Slashdot Mirror


The Car That Makes Its Own Fuel

Spy der Mann writes "A unique system that can produce Hydrogen inside a car using common metals such as Magnesium and Aluminum was recently developed by an Israeli company. The system solves all of the obstacles associated with the manufacturing, transporting and storing of hydrogen to be used in cars. And it's completely emission free."

56 of 534 comments (clear)

  1. FP BS! by schematix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    first post to call bullshit! :: cough ::

    --
    Scott
    1. Re:FP BS! by ElBorba · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, seriously, I don't think you can mod this troll. This "article" is pulled from some sort of promotional flier or something. Not only is there a complete lack of any type of criticism but there's no hint as to what sorts of infrastructure would really be required to implement this "thing". I'm all for supporting the sciences and research and hey, I'm even psyched for the eventual advent of hydrogen or other yet unnamed types of personal transportation, but this piece makes it sound like a done deal when there's nothing at all in the article to make any judgement about...
       
      ...other than the fact that the fuel coil will be 3 TIMES THE WEIGHT OF A CONVENTIONAL PETROL TANK.

      --
      "The Borba"
    2. Re:FP BS! by Furmy · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Weizzmann Institute (from TFA) doesn't list it on their Press Release page

      They did figure out how to get hydrogen using solar energy, but that was announced back in April.

    3. Re:FP BS! by Technician · · Score: 5, Interesting

      .other than the fact that the fuel coil will be 3 TIMES THE WEIGHT OF A CONVENTIONAL PETROL TANK.

      Anybody want to venture the supply problems of supplying about 100 Lbs of magnesium wire per commuter per week. The article seems to claim it won't cost more than petrol. Petrol is delivered by pipeline or tanker. Pumps and hoses won't deliver the wire. In reality, is there enough of this metal to support a fuel infrastructure?

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    4. Re:FP BS! by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually the link I submitted was a physorg one. IIRC, physorg doesn't publish BS articles.

      Or am I wrong? :-/

    5. Re:FP BS! by arivanov · · Score: 4, Informative

      Seconded.

      It has emissions and of a very ugly kind. True, Al will happily give hydrogen when whacked with a hyperheated steam. It is the well known firefighters rule of "never try to extinguish burning Aluminium with water".

      There is a problem though - under controlled condition the reaction results in colloidal Alx(OH)y/AlxOy suspension which is a right mess. Its mechanical properies are all over the place so you cannot filter it, separate it or deal with it by any reasonable means. So the idea is a BS for most applications.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    6. Re:FP BS! by nurmr · · Score: 3, Funny

      I find it amusing that your sig says use Coral Cache! but you don't.

    7. Re:FP BS! by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 4, Informative
      first post to call bullshit! :: cough ::

      And the First Post that didn't deserve to be moderated OT too.

      The car, contrary to the Slashdot editor letting this one through when they shouldn't have in its posted form does not make its own fuel. It runs on water and aluminum or magnesium.

      Now if it mined those elements and refined them in the process and still had a postive energy output then yes, the article summary would have been accurate.

      It doesn't. It's not!

      --
      "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    8. Re:FP BS! by antic · · Score: 4, Informative


      Using metals as a fuel source is the cover article on the current New Scientist:

      Metal: The fuel of the future
      http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18825221.100 .html

      --
      'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
    9. Re:FP BS! by orzetto · · Score: 4, Informative

      The main bullshit of the article boils down to this sentence:

      Beside the obvious advantages of the system, such as the inexpensive and abundant fuel, [...]

      The fuel, i.e. aluminium or magnesium, is neither inexpensive nor abundant, in fact Al and Mg are completely nonexistant in nature in their unbound form. Since pure Al and Mg are so reactive, they don't last long in nature, and must be produced by electrolysis in liquid-metal, power-intensive plants. There's a reason why bike frames in aluminium are more expensive than ones in steel.

      Since the article says also that the car "... needs a metal coil three-times heavier than an equivalent petrol tank.", one wonders why in the world we should not then use simple pressurised hydrogen-gas tanks then.

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    10. Re:FP BS! by senatorpjt · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I deal with organoaluminum reactions all the time, which produce aluminum hydroxides on workup. The colloidal aluminum hydroxide sludge can be treated with sodium hydroxide to convert it to a filterable consistency.

      In fact, I think that lithium aluminum hydride (and various other light metal hydrides) has been mentioned as a possible hydrogen storage source. I don't know anything more about it than it's been mentioned (specifically, how they plan to regenerate it, LAH isn't exactly cheap)

    11. Re:FP BS! by yog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem with "solutions" like this H2-from-Mg idea is that it doesn't solve the real problem, which is cars. We badly need alternatives to private automobiles in the U.S. for both energy reasons and for safety. 37,000 people dying a year in automobile accidents in the U.S. alone is ridiculous. If the U.S. went to war over 3,000 deaths in 2001 then surely it can get more worked up over the ongoing slaughter on the roads (albeit largely alcohol-induced).

