Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

A New Way To Produce Hydrogen

Posted by kdawson on Sun Mar 01, 2009 05:20 AM
from the doctor-clark-i-presume dept.
Iddo Genuth writes "Scientists at Pennsylvania State University and Virginia Commonwealth University are producing hydrogen by exposing clusters of aluminum atoms to water. Rather than relying on the electronic properties of the aluminum, this new process depends on the geometric distribution of atoms within the clusters. It requires the presence of 'Lewis acids' and 'Lewis bases' in those atoms (water can act as either). Unlike most hydrogen production processes, this method can be used at room temperature and doesn't require the application of heat or electricity to work. The researchers experimented with a variety of different aluminum cluster patterns, discovering three that result in hydrogen production."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2009, @05:25AM (#27028607)
    Interesting scientifically but hardly practical for energy systems. Aluminium requires huge amounts of energy to produce, to the point where is is essentially "frozen electricity". Given that their end result is aluminium oxide, aren't they just recovering some of the energy that into refining?
    • by Shadow of Eternity (795165) on Sunday March 01 2009, @05:35AM (#27028655)

      Sounds more like they've basically just found something vaguely useful to do with waste aluminum.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Aluminium is 100% recyclable it would be a 200% waste. 100% because you waste the energy needed for production and another 100$ because you need to separate it from other elements and then refine it.

      • by ebuck (585470) on Sunday March 01 2009, @10:12AM (#27029779)

        For all practical purposes, there is no waste aluminium.

        Aluminium ore is plentiful but the costs to refine the ore into pure metal are very high. The technique uses tons of electricity to reverse the natural oxidation process. If you have post-consumer aluminium to start with, you can recover about 85% of the metal at a much lower energy cost. The lower energy cost is significant since it comprises 20% to 40% of the cost of production.

        It sounds like these gentleman have discovered a faster way to get aluminium metal to oxidise to it's lower energy states with Hydrogen as a useful by-product. I'm curious how this would work past the surface area of an aluminium block. Aluminium oxide is incredibly durable, somewhat brittle, and rather impervious to oxygen. With a combination like that, the oxide protects the inner aluminium metal from further oxidation. I'll wager that's why their technique requires "small clusters" of atoms.

        This sounds interesting as a use-once hydrogen battery, but it's not solving any global scale energy needs. The cost to produce aluminium metal is just too high. Still, it has a number of niche areas where it could be very useful. Aluminium could be seen as a high density battery for hydrogen powered fuel cells. It's relatively light, and could be incorporated into electrical generation systems for space vehicles.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Or for stationary fuel cells, you can truck in the aluminium in powder form, deposit in a bunker or tank and have the system churn that into Hydrogen in safe to store quantaties. You dont need much to run a house if you add solar/wind and good thermal design into the mix, even in countries with lower output from solar, or wind.
          I dont see hwo this would be much different to how my father had an oil tank at home and had it filled once a year to run the central heating.

        • High Density Battery (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Doc Ruby (173196) on Sunday March 01 2009, @08:42PM (#27035129) Homepage Journal

          How energy efficient is the dis/charge cycle using this new process? And how dense an energy storage medium could such a battery be, say, compared to Li-Ion batteries (or to gasoline, the champ)?

          If dis/charge is at all close to 90%+, and storing about 400Mj (the way a 16 gallon gas tank does at 20% internal combustion efficiency), in anything close to approximately 40 pounds for gas, then it's a replacement. Since the electricity powers lighter motors (electric instead of gas), and conserves nearly all the regenerative braking power, its capacity needs to be only less than 400Mj to compete, maybe 350Mj, or even less if we don't get the full range (about 600 miles in a gas hybrid), maybe 175Mj.

          Since an (single use) aluminum battery [wikipedia.org] can be up to about 4.75Mj:Kg, (gasoline * 20% = 9.33Mj:Kg), the aluminum is probably twice as heavy for gasoline's energy. But if we can accept half the range, it might be OK, if this tech lets it recharge efficiently.

          Better battery tech is very exciting. Energy storage is probably the worst link in all the alternative energy systems we're now looking at. Even if it's not good for cars, if the material costs less than lead-acid batteries (like under $36:Kj), it's a major advantage for home/building power. Even if just storing power during non-peak times for local discharge during peak times.

