gasoline than in hydrogen.

This means enormous volumes of hydrogen, whatever the source, must be created/stored/transported to provide the oomph to make a car go. This is a another fundamental through which there are no shortcuts.

In stationary applications like industrial complexes, etc where hydrogen can be stored in large quantities it may prove feasible. But practical vehicle fuel cell technology is 30 years off at a minimum, according to estimates of experts like Joseph Romm. So research dollars on hydrogen as a transport fuel are wasted when we can ill afford to waste them -- much better spent on hybrids and other grid-based technologies.

[cloudythescribbler]

96. No, hydrogen in SOLID form, in MgH2 salt, has been used to power cars going BACK 30 years ...-

There is an article about these nonexplosive (unlike liquid or gaseous hydrogen) canisters, which are also recyclable (the magnesium remains in the canister) in the Oct 4 1980 issue of THE NATION. Unfortunately, I have not been able to successfully access the whole article on the web (although it may be available for free somewhere else) even for the $2.95 the NATION demands for a complete copy. But it might be elsewhere on the web, and is available in libraries. Article by author Cook entitled "Somebody Doesn't Like Hy-fuel". These fuel cells have been around and economical since the 70s, but at least one fellow who was using them and doing the reworking on cars to run on these cells encountered significant repressive resistance (getting run off the road kind of stuff).

Concepts like 'density' especially in isolation can be very misleading. I remember a roomate of mine back in 1979 who was an engineering student at Northeastern University. He pointed out how in his textbook, it noted that a few molecules of nuclear fuel produced as much energy as --- well a lot of conventional fuel. But nuclear power hasn't become more feasible over the years, and even now, with these pebble no-containment vessel reactors that supposedly only could melt down SLOWLY, it remains without a solution to each of a myriad of problems, including the waste.

As noted, these canisters are NOT superheavy, and spares can be easily stored in the trunk of a car, basically making a car self-reliant for LONGER distances than your typical gasoline automobile.
(Slightly off-point -- there are also cars that run on natural gas, but the MgH2 system works better, AS LONG AS YOU HAVE ENOUGH CHEAP HYDROGEN).

[Usrename]

121. That's funny, hydrogen provided the electrical power for Apollo.

Why would the lunar missions use something that sucks so bad?

I wonder? hmmmm... :think:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

128. I wouldn't take a Saturn V down to the corner market.

Would you?

[Usrename]

129. OK, I went and looked it up.

Hydrogen has the highest energy density by weight of any fuel. Contrary to what was posted above.

Hydrogen = 143 MJ/kg

Regular gas = 44.4 MJ/kg

Liquid hydrogen is so light, only 0.07 kg per liter, that it takes about four liters of liquid hydrogen to equal one liter of gasoline.

A gallon of liquid ammonia contains 1.7 times more hydrogen than a gallon of liquid hydrogen.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

130. That's wonderful.

Unfortunately, none of that matters when it comes to engineering practical vehicles.

[Usrename]

136. It does matter that someone else was saying the exact opposite.

I was just trying to inform the other poster that they were mistaken about the energy density of hydrogen.

How did we end up talking about engineering practicle vehicles? In any event, fuel would be a consideration.

[cloudythescribbler]

70. No -- because (as in my comment above) transportation and storage are worth a LOT

Solar energy has one ENORMOUS weakness, not only short-term but at least medium term (during which the planet is in peril). Solar can be collected, but it doesn't generate at controlled amounts 24 hours a day, and storage as well as mobile use (eg in automobiles) and transportation (of electricity absorbs, even with the most EFFICIENT transport feasible, LOTS of energy). However, for example, a country like Algeria has the potential to produce ENORMOUS amounts of solar voltaic energy.

Now, that energy can be transformed through this process into HYDROGEN, which contrary to many claims about it being a dangerous form of energy (even the NY TIMES spouts this drivel), can be fairly easily combined with other elements into a combustible but not at all dangerously explosive SALT. (I talk in the above comment about MgH2 -- magnesium hydride -- for powering automobiles.

The flexibility of hydrogen use makes it EXTREMELY economical to combine with solar voltaics even if EROEI is significantly less than one. What should be considered as EROEI POSITIVE is the WHOLE complex of solar-voltaics and hydrogen production together, which is essentially a method of harvesting huge amounts of unused energy (that simply heats up the Sahara etc) and turning it into easily transportable and storable energy for a wide range of uses (in particular autos, as well, potentially, as power plants. One could imagine an electrical power plant that gathers HUGE amounts of solar during the day, and then uses a large proportion of that energy to produce hydrogen, which can then operate the plant at night (the same KIND of problems also impact wind energy, which can also be transformed into hydrogen energy).


Remember: THE KEY ISSUE IS NOT JUST THE TECHNOLOGIES OF SAVING THE PLANET, WHICH ARE ABUNDANT AND UNTAPPED, BUT THE APPLICATION OF POLITICAL POWER TO MAKE THESE TECHNOLOGICAL POSSIBILITIES A REALITY.

