Metals & Alloys

Woodall's group at Purdue University is also working on the metal-as-fuel concept. Specifically, they react aluminum metal with water to produce hydrogen gas on demand, which can then be fed into a fuel cell or combustion engine (another way to think about this approach is as "hydrogen storage"). Aluminum is a very reactive metal; only its ubiquitous oxide surface layer prevents it from reacting vigorously with water. Woodall's breakthrough was to recognize that gallium metal disrupts the oxide layer, thereby allowing the reaction to proceed at very fast rates. The gallium is not consumed, and can be used over and over (easily separated from the oxidized aluminum waste). I really think they are onto something here. Imagine pellets of powdered aluminum mixed with gallium. Just add water, and you get instant hydrogen for your fuel cell.

http://blog.alternate-energy.net/entries/entry_13.php

http://hydrogen.ecn.purdue.edu/2007.05.01-Woodall/

Woodall's concept is not a breakthrough. It is totally retarded. Woodall should revisit his research, lest people think that he is retarded too.

It takes enormous amount of energy to make Alluminium from the ore. Aluminium reacting with an Alkali to produce hydrogen and then powering a vehicle with that hydrogen is the most stupid thing you can think of in the realm of alternative energy.

On top of this he is also using gallium(Though as a non reactive medium, to strip the oxide) which costs $500/Kg currently.

Please revisit his data and see how much Alluminium is needed to run a car for 200 miles.

Consider the following:

A gallon of gas provides 60 Kilo Watts of energy. This is enormous amount by any standard. And we get this for about 3 bucks, almost for free in my opinion.

It requires 16kWh of electricity to refine 1kg of virgin Aluminium. Put another way, making new Aluminium for a single 20g drinks-can uses as much electricity as running a conventional 40W bulb for 8 hours.

However 1 Kg of Aluminium has about 8 kWh of energy as enthalpy when converted to Aluminium Oxide. But the resulting Hydrogen gas hardly produces 500 Wh / Kg of Aluminium either using a fuel cell or otherwise.

If you want to run a Car that uses 1 Kg of gasolene(gasolene is light in weight. 1 Kg of Gasolene measures to about 1.5 Litres of gasolene), i.e about 20 kWh, you will need about 40 Kgs of Alluminium and we will be wasting about 600 kWh in the form of coal to make such aluminium at the coal burning and heavily polluting power stations.

Woodall's concept is not a breakthrough. It is totally retarded. Woodall should revisit his research, lest people think that he is retarded too.

Why the need for insults? Sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder. Please just focus on the technical points. Rudeness does not add any information to the discussion, and only weakens your own case.

It takes enormous amount of energy to make Alluminium from the ore. Aluminium reacting with an Alkali to produce hydrogen and then powering a vehicle with that hydrogen is the most stupid thing you can think of in the realm of alternative energy.

Of course it takes energy to produce aluminum form its salts. But this would be true of any energy carrier you could name. Look at the title of this thread: "Metal Powered Vehicles?" Your objection applies to all metals that could conceivably act as an energy carrier. So do you reject the very premise of this entire thread? Do you also ridicule the idea of using hydrogen gas as an energy carrier? After all, it takes much energy to produce hydrogen gas from water. The real point is whether or not the over energy efficiency is high enough to make the overall process desirable (taking into account convenience, safety, etc). Sure aluminum production requires much energy. But it also releases much energy when oxidized.

On top of this he is also using gallium(Though as a non reactive medium, to strip the oxide) which costs $500/Kg currently.

You apparently missed an important detail: the gallium need not be very pure. The price you quote is for high-purity gallium (99.9999%). And besides, the gallium is used over and over again, so its cost factors into the initial cost of the system, but is not an ongoing maintenance cost. Plenty of successful technologies contain expensive elements, e.g., platinum in automobile catalytic converters.

Please revisit his data and see how much Alluminium is needed to run a car for 200 miles.

Even if it turns out that this technology is not yet economically competitive, you must remember that it has a long way to mature, and initial prototypes are almost never ready for the market. But just because the research and development is still in progress is no reason to reject the idea and call it "retarded". May we have a little bit of calm rational objectivity?