    • Depends how easily that aluminium oxide can be converted back to aluminium - if it is easy enough then this is a better cycle than electrolysis and might finally make hydrogen a sensible alternative energy storage medium than oil.

      so we'll have to wait and see.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          I think what you meant to say was "Lisa, in this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"

    • by rdnetto (955205) on Sunday March 01 2009, @07:07AM (#27028935)

      I probably shouldn't expect this, but RTFA!
      They're not producing Al2O3, they're producing something similar to AL(OH)3. I say similar because they're using clusters of Al, not atoms/ions. It seems to me that simply adding a strong acid would revert these back to AL(H2O)3, resulting in the evolution of more H2, but I'm sure that's been considered already...

      • by jcorno (889560) on Sunday March 01 2009, @10:12AM (#27029777)

        They're not producing Al2O3, they're producing something similar to AL(OH)3. I say similar because they're using clusters of Al, not atoms/ions. It seems to me that simply adding a strong acid would revert these back to AL(H2O)3, resulting in the evolution of more H2, but I'm sure that's been considered already...

        Aluminum hydroxide is just hyrated aluminum oxide (alumina + water). So they are producing Al2O3. And making acids isn't free, either; that chemical energy has to come from somewhere.

        Also, the reaction of acids with hydroxides doesn't produce hydrogen. It produces water and salts.

    • by Ex-MislTech (557759) on Sunday March 01 2009, @09:19AM (#27029449)

      Agreed, I like this method better.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_hydrogen_production [wikipedia.org]

    • The huge amounts of energy shouldnt be a problem, we could use hydrogen - its nice and clean.

      Theyve just found a new way to make it. Using aluminum

    • And what if you could use aluminium as the 'fuel' for your car? H2 is difficult and dangerous to store in a tank, but is nice as it runs in a more-or-less unmodified petrol engine. So if instead you could carry Al + H20 as the 'fuel', which creates H2, which your engine burns, the whole process is safer.

  • Still not..... (Score:3, Informative)

    by phantomfive (622387) on Sunday March 01 2009, @05:25AM (#27028611) Homepage Journal
    The problem is the aluminum can't be used over and over again, a problem which the scientists are working to solve.

    Still not economically viable, but hopefully continued research in hydrogen will replace the hype about plant based ethanol, which is not really a solution (because we need to eat corn, etc).
    • Re:Still not..... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Joce640k (829181) on Sunday March 01 2009, @05:31AM (#27028633) Homepage

      Pretty pointless - separating the aluminum from the oxygen will require the same amount of energy you got from the hydrogen.

      • by Rogerborg (306625) on Sunday March 01 2009, @05:53AM (#27028705) Homepage

        Pretty pointless - separating the aluminum from the oxygen will require the same amount of energy you got from the hydrogen.

        Not so. We'll just ship it to China, and they'll do it for a quarter of the energy that an American worker would charge.

        [Suggested moderation: It's Funny Because Someone Will IPO a Company Based on This Premise and kdawson Will Run The Story For Them]

        • You mean a quarter of the costs. For the same amount, the energy usage will actually go up (extreme inefficiency in China) as will the pollution (extremely dirty coal with little to no scrubbers). The real irony would be that moving to hydrogen is suppose to clean up the air, but schemes like this would actually increase it significantly.

          Yes, I know that you meant to be funny, yet, somebody will be thinking of the same thing. Oddly enough as a child, I use to generate hydrogen doing this "NEW" way. We got
          • by Rogerborg (306625) on Sunday March 01 2009, @02:03PM (#27031669) Homepage

            You mean a quarter of the costs.

            No, I'm pretty sure that would spoil the joke.

            Yes, I know that you meant to be funny, yet, somebody will be thinking of the same thing.

            And I'm pretty sure that I covered that in the [bracketed section]. But thanks for beating the point to death with your remorseless logic. How's the weather on Vulcan this time of year?

      • Pretty pointless - separating the aluminum from the oxygen will require the same amount of energy you got from the hydrogen.

        All energy is not the same. Converting from a form of plentiful but difficult to use energy to something line electricity is what hydroelectric generators do.

        So, if hydrogen can be produced easily from reaction 'A' and the components can be recovered and reused with reaction 'B' and reaction 'B' uses a plentiful, renewable, and clean energy, then it is a win.

      • You should have quoted the parent: for a moment I believed that you mistook energy production (ethanol) with energy distribution (H2 or electricity) as the GP did.