[davekriss]

85. On this point we agree...

You say, "What should be considered as EROEI POSITIVE is the WHOLE complex of solar-voltaics and hydrogen production together". Why, yes, of course. The EROEI accounting must include within it the whole "energy chain", from the energy consumed mining the ores necessary to build the equipment to harvest the energy source, to the energy consumed when converting alumina back into aluminum (if the source is to be considered sustainable). If this "system" is less than 1, it is an energy sink. If it's greater than 1, it's an energy source. No amount of economics matter -- what is important is the physics of the whole energy chain resolvable to the simple concept of EROEI.

As an aside, note that the EROEI of oil harvested in the fifties and sixties was 80. We harvested 80 barrels of oil for every 1 barrel of oil energy we consumed. Quite a good return. Since then, iirc, oil EROEI has fallen to about 13 as, to sustain supply, we've had to apply increasingly sophisticated technology to depleting wells and exploit geographically difficult sources (deep sea wells), etc. Alternative sources like wind, solar, etc. have (to date) even worse EROEI ratios, but alternatives should still be fully exploited, as (again) they will soften the ride down the backward slope of Hubbert's Peak and buy us time to either discover our way out of the energy dilemma, restructure our societies, or both.

[kristopher]

101. Eh?

"Alternative sources like wind, solar, etc. have (to date) even worse EROEI ratios"

What considerations are you using for your EROEI for wind and solar? It doesn't compute. There are problems, but EROEI isn't on the list as far as I know.

[davekriss]

104. Consider the whole "energy chain"

Don't get me wrong, wind and solar are wonderful sustainable energy sources and should be fully exploited. However, neither (given current technology) deliver the EROEI seen in the early days of oil.

In the 1940's, according to Richard Heinberg, oil was delivering an EROEI over 100. However, windfarms return somewhere between 2 to 50 times energy invested. The "energy invested" includes the energy costs to construct, deploy, and maintain the turbines. 50 is damn good, especially since new discoveries in oil typically produce EROEI under 10 -- but the usual return for wind is also under 10. EROEI for solar sources is also under 10, somewhere between 1.7 and 10 to be exact (again using Heinberg as a source -- see The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies, 2003).

None of this is meant to say that alternative sources are no good; quite the opposite, I think they need to be heavily exploited in order to buy us time for new discoveries, improved technologies, and (the inevitable) restructuring of societies. My point above was that, first, EROEI is key to evaluating sources of energy, and that when evaluating EROEI we must include the whole energy chain, not just the joules contained in a harvested unit of energy resource.

[kristopher]

110. I didn't take it as being against renewables

I work in the field and I've never seen this analysis on wind or solar. My gut tells me though, that there is a big problem with your statement. A typical offshore wind turbine with a 3.6Mw rated capacity will churn out around 14Gwh/year. That is a lot of power. The average turbine lasts 20 years, do the math.

Factor in the fact that technology is now testing offshore turbines that will deliver double that and I simply have to question your source.

I haven't read the book you cite nor do I have easy access, but when I did a google scholar search, I found a couple of articles that they made claims similar to yours, but again, there was no information on the method and assumptions used to calculate the numbers cited. I found no references to EROEI for wind in any of the more mainstream alternative energy/energy journals. Perhaps it is something more common to the engineering sector?

Also, what we are really interested in is system efficiency, primarily in the transportation sector (referring back to OP). That is what we need to determine the best alternatives to pursue. I mean, EROEI is a meaningful metric when we compare the various ethanols to each other and gasoline, but what happens when you add in the fact that 88% of the energy pumped into an IC car at the pump is lost to heat, with only 12% going to actually propel the vehicle? Where are we then if we compare that to batteries charged with wind?


That is what I was interested in and why I hope to find the method.

[Recursion]

95. The sun is a power signal but not an energy signal

At least from the POV of a rotating earth.

[Buzz Clik]

33. But that isn't a good summary of the energetics.

The "catalyst" isn't a catalyst at all but actually participates in the chemical reaction that generates hydrogen gas. That process requires energy -- roughly the same amount of energy that is subsequently released as the hydrogen is recombined with oxygen to generate water again.

The intitial splitting of the water requires an input of energy to make the reaction work, and that energy could be "solar" derived; however, if fossil fuels are being used, the process is not the sustainable alternative that I think many of us are hoping to see.

[Recursion]

36. I'm obviously not making myself clear

however, if fossil fuels are being used

Fossil fuels are stored solar energy. Bio is stored solar energy. Wind is stored solar energy. They're all examples (from the POV of the frequency domain) of capacitive storage of solar energy.

Sorry; I'm an EE student cramming for midterms right now and this is my emags-addled brain's attempt at something vaguely humorous, or at least neat.

[Buzz Clik]

38. Go study!

I hope you're not a EE major... they tend to be geeks. :evilgrin:

Eventually, they become rich geeks.

[wtmusic]

44. Something from nothing, again.

Flubber reborn (maybe a Dem president will see that more physics is required in public education).

:hi:

[kristopher]

103. Two different concepts are being addressed

One is energy storage, the other is the overall system efficiency in powering our device.
The discussion is getting muddled.

From what I can see, we haven't a clear answer to either question.

What is the system efficiency for a device using this storage system is the second.
The first is what is the storage density of the material in some standard (BTU, Watt, calories...)?

