• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Clean energy claim: Aluminum in your car tank

retiredgrunt45

Sr. Member
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Clean energy claim: Aluminum in your car tank
Professor says Energy Department ‘egos’ blocking hydrogen breakthrough

MSNBC
Updated: 7:54 p.m. ET May 18, 2007
A Purdue University engineer and National Medal of Technology winner says he's ready and able to start a revolution in clean energy.

Professor Jerry Woodall and students have invented a way to use an aluminum alloy to extract hydrogen from water — a process that he thinks could replace gasoline as well as its pollutants and emissions tied to global warming.

But Woodall says there's one big hitch: "Egos" at the U.S. Department of Energy, a key funding source for energy research, "are holding up the revolution."

Woodall says the method makes it unnecessary to store or transport hydrogen — two major challenges in creating a hydrogen economy.

"The hydrogen is generated on demand, so you only produce as much as you need when you need it," he said in a statement released by Purdue this week.

So instead of having to fill up at a station, hydrogen would be made inside vehicles in tanks about the same size as today's gasoline tanks. An internal reaction in those tanks would create hydrogen from water and 350 pounds worth of special pellets.

"No extra room would be needed," Woodall said, "and the added weight would be the equivalent of an extra passenger, albeit a pretty large extra passenger."

The hydrogen would then power an internal combustion engine or a fuel cell stack.

"It's a simple matter to convert ordinary internal combustion engines to run on hydrogen," Woodall said. "All you have to do is replace the gasoline fuel injector with a hydrogen injector."

How it works
Here's how it all happens: Hydrogen is generated spontaneously when water is added to pellets of the alloy, which is made of aluminum and a metal called gallium.

"When water is added to the pellets, the aluminum in the solid alloy reacts because it has a strong attraction to the oxygen in the water," Woodall said. "No toxic fumes are produced."

This reaction splits the oxygen and hydrogen contained in water, releasing hydrogen in the process.

An electrical and computer engineering professor, Woodall first discovered the basic process while working as a researcher in the semiconductor industry in 1967.

"I was cleaning a crucible containing liquid alloys of gallium and aluminum," Woodall said. "When I added water to this alloy — talk about a discovery — there was a violent poof. I went to my office and worked out the reaction in a couple of hours to figure out what had happened. When aluminum atoms in the liquid alloy come into contact with water, they react, splitting the water and producing hydrogen and aluminum oxide."

That research led to advances in cell phones, solar cells, optical-fiber communications and light-emitting diodes, and earned Woodall the 2001 National Medal of Technology from President Bush.

In recent years, Woodall built a team of Purdue electrical, mechanical, chemical and aeronautical engineering students to fine-tune the process.

[Cost speed bumps
The Purdue Research Foundation holds title to the primary patent. And a startup company, AlGalCo LLC, has received a license for the exclusive right to commercialize the process.

But there are some speed bumps on the highway to hydrogen.

With internal combustion engines, the cost of recycling the aluminum oxide must be reduced to make the process competitive with gasoline at $3 a gallon.

"Right now it costs more than $1 a pound to buy aluminum, and, at that price, you can't deliver a product at the equivalent of $3 per gallon of gasoline," Woodall said.

That cost could come way down, he figures, if the recycling is done with electricity from  nuclear power plants, wind turbines or even solar power plants if economically viable. The aluminum oxide and gallium would be shipped to such plants, using electrolysis to break the oxide back down to aluminum, Woodall said, "and we start the cycle all over again."

If used in fuel cells, the process would be economically competitive with gasoline, Woodall noted. "Using pure hydrogen, fuel cell systems run at an overall efficiency of 75 percent, compared to 40 percent using hydrogen extracted from fossil fuels and with 25 percent for internal combustion engines," Woodall said.

But the fuel cell systems themselves are still much more expensive and less reliable than internal combustion engines. "When and if fuel cells become economically viable, our method would compete with gasoline at $3 per gallon even if aluminum costs more than a dollar per pound," Woodall said.

Funding speed bump
For Woodall, the biggest speed bump lies elsewhere. "The egos of program managers at DOE are holding up the revolution," he told MSNBC.com.

"Remember that Einstein was a patent examiner and had no funding for his 1905 miracle year," Woodall added. "He did it on his own time. If he had been a professor at a university in the U.S. today and put in a proposal to develop the theory of special relativity it would have been summarily rejected.

