A New Way To Produce Hydrogen 204
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."
Re:Al poduction consumes lots of energy (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.
Re:Aw jeez, hydrogen AGAIN? (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Aw jeez, hydrogen AGAIN? (Score:4, Interesting)
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]
Being fair (Score:3, Interesting)
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 it from a 50's book on how to create a floating balloon.
Re:Al poduction consumes lots of energy (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
Re:Aw jeez, hydrogen AGAIN? (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 battery technology. So where exactly is the big advantage in hydrogen? A electric car that I can just plug into the power outlet seems a lot more convenient to me then one into which I have to inject hydrogen.
I don't really know much about the topic, so I could be completly wrong, but a little of google, didn't really brought up all that many good arguments for hydrogen, but quite a few one for the opposite [calameo.com].
Re:Why? (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:2, Interesting)
Do you have any figures about this? Mobile air conditioners with COP of 2 or so are being developed these days (IPCC/TEAP special report, page 306 [www.mnp.nl]), and I can't imagine the energy consumption is significant compared to the actual transport, unless the temperature differences are extreme. I'm willing to be proven wrong, though.
Re:Still not..... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Al poduction consumes lots of energy (Score:4, Interesting)
Agreed, I like this method better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_hydrogen_production [wikipedia.org]
Not news (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Recycling aluminum (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 of ethanol and based on current production, actually increases the cost of gas per gallon. In other words, ethanol is more expensive per gallon than is gas. Even worse, contrary to popular myth, it still takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than you get out of it. Only in labs and in small scale research projects have they been able to achieve 100% efficiency, and no one is doing better than that in real, full scale production.
To make matters worse, corn requires vast quantities of water, is easily pest ridden, and can drastically suffer from drought. Assuming ethanol is the future of fuels for America makes one out to be an idiot; short of drastic technological improvements. Nothing about corn and ethanol make any sense unless your a corn farmer.
And far, far worse, the US is running out of water in its largest underwater aquifer. What does this mean? It likely means wider adoption of corn for fuel likely means wide spread famine and hugely increased food costs down the road. How so? If the nation becomes dependent on corn for ethanol and we suffer from wide spread drought (a very realistic scenario), do you honestly believe the nation will allow everything to come to a halt? Which is more likely, use of water, taken from our aquifers to create ethanol, or a country willing to pay $20/gallon? Exactly.
In the end, ethanol is as much a viable fuel source as farting into one's gas can. At least the later is economically feasible and doesn't run the risk of depleting out water supplies or endangering national security.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
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:
Re:Recycling aluminum (Score:4, Interesting)
First of all, I just recently bought a car that runs on 100% ethanol, a Brazilian 2009 Peugeot 207 [peugeot.com.br].
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.
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.
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 35000 ethanol stations in Brazil [wikipedia.org]
ROTFL
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?
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.
High Density Battery (Score:4, Interesting)
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.