0
   

Could this be the solution to the energy crisis?

 
 
Reply Wed 11 Mar, 2009 12:54 pm
New aluminum alloy generates hydrogen on-demand | The Green Geek

Jerry Woodall, an engineer from Purdue University, has developed a method that uses an aluminum alloy to extract hydrogen from water on contact. This process eliminates the need to transport or store hydrogen gas, 2 things that have been major obstacles to achieving the much anticipated hydrogen economy.


Hydrogen is generated spontaneously when water is added to pellets of the alloy, which is a mixture of aluminum and gallium. Aluminum has been used for a long time in chemical production of hydrogen, but the addition of gallium makes this alloy far more effective as a catalyst. As aluminum oxidizes, a skin forms on it?s surface preventing further contact between the aluminum and the water. The gallium prevents this skin formation, allowing the reaction to continue until the aluminum has been used up. The aluminum has a strong attraction to the oxygen in the water, and when water is added to the pellets the oxygen is stripped out of the water molecules, leaving free hydrogen gas as a byproduct.
This technology is being looked at to allow the conversion of cars and trucks to hydrogen, but the prospects aren?t quite as good as a first glance might suggest.

* Because the alloy is used up during the reaction, new pellets need to be added periodically and the waste materials need to be recycled.
* Internal combustion engines are only about 25% efficient so existing engines would require more frequent fueling than with hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles.
* Additional energy and effort is required to replace the pellets and process the alloy after use

However, using the pure hydrogen generated from this process, a fuel cell system would run at closer to 75% efficiency, reducing the previously mentioned problems by 2/3. Fuel cells have long been touted as being the ultimate in power generation for mobile uses, but the complexity, inefficiencies and cost make them remain impractical for general transportation uses when compared to the simplicity of battery electric vehicles for urban use. The technology does become far more favorable when used with fuel cells instead of internal combustion however. For general urban transportation, I favor solar/wind/geothermal powered battery electric vehicles, but there are several other applications for which on-demand hydrogen fuel cell systems would be ideally suited:

* Rural vehicles that wouldn?t have easy access to a charging station
* Emergency response vehicles that require operation at all times
* Larger devices such as lawn mowers, tillers, chainsaws, backup generators, cooking devices, etc
* Emergency power generation in case of a natural disaster

These applications would benefit from the ease of fueling (just add water!) and clean operation that on-demand hydrogen would provide. Because they would not be part of normal urban usage, the hindrances of the system would be minimized and would remain cost-effective.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,330 • Replies: 13
No top replies

 
judgment impaired
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Mar, 2009 09:42 pm
@Fatal Freedoms,
I think not, fatal freedoms. The cost is still prohibitive. A rough look at the stiochiometry, given the current price of ~$0.65/lb aluminum, you would need gasoline to be between $8-10/gallon to propel a car an equivalent distance at an equivalent price.

You can bring the price down by recycling the alumina but the nature of aluminum recycling makes this unlikely to be done as just a recharge of your current catalyst. Stiochiometry predicts a recycling cost break point near $3-4/gallon gasoline but this does not include the cost to collect and remake the catalyst and finally re-market the system; just the recharging of the aluminum. This also ignores the where the electricity would come from. Alumina reduction is extremely energy intensive. There would have to be a sizable investment in new generating plants.

Still pretty unfeasible.
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2009 09:44 am
@judgment impaired,
judgment impaired;64698 wrote:
I think not, fatal freedoms. The cost is still prohibitive. A rough look at the stiochiometry, given the current price of ~$0.65/lb aluminum, you would need gasoline to be between $8-10/gallon to propel a car an equivalent distance at an equivalent price.

You can bring the price down by recycling the alumina but the nature of aluminum recycling makes this unlikely to be done as just a recharge of your current catalyst. Stiochiometry predicts a recycling cost break point near $3-4/gallon gasoline but this does not include the cost to collect and remake the catalyst and finally re-market the system; just the recharging of the aluminum. This also ignores the where the electricity would come from. Alumina reduction is extremely energy intensive. There would have to be a sizable investment in new generating plants.

Still pretty unfeasible.


new technologies are usually expensive.
judgment impaired
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2009 10:16 am
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;64732 wrote:
new technologies are usually expensive.


Very true. I was just looking at the break even point. I just figure other alternatives will kick in at lower costs than this. I noted that this was being talked about in 2007 and there doesn't seem to be much evidence of any further advancement in its marketability.
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Mar, 2009 10:00 am
@judgment impaired,
judgment impaired;64734 wrote:
Very true. I was just looking at the break even point. I just figure other alternatives will kick in at lower costs than this. I noted that this was being talked about in 2007 and there doesn't seem to be much evidence of any further advancement in its marketability.