Another consideration is the demand on gallium. A little used material that suddenly comes into high demand can be a limiting factor.

Also, what is the overall environmental footprint? I saw a claim that it releases 1/3 as much CO2 as gasoline. That is still a lot compared to Li-on batteries.

[FogerRox]

107. Solar should just dump into the grid..NO ?

Splitting the molecular bonds requires the same energy, no matter what process you use, then the qualifier should be efficiency. Wouldn't it be more efficient to use solar power for electrolysis.. ?

[Usrename]

122. I think these things don't always relate that way.

I mean that efficiency isn't always the only consideration. There are other factors that need to be looked at too. Initial investment and maintenance need to be looked at (for both cost and energy expenditure).

From what I have read about this (it's funny because my dad just talked to Woodall about this last week), if the energy is stored in the form of this processed aluminum, a few million kilowatt hours of energy can be stored simply by stacking up billets of this material. And from what I understand, the stuff can reprocessed indefinitely.

Now, for contrast, think of what you would have to do to store a few million killowatt hours of energy in hydrogen form. The efficiency of the process is just one piece of the equation.

[dysfunctional press]

45. but the sun was created due to the big bang...

so if you want to be truly philosophically honest about it- NONE of if should be considered "solar" energy- it's all UNIVERSAL energy.

[dysfunctional press]

43. geo-thermal and hydro-electric are two.

build a dam, make a lake, and use it to turn a turbine. unless you want to say that without the sun the water would be ice.

[Fovea]

53. Well

The earth has mass because the gravitational field of the sun (or a sun) collected it.
Thus water runs downhill.

That mass creates the geothermal energy we should be using a lot more of.

Coriolis effect and thermal equilibrium due to uneven global heating cause wind.
Both are effects of the sun and our relationship to it.

It seems in this neighborhood, it's turtles right on down the line.

[Recursion]

57. I love the "turtles right on down" story

My point is (and I'm studying for an emags/thermo exam later today, so even if I'm wrong I'm right for grading purposes) there is one significant energy source on earth from a systems analysis standpoint, and that is the Sun. While there is sidereal energy (possibly worth considering) and tidal energy from non-Solar bodies, for the most part we get our energy from one place.

[FogerRox]

109. Funny thing the sun

there is one significant energy source on earth from a systems analysis standpoint, and that is the

Sun.

I think Polywell fusion is going to make this entire thread meaningless. SO its funny you should mention the sun, its a sphere. Researchers have been trying for 40 years to make the donut or torus design work, the ITER test reactor being built in France should be completed in 2011, it will run for 500 seconds and its work will be done. And we still won't have proof of concept, many believe that the Tokamak design won't work. Polywell fusion makes spherical fusion plasma, just like the sun.




http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/17/225034/881/107/433145

[Squatch]

62. Nuclear, gravitational, rotational, chemical

Nuclear: nuclear decay, fusion, fission
Gravitational: lunar tidal
Rotational: earth rotational (giving rise to oceanic surface currents)
Chemical: batteries

[LanternWaste]

79. Geothermal and Radiation

Geothermal. As per a geology course I took in college. Although things may have changed... :shrug:

Three sources of earth's heat being
1. Solar
2. Radiation
3. Heat from the earth's center due to chemical reactions and geologic pressure.

But again, this was simply college level coursework, I'm sure someone actually in the industry would know better than I...

[BadgerKid]

21. Scientists are trying to reproduce plants'

photsynthetic machinery so that it's less expensive and more efficient than capturing solar energy with solar panels, which cost a pretty penny and are up to about 40% efficient.

[Buzz Clik]

26. Ok, but this technology is totally unrelated to solar.

[dysfunctional press]

42. energy derived from fossil fuels goes back to the sun...

but what about nuclear energy- how is the sun responsible for that?

or geothermal?

or hydro-electric?

[jberryhill]

97. Hydro....

Waddya s'pose it is that evaporates water in order to make the rain and snow that feeds the streams that run hydro?

[dysfunctional press]

105. well, then NONE of it is actually "solar" energy....

since the sun was ultimately the result of the big bang, it should all rightfully be called "universal energy".

[Fredda Weinberg]

29. You can recharge the aluminum economically. The activation levels

aren't that high. It was the construction of a thin barrier that makes the device feasible.

[Buzz Clik]

34. Believe me, I don't discount the development of the barrier. That's awesome.

I think many of us were somewhat given a wrong impression until we read the article.

This is a big breakthrough in producing hydrogen, but it is not a big breakthrough in sustainable energy.

[Fredda Weinberg]

39. But any renewable, solar, thermal, even tidal energy can recharge a cell

That's the good news for converting from fossil fuels.

[cloudythescribbler]

68. The point here is that different FORMS of energy have different degrees of flexibility ...

Solar could be produced in huge quantities -- but of course it wouldn't necessarily function all the time (eg at nite) or at peak efficiency. If nothing else, the fact that hydrogen can be combined with metals like magnesium to create Magnesium Hydride (MgH2) which can then be used to power moving automobiles efficiency. In that sense, one can look at hydrogen energy as a way of both STORING and of TRANSPORTING energy to where and when it is needed -- efficiently and cleanly. This may sound arcane or indirect as a benefit, but to those who have been following alternative energy (nonfossil, nonnuclear etc) this is a key breakthrough, a major strengthening of the weakest link in an alternative energy economy (cheap hydrogen in the necessary quantities).