      • Re:Still not..... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MillionthMonkey (240664) on Sunday March 01 2009, @07:27AM (#27029001)

        Hey, it doesn't say "A New Way To Produce Hydrogen For Free!"

        I mean, I don't understand the reactions to this article. They just found out aluminum can be attacked by water via a sequence of Lewis acid-base reactions that result in a standard substitution reaction, depending on the geometry of the aluminum cluster.

        It's a very interesting form of corrosion and people are acting like this is supposed to be a perpetual motion machine.

      • Hydrogen's not an energy source. It's an energy storage medium. If this eventually develops into a convenient method for producing it, it may be worth something in the long run.

    • by jareds (100340) on Sunday March 01 2009, @05:35AM (#27028649)

      The problem is the aluminum can't be used over and over again, a problem which the scientists are working to solve.

      "In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"

      [I read the article, I know it says the same thing -- I'm criticizing it too.]

    • The problem is the aluminum can't be used over and over again

      [Citation Needed]. If you are thinking of the waste that appears when melting any metal, which is called "dross" in the industry, there are ways to handle it [google.com]

      hopefully continued research in hydrogen will replace the hype about plant based ethanol, which is not really a solution

      On the contrary, ethanol as a fuel is not only a solution, it's a mature technology [wikipedia.org]. My first 100% ethanol-burning car was a Brazilian 1983 Chevette, which I bought used in

      • You do have a point about the infrastructure needs that rise with new energy carriers such as biogas or hydrogen, but solid oxide fuel cells can run on hydrocarbons or hydrogen, and thereby is a viable option for using biogas as a intermediary carrier, and later shifting to hydrogen if the technology gets advanced enough.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        On the contrary, ethanol as a fuel is not only a solution, it's a mature technology [wikipedia.org]. My first 100% ethanol-burning car was a Brazilian 1983 Chevette, which I bought used in 1985. The last time gasoline was sold in Brazil without at least 10% of ethanol was in 1976 [wikipedia.org]

        But you're ignoring many, many facts to make your argument. It works in Brazil because of their climate and readily available sugar cane; which is a great source for ethanol. Corn on the other hand, is a poor source

        • by mangu (126918) on Sunday March 01 2009, @06:30PM (#27034135)

          First of all there is not such thing as 100% ethanol vehicle

          First of all, I just recently bought a car that runs on 100% ethanol, a Brazilian 2009 Peugeot 207 [peugeot.com.br].

          Brazil is not 100% ethanol. The entire country is not converted. More like 50%.

          You can travel through 100% of the country driving a car that runs on 100% ethanol. This has been true for the last 30 years.

          Ethanol has caused the price of corn to double in South American countries from one cent to two cents causing riots and you can't burn a food crop that you have to use to feed people.

          Brazilian ethanol is obtained from sugarcane. Sugarcane does not produce food. It can produce either sugar or brandy, when it's not used for fuel.

          There are more hydrogen powered vehicles on the road today than say, electric vehicles.

          How many cars total are actually running? There are a few million 100% ethanol cars in Brazil today and for the last 30 years [wikipedia.org].

          There are over sixty stations in North America and hundreds more are in the planning stages.

          There are over 35000 ethanol stations in Brazil [wikipedia.org]

          So this is not wishful thinking.

          ROTFL

          You can make hydrogen in your own home

          You can make ethanol at home [google.com]. But why bother, when there's all the infrastructure in place? Does anybody make gasoline at home?

          The safety checks have been done by all the major auto manufacturers, they all have hydrogen cars. They don't all have ethanol cars.

          Really? Which ones [google.com] don't have ethanol cars?

          I could go on, but this gets tiresome. Ethanol has been a reality for a generation, hydrogen is a pipe dream.

  • by abigsmurf (919188) on Sunday March 01 2009, @05:30AM (#27028629)

    IANAC but the article sounds like it's another way of oxidising Aluminium. I can see this being very impractical for a few reasons. Main one it's incredibly hard to store aluminium in a way where it won't oxidise, especially as this would work would need it to be powdered and without that layer of oxidised aluminium on the top, it's incredibly reactive and dangerous.

    You're then left with a large pile of Oxidised aluminium which I don't believe has any use apart from the production of 'pure' aluminium (which requires lots of electricity). Ultimately I can't see this offering much benefit over existing methods of hydrogen production

    • by v1 (525388) on Sunday March 01 2009, @09:52AM (#27029643) Homepage Journal

      It's just so entertaining to watch people find "free energy" in some form or another, by consuming some commonly available thing to produce energy, all the while completely ignoring the energy required to make the consumable.