People are afraid.
judgment impaired
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Mar, 2009 07:21 pm
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;64760 wrote:
People are afraid.


Of what?
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2009 09:04 am
@judgment impaired,
judgment impaired;64765 wrote:
Of what?


The citizens, of crashing a hydrogen powered car.

The corporations, of losing money, especially gas companies.
judgment impaired
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Mar, 2009 09:45 am
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;64776 wrote:
The citizens, of crashing a hydrogen powered car.

The corporations, of losing money, especially gas companies.


I never knew crashing a hydrogen car was a concern. Considering the power of gasoline I'm surprised anyone wouldn't chose the risk of hydrogen over petroleum. Hmm...but I thought this system generates as you need it, more or less, so I wouldn't think that was a concern.

My comment on reading it back in 2007 and now is that the articles were pretty much identical. Either the innovator himself has made little progress or has been unable to free up any private capital or public funding for prototype work.

As for the oil companies being a-feared, I'm surprised you'd drag out that old saw, fatal_freedoms. From what I read of most of your posts, you seem to be one of the more down to earth posters on the forum. The corporations have nothing to fear from a technology that is 4 to 5 times more expensive than gasoline and a logistic nightmare to boot. No, something simpler like biodiesel/diesel from waste systems (even ethanol) would kick in way before that. You can't ignore basic economics. (Well, the government could so let me modify the last comment: those would kick in unless government mandates the hydrogen alternative. I see no political will for that.)
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Mar, 2009 11:33 am
@judgment impaired,
judgment impaired;64795 wrote:
I never knew crashing a hydrogen car was a concern. Considering the power of gasoline I'm surprised anyone wouldn't chose the risk of hydrogen over petroleum. Hmm...but I thought this system generates as you need it, more or less, so I wouldn't think that was a concern.

My comment on reading it back in 2007 and now is that the articles were pretty much identical. Either the innovator himself has made little progress or has been unable to free up any private capital or public funding for prototype work.

As for the oil companies being a-feared, I'm surprised you'd drag out that old saw, fatal_freedoms. From what I read of most of your posts, you seem to be one of the more down to earth posters on the forum. The corporations have nothing to fear from a technology that is 4 to 5 times more expensive than gasoline and a logistic nightmare to boot. No, something simpler like biodiesel/diesel from waste systems (even ethanol) would kick in way before that. You can't ignore basic economics. (Well, the government could so let me modify the last comment: those would kick in unless government mandates the hydrogen alternative. I see no political will for that.)


Most of the people whom I've talked to that were against hydrogen cars listed crashing as one of their fears, as the car would contain compressed hydrogen, and it would be under a lot of pressure and so crashing it would release a lot of pressure, I don't really think this is as big of a problem that people make it out to be. But still, it is something to consider. Safety is something that shouldn't be overlooked.

As far as gas companies go, it is only amenable to logic that the gas companies would fight something that would be in direct competition (remember the electric car?). the only solution I see to this is if somehow the gas companies themselves put stake behind this new technology as well.
xexon
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Apr, 2009 10:27 am
@Fatal Freedoms,
The truth is...(drumroll)... there is no energy crisis.

The truth is those who have you in their pocket want to keep you there.

But cracks in the dike now outnumber fingers and toes.

This is a good thing.



x
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2009 02:02 pm
@xexon,
xexon;64886 wrote:
The truth is...(drumroll)... there is no energy crisis.



if only...

*Rolls eyes*
0 Replies
 
mimidamnit
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2009 04:30 am
@xexon,
xexon;64886 wrote:
The truth is...(drumroll)... there is no energy crisis.

The truth is those who have you in their pocket want to keep you there.

But cracks in the dike now outnumber fingers and toes.

This is a good thing.



x


i am inclined to agree here.. :thumbup:
Numpty
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jul, 2009 05:56 pm
@mimidamnit,
mimidamnit;66249 wrote:
i am inclined to agree here.. :thumbup:


I would agree. I remember using text books at school which stated we'd run out of Oil before 2012. Oops.
mimidamnit
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Jul, 2009 05:23 am
@Numpty,
Numpty;66429 wrote:
I would agree. I remember using text books at school which stated we'd run out of Oil before 2012. Oops.


lol.. yep..i dont rely too heavily on the teachings of our public school curriculum;)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Could this be the solution to the energy crisis?
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/12/2026 at 09:25:09