I hope this clarifies things. I do NOT know offhand about the level of energy it takes to recycle the aluminum, only that the process is PRICE feasible, and can be powered by solar voltaic or other hugely unlimited and unpolluting sources of energy.

[Matariki]

73. Does it take less energy to burn a log than you get from the fire?

And if so, can I still cook my marshmallows?

[eppur_se_muova]

115. It takes more to PRODUCE the log, always. But the energy is supplied by Mr. Sun.

Mr. Sun does not appear to be winding down anytime soon, so trees should continue to grow, and logs will continue to be available, SO LONG AS they are not consumed faster than they are produced.

[ret5hd]

6. Exactly...it MIGHT be a cheap "battery"...

but what is the total cost to charge the "battery"? Processing the ores and materials, whether recycled or not?

[Fovea]

40. cost is a good question

but we have to weigh it against NiMH and LiON and against fuel cell technologies for for potential output.

That and the ecological effect of each as a large scale technology. Gallium is toxic, but we are using a lot of it in circuitry already.

As a storage and retrieval system, I think this has promise. I hope it is not cheap and easy to produce, because as a weapon, this alloy sucks big. You dump it in a water source and you got a fuel/air device in the making and Gallium and Tin left in the water.

[krispos42]

89. The processing energy can come from solar power

Since processing does not have to be done "on demand", day or night, processing centers in Arizona and other cloudless places can recycle the briquettes during the daytime using the Sun. It doesn't matter if it's particularly efficient because the power comes from a non-polluting, renewable energy source.

[cloudythescribbler]

65. No one suggests that this is FREE hydrogen, only PRICE-COMPETITIVE (which is big potentially)

As suggested in the OP -- of course, we have ALL KINDS of technology, from wind to solar voltaic to solar thermal and conservation (eg cars with MUCH higher mileage/gallon -- ALL of these steps rely on political action to be truly effective. And so far, there has been some 30+ years of a lack of political reform in this area, which HOPEfully, President Obama will seriously challenge.

[Warren DeMontague]

133. Right. Science=bad. Oh, and "we are all sinners"

Endlessly flagellating humanity-hatred isn't any more attractive when it comes from neo-luddite members of the erstwhile "left" than when it comes from the Pope.

[fascisthunter]

3. Awesome!!!! (nt)

[edhopper]

5. My first thought

whenever I hear about hydrogen powered cars.

[billyoc]

9. Yeah, please DON'T pimp my ride...

:rofl:

[sellitman]

10. What do you think about when flying?

People with strap on wings jumping off a cliff?

:popcorn:

[radfringe]

14. my second thought

gee, all they really have to do is shove a hose up a republican's ass and you get all the gas you could ever want...

oxy-rush could put out the equivelant yearly energy of 5 nuke plants running at top efficiency

[JackRiddler]

18. my first thought

whenever I hear about cars powered by petroleum-derived fuels.

[cloudythescribbler]

74. This common canard about hydrogen (including the NY TIMES!) is debunked in several other comments:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2907293&mesg_id=2908160

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2907293&mesg_id=2908210

[berni_mccoy]

92. That fire had as much to do with the paint on it as the Hydrogen

[dysfunctional press]

113. probably more, in fact...

A more recent theory suggested by Addison Bain, former manager of NASA's hydrogen program, was that the initial fire was not burning hydrogen. Hydrogen burns without much of a visible flame, but witnesses described the fire as extremely colorful. Bain thinks the doping solution used to stretch and waterproof the hull was responsible. The compound, a layer of iron oxide covered with coats of cellulose butyrate acetate mixed with powdered aluminum, is very similar to a mixture used to power solid fuel rockets. "The Hindenburg was literally painted with rocket fuel," says Bain.

http://unmuseum.mus.pa.us/hindenburg.htm

[Usrename]

123. Dope.

The "paint" is actually aircraft dope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_dope

[The Backlash Cometh]

7. As long as the aluminium doesn't get into our systems.

I understand that may lead to Alzheimer, but I don't remember where I heard it from.

[Buzz Clik]

17. I'm pretty sure that people will not be eating these catalysts.

[eppur_se_muova]

114. The Al is not a catalyst; it is being used to store energy here.

The equivalent of a tankful of gasoline would produce several pounds of aluminum oxide, probably as a fine, easily-inhaled powder. Recycling would require shipping trainloads of alumina back to the smelter. Alumina dust would be everywhere that cars are serviced, or the alumina collected. Powdered alumina leads to "Shaver's disease": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaver%27s_disease

The idea of using Al as a fuel in a fuel cell, or of generating H2 from it, has been around for decades. Problem is, Al is cheap *only* because the metal is extensively recycled *as the metal*. If the Al is "burned" to make alumina (Al2O3), the energy required to recycle it as the metal will increase about tenfold.

If people start burning Al as fuel, the price of Al will begin to climb very rapidly, until the cost of burning it becomes prohibitive, and then we will be stuck paying high prices for structural Al, just because some people wanted to divert the stored energy of Al that had previously been recycled.