Some quick observations. Your analysis uses the present cost of gasoline as a starting point. Oil prices can only rise in the long term, which means that the aluminum energy storage idea will look more economically competitive as time passes if non-fossil fuel sources are used for aluminum refining (we must ultimately transition away from fossil fuels). Also keep in mind that internal combustion engines are terribly energy inefficient. An automobile using a fuel cell powered by hydrogen generated from aluminum would be much more efficient. You must take this into account.

Finally, do you propose any specific metal or compound as preferable to using aluminum?

Some more links with general information about Woodall's aluminum energy storage:

http://www.physorg.com/news98556080.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18700750/

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/08/29/purdue-on-demand-hydrogen-from-aluminum-gallium-and-water/

http://www.insidegreentech.com/node/1205

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/process-generates-hydrogen-aluminum-alloy-run-engines-13242.html

I stick to my comments. No regrets. I have seen too many attention mongers in the alternative energy / free enrgy scene and I dont want to be nice to them. I better be rude and speak facts rather than be nice and abet their ignorance.

To answer your questions, at this point I reject any and all metals as energy carriers through oxidation as a way to power prime movers. That just does not make sense as the efficiency is less than 10%. We would be better off running stirling engines with the heat energy from coal.

Hydrogen is a different case altogether and this is not the right forum to discuss that. There are various ways to make the hydrogen economy feasible even through raw hydrolyis and electrical energy.

You can state your technical arguments without personal attacks on your debating opponent. In fact, the technical points are all that matter; ad honimen attacks create the impression that your technical points won't suffice to support your stand. At the very least, such anti-social tactics tend to discourage discussion.

You mention the stirling heat engine as your preferred mode of converting a heat gradient into work. Fine. But how does that address the issue of energy storage for automobiles or other portable applications? Obviously, driving around with a coal fire in our vehicles is not practical. If you are going to reject the entire concept of metals for energy storage, please suggest alternatives (how about boron compounds?). This thread is about energy storage. Stirling engines do not store energy.

You did agree to hydrogen (H2) as a possible alternative energy storage medium. But that approach still suffers from the problem of storage (even assuming we can produce hydrogen economically, say via algae). Clearly there is not yet an ideal energy storage medium to replace fossil fuels. So we need to look at many alternatives. The aluminum strategy obeys the laws of physics, its chemistry is well understood, and its economics might improve. I don't think that we should reject it immediately. Look at the example of lithium. Obviously the lithium approach is vastly too expensive to use on a mass scale. But yet lithium batteries have many popular applications. Clearly energy storgae technologies are not all-or-nothing. So we should try to keep an open mind, and not rest all of our hopes on hydrogen.

Your point on the etiquet is well taken. I will be mindful of this in future.

I have spent last couple of years visiting a few countries and meeting prospects in search of the right technology in the alternative energy areas. This industry is still very nascent and few people or governments know where to put the emphasis on.

I have visited Lithium and SLA Battery makers in China to findout if there is a way to bring down the price and make that a feasible power source for electric vehicles. Unfortunately that is not the case. Raw Lithium ore is very limted and its application will be confined to portable electronics alone.

The Hydrogen based engine I am positive about is not based on stored hydrogen and fuel cells but on demand hydrogen for internal combustion using onboard electronics. Initially this may be to boost the gas mileage. But sooner or later we can make all hydrogen I.C vehicles if we can hit the following parameters:

1) 12V X 100 Amps PMA generator on board.

2) 20 Litres of HHO Gas per minute using about 75 Amps

3) Engine runs on 20% gasolene + 80% Hydrogen mixture.

4) required Hydrogen is produced using the 100 Amps PMA onboard.

Above is not far fetched. This is going to be practical very soon, though I may not be the one who will be creating such a vehicle.

Please check the following links:

An Indian engineer Ravi's replication of Stan Meyer's design that produces about 1 Litre of gas per minute, using 0.5 Amps at 900% efficiency is below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9XrLOudwRw

You can use the hydrogen thus produced and run the engine to generate the Amps using the $79.00 alternator below, hooked to the enine.

http://www.db-starter-alternator.com/Items/10si-marine%20new?

There are other alternatives to run vehicles. A hybrid concept is below.

1) Use a genset to produce te required power and use it to run a motor to drive the vehicle, reducing the transmission weight and all other such complications.