      Someone once described to me a process by which you use electrolysis to create hydrogen from water, and then burn that to create electricity, the surplus of which you can then use to create more hydrogen. (and you can even improve your yield by using the pure oxygen you are getting as a byproduct when creating the hydrogen!) And water is the free fuel! *SMACK*

  • Methane we produce the same old way.

    Pass the baked beans, luv!

  • by doktorjayd (469473) on Sunday March 01 2009, @06:01AM (#27028725) Homepage Journal

    .. pull my finger.

  • Grant Money (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anenome (1250374) on Sunday March 01 2009, @06:12AM (#27028765) Homepage

    Smells like someone's grant is about to run out. Solution: the press-release, stir things up a little, generate some news and attention, it's a common way to generate hype, interest, etc. As has been pointed out, they won't solve the fact that the aluminum in the process is not merely catalytic, but used up by the process. Little thing called oxidation. If only they had a bit MORE MONEY to solve the problem... for the next 30 years or so, put their kids through college, yada, yada ;P

    If you ever found a way to separate water into its constituent molecules at room temperature, no energy input needed, no chemical input needed, etc., you'd have just solved the world's energy problems for all time.

  • by Rogerborg (306625) on Sunday March 01 2009, @06:14AM (#27028771) Homepage

    Yes, three times the energy density of gasoline by mass but only one third the energy density by volume (and that's for liquid hydrogen).

    Yes, fuel cells can be three times as efficient as burning gasoline, but it takes 2.5 times as much energy to make a hydrogen fuel cell than you'll ever get out of it over its lifetime. Where's that energy coming from? Milking invisible pink unicorns?

    Ford has dropped development of hydrogen cars in favour of going straight to all electric.

    Hydrogen is over before it even begun. It's less efficient than electric by any measure, and if you're betting on a big breakthrough (this isn't it) then the smart money is on capacitors (powered by wind, wave, solar, geothermal), not some magic leap forward in hydrogen production or fuel cell construction. At this point, it really is an academic proposition.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      agreed. electric has the distribution grid already there. it wins.

      i'm still not jumping in until they refine ultra capcaitors to the point i can get 500km out of them per charge. once that happens, sweet.

      • Why? (Score:3, Informative)

        Seriously, why? I am assuming that you do not commute more than 100 km each day, and are not off-roading. So why do you need 500 km? A 100 would do nicely for 95% of the world.

        A super cap can take the power as fast as you deliver it. Personally, I suspect that new highend power stations would be develop for this, so that if doing a 100km/charge, then a fill up would likely take under a minute.

        What is FAR more important is that car companies MUST come up with a STANDARD HIGH-END plug AND way to plug in?
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          There's something that's never addressed with electric cars: heating and air conditioning.

          Whilst you could sweat it out in a baking hot car, you can't drive with misted up or frozen wind shield. Heating and cooling both use huge amounts of power

          • Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)

            by rcw-home (122017) on Sunday March 01 2009, @02:49PM (#27032021)

            Whilst you could sweat it out in a baking hot car, you can't drive with misted up or frozen wind shield. Heating and cooling both use huge amounts of power

            That's very true. I don't see a way to address this without using up battery power that could have driven the car several miles further. However, I do see ways to reduce its effect:

            • Heating via heat pump - this can be 4x more efficient than resistive heat, and a heat pump designed to be operated in reverse can do your A/C too.
            • Continuous dehumidification - perhaps using power from a small solar panel to run a small dehumidifier which drains outside, or reheating some silica gel when the car is plugged into the grid (again, venting the moisture outside). Lowering the wet bulb temperature inside the car reduces the need to use heat to unfog windows.
            • Double-paned windows - these would be bulkier and more expensive to produce, but you could quickly heat just the insides of them. They would also be much quieter.
            • Heated seats - directly heat the passengers' cores instead of everything else in the car.
    • by rolfwind (528248) on Sunday March 01 2009, @06:42AM (#27028841)

      Hydrogen is over before it even begun. It's less efficient than electric by any measure, and if you're betting on a big breakthrough (this isn't it) then the smart money is on capacitors (powered by wind, wave, solar, geothermal), not some magic leap forward in hydrogen production or fuel cell construction. At this point, it really is an academic proposition.