"Likewise, since I won my National Medal of Technology for compound semiconductors and not making hydrogen, DOE does not recognize me as a member of the club." As evidence, Woodall said DOE last summer rejected two "pre-proposals" for funding, "i.e., I was not invited to send in full proposals on my work."

/Patrick Davis, who heads the DOE hydrogen program, said he could not immediately comment. "We are in the middle of our annual program review (offsite, with 1000 attendees), so a vetted response through our press office is not possible until next week," he told msnbc.com in an e-mail.

Woodall said that his "bottom line" is that "it will take me a little longer to launch the revolution."

MSNBC.com will update this story with DOE's response when it is available.

  Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18700750/quote]

For all you chemical engineers out there, here's something to sink your gray matter into?

Seems to me that the old boys club "egos" and "DOE", yet again are holding up the process of allowing this idea to be real world tested. What are they afraid of? Maybe that it might actually work?
 
Now, I'm not a world renowned scientist or engineer (or any thing else for that matter), but I do know a few things about chemical reactions, internal combustion engines and how they go together.

I'm going to give the good Dr some lee way in that he over simplified a few things so "the public" would understand what he was talking about, but there are a couple of key points that he never really mentioned that put substantial barriers in the way of his process becoming the next big thing.

1) There is more to burning hydrogen in a standard engine than just putting in a new injector. You would also need an entire new fuel delivery system (pump, lines, seals, etc). Can you imagine running hydrogen through a rubber/synthetic hose? Not all fuel lines are pressurized steel lines.
2) The oxidization of Aluminum is an exothermic reaction. Hydrogen and aluminum oxide would be two of the main outputs, HEAT (and lots of it) would be the third. The more rapid the oxidization, the greater the heat generated. The tank would have to be extremely well insulated and it would be rather difficult to extract the hydrogen from the tank using the standard high pressure fuel pump in today's fuel injected vehicles.
3) He's basing all his profitability numbers on $3/gallon. What kind of research and development plan bets on continually high (record high) world prices? If you want to really make a difference, try and base it on $1/gallon or make it equivalent to $3/gallon but get 75 miles/gallon. With the efficiency ratings Woodall himself quotes, that's not going to be happening anytime soon.

Sounds to me like he's just bitching he didn't get any grant money. If I was in charge of giving out gov't money for research, I'd want a few basic questions answered first (such as "Just how will current vehicles be able to use this power system without complete fuel system changes.")

Wook
 
stealthylizard said:
Isn't there also a water shortage around the world (fresh water)?

That's my problem with this system and many proposals that use hydrogen, they often use water which is essential for life, which we have limited supplies.
 
van Gemeren said:
That's my problem with this system and many proposals that use hydrogen, they often use water which is essential for life, which we have limited supplies.
When you "combust" hydrogen, you get water.
 
There is not one less drop of water on this planet, other than astronaut pee, than there was before we ever emerged from the seas.  Potable water is a different story. The "water shortage" is a misnomer, more of a "polluted water surplus".  As a bonus, the water produced by hydrogen "combustion" is a lot more pure than the stuff in your taps at home.
 
Eowyn said:
When you "combust" hydrogen, you get water.

You're right (now I remember) and that's why I almost failed chemistry 5 years ago in highschool.  :(

Kat Stevens said:
There is not one less drop of water on this planet, other than astronaut pee, than there was before we ever emerged from the seas.  Potable water is a different story. The "water shortage" is a misnomer, more of a "polluted water surplus".  As a bonus, the water produced by hydrogen "combustion" is a lot more pure than the stuff in your taps at home.

To work at maximum efficiency, wouldn't the water have to start pure before it goes into the engine? If not, then it would be a good way to purify water.
 
Kat Stevens said:
There is not one less drop of water on this planet, other than astronaut pee, than there was before we ever emerged from the seas. 

This isn't entirely correct.  On a large enough timeline, there is balance to this, but one example is a cathodic reaction (rusting, essentially) where the electrolyte is water which is 2 H2O + O2 + 4 e -> 4 OH. 

Any water that is used should be polished to the point that it will not damage the equipment, cost too much to do, or take too long.  I would think that a series of pot filters with de-ionization would work here.

The article does sound like a whine though.  I would like money for some of my more crackpot ideas as well please.

 
Back
Top