As I said, this basic idea has been around a *long* time. It's never come to anything, mostly for the economic reasons I've outlined above. It's worth noting that there's no other metal that's used in this way, either -- in fact, on an energy/mass ratio, there's probably no metal better than Al for a fuel cell, with the exception of the more expensive and overly reactive lithium -- which is widely employed in rechargable batteries (as opposed to fuel cells, which are basically 'open' batteries) already, and not likely to be surpassed by aluminum.

[Usrename]

124. I'm sorry, but I don't think so.

Making aluminum is an electricity intensive process to begin with. If you're talking about making it from bauxite, then the bauxite must first be reduced to aluminum oxide, or alumina, and then refined using an electrolytic process. From what I've been told, reprocessing the spent alloy can be processed back into aluminum very readily, since the spent product returns to a very pure alumina powder, with very consistent particle size and so forth. I'm just taking their word for it.

The real drawback is the heat generated when the water is split. It's quite a large percentage of the total energy.

[eppur_se_muova]

126. Nope. Read up on electrochemistry.

Aluminium electrolysis with the Hall-Héroult process consumes a lot of energy, but alternative processes were always found to be less viable economically and/or ecologically. The world-wide average specific energy consumption is approximately 15±0.5 kilowatt-hours per kilogram of aluminium produced from alumina. (52 to 56 MJ/kg). The most modern smelters reach approximately 12.8 kW·h/kg (46.1 MJ/kg). (Compare this to the heat of reaction, 31 MJ/kg, and the Gibbs free energy of reaction, 29 MJ/kg.) ...
***
Recovery of the metal via recycling has become an important facet of the aluminium industry. Recycling involves melting the scrap, a process that uses only five percent of the energy needed to produce aluminium from ore. However, a significant part (up to 15% of input material) is lost as dross (ash-like oxide).<8> Recycling was a low-profile activity until the late 1960s, when the growing use of aluminium beverage cans brought it to the public consciousness.

Electric power represents about 20% to 40% of the cost of producing aluminium, depending on the location of the smelter. Smelters tend to be situated where electric power is both plentiful and inexpensive, such as South Africa, the South Island of New Zealand, Australia, the People's Republic of China, the Middle East, Russia, Quebec and British Columbia in Canada, and Iceland.

more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminum#Production_and_refinement

True, the cost of recycling Al2O3 from this process would be less than the cost of processing fresh bauxite, but using Al as a fuel this way is just an indirect way of storing electrical energy. First, electricity is used to produce Al, then, Al is used to produce H2, then the H2 is oxidized. As you can see from the Wiki excerpt, electrolysis of Al is about 60% efficient. The electrolysis of water directly to hydrogen is more efficient than that, leaving aside the inefficiency of the Al-->H2 conversion step, which as you pointed out produces considerable waste heat.

The energy efficiency of water electrolysis varies widely. The efficiency is a measure of what fraction of electrical energy used is actually contained within the hydrogen. Some of the electrical energy is converted to heat, a useless by-product. Some reports quote efficiencies between 50% and 70%<1> This efficiency is based on the Lower Heating Value of Hydrogen. The Lower Heating Value of Hydrogen is thermal energy released when Hydrogen is combusted. This does not represent the total amount of energy within the Hydrogen, hence the efficiency is lower than a more strict definition. Other reports quote the theoretical maximum efficiency of electrolysis. The theoretical maximum efficiency is between 80% and 94%.<2>. The theoretical maximum considers the total amount of energy absorbed by both the hydrogen and oxygen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water#Efficiency

This is a fairly neat invention in some ways, and I actually can think of chemical applications for it, but it certainly doesn't represent any cost breakthrough -- and since it's only another way to produce H2 from electricity, it's not a "new" source of energy.

H2 as in intermediate is avoided by the direct oxidation of Al in a fuel cell/battery, a recent innovation which is likely to render this process superfluous, even before it is commercialized:

Aluminium as a "fuel" for vehicles has been studied by Yang and Knickle.<3> They concluded the following: "The Al/air battery system can generate enough energy and power for driving ranges and acceleration similar to gasoline powered cars...the cost of aluminum as an anode can be as low as US$ 1.1/kg as long as the reaction product is recycled. The total fuel efficiency during the cycle process in Al/air electric vehicles (EVs) can be 15% (present stage) or 20% (projected) comparable to that of internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEs) (13%). The design battery energy density is 1300 Wh/kg (present) or 2000 Wh/kg (projected). The cost of battery system chosen to evaluate is US$ 30/kW (present) or US$ 29/kW (projected). Al/air EVs life-cycle analysis was conducted and compared to lead/acid and nickel metal hydride (NiMH) EVs. Only the Al/air EVs can be projected to have a travel range comparable to ICEs. From this analysis, Al/air EVs are the most promising candidates compared to ICEs in terms of travel range, purchase price, fuel cost, and life-cycle cost."
***
The French company Métalectrique (www.metalectrique.com) have demonstrated at the "European Research and Innovation Exhibition", Paris, June 2007, that aluminum cans can easily be used as a battery. They are currently interested in using this technology for the 3rd world: For example in Mauritania, electricity is scarce but discarded aluminium cans are plentiful.<4>

more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminum_battery

ON EDIT: added last para

[Usrename]

127. It isn't an indirect way of storing energy, it's a direct way.

It is a direct way of storing a lot of energy. A whole lot. I guess that isn't all that clear.