2) The genset charges the onboard batteries while idling, but when the behicle is running, it directly powers the drive motor through required electronics. This way 30% of fuel can be conserved compared to conventional I.C engines.

3) Regenerative breaking adds more economy with no additional weight and negligible expense.

I have heard the idea of electrolytically generating hydrogen gas on-board a moving vehicle in real-time. But I always wonder: instead of sending electricity to an electrolyzer to split water, why not use that electricity to directly power an electric motor connected to the drive train? Surely this would be more efficient that converting the electric current into hydrogen and then oxidizing the hydrogen. Even the best fuel cell is only about 60-80% energy efficient, representing a net energy loss of 20-40%. And an internal combustion energy is even less efficient.

>But I always wonder: instead of sending electricity to an electrolyzer to split water, >why not use that electricity to directly power an electric motor connected to the >drive train?

Just one reason - To use 1.2 Billion existing autombiles that have I.C Engines and all required sub systems in place and to save that existing investment of 6 to 7 Trillion dollars.

Okay, if the target market is existing automobiles equipped with internal combustion engines, then I can see why you would bother to generate hydrogen (the ICE can use it without much modifications). Perhaps you can argue that the hydrogen mixed into the fuel stream can somehow improve the efficiency of fuel combustion. I'm no expert on the chemistry of internal combustion engines, but I tend to think that the extra energy derived by mixing in hydrogen would not offset the extra load placed on the engine by the electrolysis unit. In other words, the electrolyzer would actually decrease performance. Obviously, this question needs to be explored experimentally.

but I tend to think that the extra energy derived by mixing in hydrogen would not offset the extra load placed on the engine by the electrolysis unit. In other words, the electrolyzer would actually decrease performance. Obviously, this question needs to be explored experimentally.

Check this video here where there is proof that you get 20% additional mileage without sacrificing anything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fc3mUwx8BAw&mode=user&search=

<Imagine pellets of powdered aluminum mixed with gallium. Just add water, and you get instant hydrogen for your fuel cell.>

Svengali ,you said it all.

The world should back this group's effort and help it reach the winner's place. It won't be long.

A Doubting Thomas would have doubted the Transistor ,PV and Atomic Power.

Solid fuels were compact and perhaps cost effective have run into serious safety problem due to their un-predictive nature. However, it is always good to look into something that otherwise will prove to be safer. Perhaps if manufacturing nano-materials becomes a feasibility and such material have long life, do not coagulate and do not form nano-wires and do not cause many new problems, is yet to be see. It is not worth giving up something that is being tried. Let us look at the results.

As pointed out already, there are too many really stupid ideas out there and too many environmentally concious people and politicians with little or no technical knowledge who are easily convinced by incomplete information that offers a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

The economic and environmental neccessity to reduce dependence on oil will ensure a continuous stream of ideas but we need a few vigilant and vocal people to call the bullsht when it appears and prevent time, money and effort being wasted on bogus ideas.

Touche!

Which idea do you refer to as bullshit? metals for energy storage, the specific use of aluminum, or the idea of using a car's energy to make hydrogen to feed back into the engine. As svengali mentioned, this last idea probably won't work. The video didn't convince me.

I don't know a lot about this subject, but this method peaked my interest and maybe will peak yours too.

It is about using solar energy to convert ZnO to Zn° powder. When reacted with water, hydrogen is liberated as the ZnO is reformed. The ZnO is recycled to a solar furnace to convert it to metallic zinc powder again.

Two links are:

http://solar.web.psi.ch/data/research/elprod/

http://www.israel21c.org/bin/en.jsp?enZone=Technology&enDisplay=view&enPage=BlankPage&enDispWhat=object&enDispWho=Articles%5El1088

Interesting, and potentially useful. But the description at the second link claims "The process generates no pollution". I disagree. The process consumes coal (a fossil fuel) and emits carbon monoxide (see the first link for the chemistry). Carbon monoxide is quickly oxidized to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This Zn process does exploit sunlight, so it should be more environmentally benign than ordinary coal-fired plants. But we need a chemical cycle that does not release any noxious byproducts.

You are correct if operating at 1200 deg. C. The reaction does not require Carbon if the temperature is increased to 2000 deg. K.

http://solar.web.psi.ch/data/research/elprod/