      Electricity needs a storage medium. Batteries are not there yet. Capacitors may never be there.

      For large scale energy storage, pumping water up against gravity is a good thing. A dam of some type. Hydrogen can be good for small scale things.

      I think steam electrolysis of hydrogen will be a good way to go. All you need is a mirrored parabolic dish. No earth-made energy to use.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-temperature_electrolysis [wikipedia.org]

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Electricity needs a storage medium.

        My power outlet works just fine without a hydrogen tank in my house. Now with solar panels, windmills and whatever it might be different, but thats not where most of our power comes from for a long while to come. The big problem I see with hydrogen is that I just don't see how it would be more effective building a completly new infrastructure to ship hydrogen around, when we already have a perfectly fine infrastructure to move electricity around. Hydrogen also doesn't seem to be more efficient then latest b

    • Where's that energy coming from? Milking invisible pink unicorns?

      Close.
      Solar, wind, waves, hydro and combinations of all those.

      Unless the problem is that someone would have to actually work a little before getting essentially free energy sellable to masses?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Where's that energy coming from? Milking invisible pink unicorns?

      The unicorns aren't pink, they're blue [doe.gov], and unfortunately they're rather large.

      Seriously, this (Al powder) isn't an energy generation solution, it's an energy distribution solution. Most (populated) areas have both water and oxygen in the air, so if you can get the water to this powder and get hydrogen back... that could be very interesting.

      If you look at the overall efficiency of the fossilized oil cycle, starting with solar input and running through geologic time as a major part of the refining pro

  • by Bloater (12932) on Sunday March 01 2009, @06:57AM (#27028891) Homepage Journal

    To use water and aluminium as energy storage. We already have a pretty good global aluminium infrastructure.

    If water could be combined with aluminium to produce hydrogen on demand, then you refuel by replacement of the aluminium oxide waste with fresh aluminium and refilling the water tank.

    Then you still need a better method to convert aluminium oxide to aluminium - but here's the great thing about this research. Better ways to convert in one direction usually lead to better ways to go the other way too (eg, microdots convert electricity to light better, but also the other way round too).

  • All methods by which man-made hydrogen is produced today use more "usable" energy than results in the hydrogen. What we need to do is use hard to use energy like solar, geotherm, or something else.

    *all* energy production comes from the conversion of hard to use energy into an easier to use form. Solar power is an inefficient means by which light is converted to electricity. Plants convert light very efficiently and produce sugar. We then use yeast to break that down into alcohol. Unfortunately that also pro

  • by Ancient_Hacker (751168) on Sunday March 01 2009, @09:44AM (#27029595)

    This is not an article about making Hydrogen cheaply or efficiently, it's an article about an unusual chemical reaction, one of whose byproducts is Hydrogen.

    You cant get something for nothing. For each Hydrogen atom let off, you have to spend an atom of Aluminum. Aluminum weighs 27 times as much as Hydrogen, so for every kilogram of Aluminum you burn up you get at most 38 grams of Hydrogen. Aluminum costs almost a dollar a kilo. That makes the Hydrogen cost at least $27 a Kilo. The market price for Hydrogen is around $2 a Kilo, so this process costs about 13 times too much.
     

  • Not news (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Tweenk (1274968) on Sunday March 01 2009, @10:24AM (#27029859)

    Come on. You can generate hydrogen by dumping aluminium foil in either sodium hydroxide (cheap plumbing cleaner) or in water containing minute amounts of HgCl2 acting as a catalyst. This is elementary and was known for decades. Those guys just found out that if they use insanely fine aluminium powder they don't need sodium hydroxide or mercuric chloride anymore. But this gets us nowhere, as we still need the aluminium, and making this insanely fine powder isn't free (both financially and energetically). The immediate practical value of this work in the field of energy storage is near zero. The only thing going for it is that the authors know how to generate interest.

  • This has the potential to be big but of course the valid questions are not mentioned, such as what are the inputs to get this hydrogen and does it scale. Still sounds rather Cold Fusiony...
        • This debate is not about the pluses and minuses of gasoline. The time for that discussion would have been decades ago. The debate is about what comes next.

          On the contrary; that reasoning makes the assumption that gasoline must be replaced, regardless of the inferiority of the replacement.

          Rather, I can disprove your implication by simply pointing out that gasoline has always shared the market with that other petroleum fuel. Diesel wouldn't exist if gasoline filled all transportation niches.

          You claimed that