If energy is stored in the form of this processed aluminum, a few million kilowatt hours of energy can be stored simply by stacking up billets of this material. And from what I understand, the stuff can reprocessed indefinitely.

And like I said, reprocessing this material is more efficient than the commercial process used for making aluminum, since the recycled product is very high quality.

[eppur_se_muova]

131. Electricity-->Al-->H2-->heat or electricity. 3 steps = indirect, VERY clear.

Storing electricity as electrical charge would be direct storage. Converting electrical energy to the chemical energy of EITHER Al or H2 would be reasonably "direct" for a fuel. Converting Al to another fuel (H2) before using it is getting too indirect. Re-read the last para of my previous post to see an alternative approach -- leaving the H2 out of the chain altogether may make a viable process. A practical, general purpose, Al battery/fuel cell looks like it could be on the very near horizon. It's not clear whether it would compete with rechargable Li batteries, from the data I've seen so far.

Recycling this lovely, pure Al203 may be more efficient than producing Al from bauxite, but that's hardly relevant. No matter where the Al2O3 comes from, it's still an electricity gobbler, LESS efficient than producing H2 by direct electrolysis. A two-step conversion of Al-->H2 + waste heat, followed by oxidation of H2 would certainly be less efficient than using Al in a fuel cell without the intermediacy of H2 -- one step is just better than two. And the need to transport large masses of Al2O3 for recycling is a substantial drawback. (9g Al + 9g H2O--> 1g of H2 + 17g Al2O3)

Like I said, it's an interesting invention in a way, but unlikely to have much impact. It's worth noting that you can make H2 from Al already, using strong aqueous alkali, and people have tried to sell *that* as an "energy breakthrough" every few years. And every time it goes nowhere, because the EROEI doesn't justify it. This new process will give a better EROEI, but still not be competitive with direct electrification using more conventional batteries.

[Usrename]

134. You the one who has the wrong idea about this, not me.

First of all, you don't transport anything anywhere. It's all converted on-site, where the electricity is being generated.

As explained in my other posts above in this thread, a tremendous amount of energy can be stored as aluminum. Millions of kilowatt hours can be stacked up as billets of metal. How are you going to store millions of kilowatt hours of energy in the form of hydrogen? It cannot be done. So even though you want to insist that this technology is not useful, or is not an energy breakthrough, what you are saying is just not correct.

Even if you could develop an efficient method of producing it in super large quantities, what do you think is a reasonable practical limit for the quantity of hydrogen that can be efficiently stored, and how do you plan on storing it for any long period of time? Seriously.

[dysfunctional press]

55. don't use most anti-persperants then...

when you do, you're basically rubbing aluminum into your pores.

and avoid using aluminum cookware and drinks that come in aluminum cans.

[BrotherBuzz]

84. And most brands of baking powder

Rumford is a good label that contains no aluminum. Sometimes we bypass the baking powder entirely by substituting a mix of cream of tarter and baking soda.

[Buzz Clik]

11. This is a tad confusing. Splitting water requires an input of energy.

The catalyst decreases the initial energy barrier, but you still must put energy into the system to make it work. Where is this energy coming from?

Reading the article and associated comments, I found this:

This might be interesting for energy storage, but NOT as a source of energy. Aluminum must be created with copious amounts of electricity in the first place. I question whether the Hydrogen created from this system would generate as much electricity as required in the smelting process. If nothing else the efficiency of re-oxidizing the hydrogen to extract the energy, even in a fuel cell, is not 100%. I think I'm making a simple conservation of energy argument.

[ret5hd]

16. Exactly. "energy storage" != "source of energy"

[eppur_se_muova]

99. Exactly. H2 -- and Al -- is a medium of energy exchange only.

There is no such thing as an H2 mine, or a metallic Al mine.

[harun]

125. All sources of energy are "energy storage". Whether it be oil,

the sun, or anything else.

People like to trumpet this about Hydrogen to make oil sound better. It is the same thing, oil just takes longer to make than getting the hydrogen out of water. But oil is just storing energy from the plants and animals it comes from.

[soothsayer]

12. Oh, the humanity!

[TahitiNut]

20. It's always fascinating to read about aspiring law breakers.

First Law of Thermodynamics: "In any process, the total energy of the universe remains at large."

This is essentially a reiteration of the Law of Conservation of Energy, which any student of grade school science should understand.

[bean fidhleir]

48. Yes. The very FIRST question anyone should ask when one of these breathless

announcements is made is: "what about entropy?"

[JackRiddler]

22. The willed energy ignorance of reporters is an inexhaustible resource...

The most important question is simple and obvious, and yet these wide-eyed stories never seem to ask it before breathlessly reporting every science institute or corporate press release as a breakthrough.

What is the ratio of energy input to energy output in the overall process?

Not a word about it here. It's always about "expense," as though a $100 process that uses more energy than it produces is bad, but a $1 process that eats up more energy than it puts out is a miraculous solution to the earth's energy problem.

Here's a clue:

For the technology to be used in major applications such as cars and trucks or for power plants, however, a large-scale recycling program would be required to turn the alumina back into aluminum and to recover the gallium-indium-tin alloy. Other infrastructure components, such as those related to manufacturing and the supply chain, also would have to be developed, he said.

Here parts of the process that consume energy are described, but neutrally as "infrastructure components." What's the net energy output of the whole deal? Why doesn't the reporter ask?

Hint: If you could set up solar plants that generate hydrogen, and if they were sufficiently efficient to "amortize" the energy required to build them, then THAT would be a new energy source.

[Buzz Clik]

37. Can one k&r a subthread? I suppose not.

Excellent post.

[JackRiddler]

41. You just did! Thank so much! (more...)

Although I see now that the "report" is in fact, a press release. So it's Purdue hyping a possible innovation in efficiency (if it's really that, once the costs are added up) as an "alternative energy" breakthrough. Which takes us from reporters' ignorance to self-serving propaganda. The researchers have surely given consideration to what the EROI -- Energy Return on (energy) Investment -- of their process might end up being, but omit any mention of it.

[Buzz Clik]

52. Actually, the news release comes from a conference and not Purdue....

... and, sometimes the researchers get no opportunity to review the releases coming from the conference.

I found this news release from Purdue on this subject: http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070515WoodallHydrogen.html

The jubilance is toned down a bit, and some discussion of the costs and energy balances is present, but it isn't as forthcoming as it might be.

[JackRiddler]

61. Okay, yes, it's more sober...

But it has no discussion of overall energy inputs of the process, only comparisons of possible relative efficiencies compared to current fuels, starting from the point when this process would be applied. But where's the aluminum coming from? How much energy to get it, or to recycle it back from aluminum oxide? The answer is certain to be a disappointment: no net energy gain. (I'm just guessing from the laws of thermodynamics, how sloppy of me.)

Solar plants generating hydrogen - that's an energy source, because it's coming from somewhere. This is yet another potentially more efficient system of energy storage and transport. Not a bad thing in itself, but not a reason to go ALL CAPS AND THUNDER!!! that the energy crisis is solved.

[Uncle Joe]

66. I believe this is because they view money as a form of stored energy,

couple that with the traditional short term focus on quarterly earnings as the psychological determinant of a stock's value and you have an inherent built in local short term vision. They're looking at the ultimate solution to the energy crisis as increasing the number of people allowed to purchase inefficient energy not actually making energy use efficient.

I believe this short term vision in most all things is the Achilles Heel of our current society.

"Not a word about it here. It's always about "expense," as though a $100 process that uses more energy than it produces is bad, but a $1 process that eats up more energy than it puts out is a miraculous solution to the earth's energy problem."

[cloudythescribbler]

75. These very issues I addressed in other comments. Links:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2907293&mesg_id=2908160

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2907293&mesg_id=2908210

[formercia]

23. More pie in the sky from cacademia. n/t

[wtmusic]

46. Oh come on

Grad students have to publish *something*, ferchrissakes.

[formercia]

69. I have to admit it is novel n/t

[El Pinko]

25. Question - At present, electicity (IE fossil fuels) are needed to make Hydrogen...

Does this reduce the amount of electricity needed, or just the cost of the apparatus?

If the amount of electicity needed is still the same, the main problem with hydrogen has not been solved, not by a long shot.

[Buzz Clik]

27. I agree. It gives us an important tool in the toolbox, but enormous challenges remain.

[info being]

30. Time for GE to acquire the technology and kill it

[Buzz Clik]

35. Ack!

:spank:

[kentauros]

32. Thanks for transferring this from the Energy forum

I didn't really think of posting in GD, but it seems to have garnered more attention :)

I found it this morning reading this site http://www.zpenergy.com/index.php
Although some of what they cover is questionable, they do keep up with developments in many fields.

[hunter]

47. An utterly surrealistic sort of attention, but attention nevertheless.

Location: Early 21st century Earth.

Situation: hopeless.

Beam us up Scotty, triage has called it on this civilization.

No extraordinary measures.

I repeat, no extraordinary measures.

It's going to get ugly.

Energize.

[TCJ70]

51. OK, I'm not up to date on the process of splitting water but...

(time for a stupid question as I know absolutely nothing about hydrogen fuel)

...If you destroy water to get hydrogen, is that water lost forever? Don't we have only a limited amount of water on the planet? If we start running cars on hydrogen produced by water, how do we recover the water?

[HereSince1628]

54. hydrogen bonds with oxygen to make water. And here is a link of fuel cells

http://www.howstuffworks.com/fuel-cell.htm

[kentauros]

56. As the other post answered, hydrogen rebonds with oxygen to reproduce water

Basically, in a fuelcell, you are harvesting the energy created when you rebond hydrogen and oxygen. It's not as much energy as it takes to break that bond, but it is something we can recover. Even "burning" hydrogen doesn't destroy the hydrogen atoms. Again, they rebond with oxygen and produce pure water. Only fusion will change the hydrogen atom where you would "lose" that element (it gets turned into helium, usually.)

If it ever got to the point where some form of fusion was using up all the water on the planet, we'd probably go off and capture some water-ice asteroids/comets to replenish things. But I doubt it will ever get that far gone... ;)

[TCJ70]

58. That clears things up...

...I was under the impression that the burning of hydrogen removed it or something. Thanks!

[kentauros]

60. You're welcome :)

It's easy to think that burning destroys, when all it's really doing is breaking things down while releasing some stored energy. I don't know the chemistry all that well (not my field, or any of the sciences) but as I recall, "burning" is nothing but a form of chemical reaction, albeit a violent/volatile one.

[cloudythescribbler]

76. Answer -- if OCEAN water is used, there's plenty of it, & COMBUSTION of hydrogen produces water ...

vapor instead of the stew of toxins and particulates that come out of (producing and) combusting gasoline. So there is a water cycle.

Actually, one little wrinkle that should be mentioned: water vapor is a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) and probably if most autos etc were to transfer over to hydrogen energy, there would need to be a way of sequestering the water vapor to recycle as water.

[TCJ70]

81. You'd think there would be a way to...

...keep it contained and cool it off until it condensed. Then you could recycle it back in to be seperated and reformed. Hrm...

[kentauros]

83. The other thing with this process is that you end up with distilled water.

How is the process affected if the water is not distilled going into the cycle? Can you use any old water, impurities and all, or would that be like using "bad gasoline"?

[baby_mouse]

90. By burning the hydrogen.

Water is burnt hydrogen.

[lame54]

63. We kinda need the water

[ret5hd]

67. You immediately get the water back when you burn the hydrogen.

[lame54]

71. OK - I think that needs to be emphasized...

If this is the case I can now be excited about this new technology

[opihimoimoi]

64. I will believe it when I can do a fill up for less than $70 and drive 300 mi or more...

If this new process results in a fill up for less than $40(10 years ago)....now that would be AWESOME...

If the cost of a fill up is less than $25....that would save the fucking World.

[cloudythescribbler]

77. ... only if and to the extent that the powers that pee are willing to pursue it!

There are power elites that have had at least 30 years to pursue all kinds of economic energy conservation and alternative energy projects and haven't. Yes, Virginia, there is a THEY, and THEY consider maiming and torture of one of us individuals no more serious than a blow-job. THEY have opted for an ecocidal path to development in the face of MANY technological alternatives. And, as in the article by Fred Cook in the Oct 4 1980 NATION magazine, don't seem to like Hy-fuel, at least not quickly.

But then again, we should all get holy and submissive, attributing divine qualities to 'they' to the extent we don't truly buy all the BS about how it's just paranoia.

[opihimoimoi]

93. The Greed/selfish factor in our emotional minds allow us license to rationalize

anything we want....arrogance really....not very altruistic in any shape or form...mostly Framing/Steering our collective minds into a Lemmingesque State...some refer to it as Psyops/brainwashing, etc.

This explains our addition for the Moot/Minutiae......thus American Idol and a 3 year love affair with Aruba...

The Series shit, we leave that for the Leaders chosen for us....never mind they never had a course in True Leadership 101.01

and forget the 200 level.....

[LSK]

78. looks promising n/t

[kentauros]

80. Thus my original question in the Environment/Energy forum

about whether this could be used as a form of desalinization, too :)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x134759

EDIT: woops, replied to the wrong person. ;)

[BrotherBuzz]

82. Damn, I should have planted gallium instead corn

[kentauros]

86. I suppose you could always invest in bauxite and coal...

;)

Or set up a gallium recycling center to harvest it from old electronic components:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallium#Occurrence

[BrotherBuzz]

88. You mean I traded the mad cow for fraudulent magic seeds?

Bummer!

[formercia]

91. Coming soon, the sports model

NA1000, powered by water and Sodium metal and the sportier and faster K2000, powered by Potassium metal and water.

[rocktivity]

94. There are cars that can run on water, but not efficiently

so this would be good news, right?

:think:
rocknation

[eppur_se_muova]

132. Holy crap -- that's such misguided BS it's genuinely amusing.

Thanks for the chuckles.:thumbsup:

[eppur_se_muova]

98. The major "excuse" is that electrolysis is expensive. Aluminum is made by electrolysis.

So no, beyond some specialized applications (like producing H2 in remote locations), this is most unlikely to affect anything.

[Buzz Clik]

112. Remote locations -- such as in cars.

[eppur_se_muova]

102. Corrected headline:INCREMENTAL ADVANCE IN KNOWN ENERGY STORAGE TECHNOLOGY!!!!!! NT

[DiverDave]

108. But its an advance, right?

who knows what this will lead to.
What I'm saying is, if this is a dead end, an offshoot could unlock a better process.

I think it's a great discovery.

[Buzz Clik]

111. Simply finding a mechanism to prevent the oxidation is amazing.

The application to hydrogen fueled cars is also important.

Many of us felt misled by the breathless headline in the OP.

[sarcasmo]

118. Kick to the top and Bookmarked.

[Kitty Herder]

120. Wow. I hope this provides a real alternative. nt

[and-justice-for-all]

135. This OP will sel dstruct in 5....4.....3.....2....1 nt