      Take some of that aluminum and magnesium and make bicycles out of it. Paint stripes on all the regular city thoroughfares reserving space for bike lanes. Give people health insurance discounts for riding bikes, and give them secure, covered spots to park at work. Let them carry bikes on public buses and trains.

      Speaking of buses and trains, put hundreds of billions of $ into public transportation and solar power panels on all public buildings rather than defending some oil fields in some miserable patch of desert in the middle east.

      I see these online discussions about how many years it would take to make a hybrid's cost pay for itself. I suggest taxing the heck out of gas guzzler cars and *make* the fuel efficient versions worthwhile. It's crazy that you have to pay a $3000 surcharge for a hybrid electric vehicle, for example, over a regular gas guzzler that is literally funding war and terrorism in the Middle East.

      --
      it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
  2. Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I can produce methane inside my body using only common vegetables such as beans. OK, so it's not emission free.

  3. Example of moving the pollution elsewhere by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the article referenced by the Slashdot story: "The metal atoms will bond to the Oxygen from the water, creating metal oxide. As a result, the Hydrogen molecules are free, and will be sent into the engine alongside the steam."

    This is just an example of moving the pollution elsewhere. The metal must be refined, at great cost to the environment. Then it is oxidized in a "pollution free" car.

    1. Re:Example of moving the pollution elsewhere by shmlco · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Not to mention that, according to TFA, each "coil" lasts about as long as a normal tank of gas. As such, I still have to build an entire refining, distribution, refueling, and recycling network from scratch. In which case the summary is wrong, "The system solves all of the obstacles associated with the manufacturing, transporting and storing of hydrogen to be used in cars."

      Sounds like there's still an obstacle or three in the way...

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    2. Re:Example of moving the pollution elsewhere by plover · · Score: 5, Informative
      The obstacles TFA is referring to are obstacles dealing with gaseous hydrogen.

      There is currently not a distribution system for delivery of gaseous fuels direct to consumers at the scale required to power our cars. There are some small-scale delivery systems (propane, for example) but those still require a trained handler and other special steps -- you typically can't pump your own propane, propane needs to be stored outdoors in a ventilated cabinet, etc. And the infrastructure for propane is small: a couple hundred gallons per homeowner per winter up here where it's cold, maybe a few tanks for cooking in the summer, that's it. There aren't nearly enough trucks and tanks required to provide fuel for all vehicles if they were suddenly converted to propane.

      Even if the safety issues were handled technologically, neither propane nor natural gas are ready for "the final mile". Most homeowners don't have an existing gas "tap" where they can hook a hose up to their car, so they'd require new plumbing. For that matter, home delivery of natural gas is pretty much restricted to metro areas in northern states: it's not currently available in the far south or in rural areas. To make it available everywhere else would require a huge investment in pipes.

      Then there's the problem with the storage of hydrogen or any gaseous fuel. For there to be enough energy to power a vehicle for any useful distance, a fairly large quantity of it needs to be highly compressed. Where do you put a large pressure vessel in a car so that if it's in an accident it has the lowest risk of rupturing? If you've ever seen even a small tank of high pressure gas rupture, you'll realize some of the danger. Now, make that gas highly flammable, and you'll be even more unhappy.

      The idea of a magnesium coil as a fuel source is a good one. It could distributed in user-replaceable reusable metal boxes, each containing a humanly-portable 20kg of fuel, and having room for an equal amount of oxidized waste. Assuming a well-designed non-sparking container it would require no special handling, and would be remarkably inert. It would also be quite safe in most accidents, even those involving the fuel containers themselves.

      These boxes can be carried by ordinary trucks. They would not require specialized tankers like propane or even gasoline. Any existing trucking firm could safely handle boxes of this product as is. And you could buy and sell them anywhere, not just fuel stations: a grocery store, discounter, convenience store, wherever. They would have no foul or toxic smells or hazardous liquids, and would run the same risk of accidental ignition as any other flammable metal, which is to say: not a lot. If you've ever tried to ignite magnesium or aluminum, you're probably aware of the amount of heat required to get it to sustain flame.

      The part of the story that requires the most handwaving is the "mining" of the fuel. Both aluminium and magnesium are naturally found in the oxidized state (much like the spent fuel from the vehicle itself.) The amount of energy required to refine the metal is immense. Keep in mind that you cannot get something for nothing; that means the energy required to refine it must be higher than the amount of energy retrieved from the metal when it is burned. And that means huge amounts of electrical energy will be needed to produce a fuel stream. With an emphasis on reducing costly oil consumption, with today's technology that would basically mean lots of new nuclear reactors will be required.

      Think of the magnesium more like a "rechargeable battery", storing electrical energy in the form of unoxidized metal. It's still going to require energy that comes from somewhere else.

      --
      John
    3. Re:Example of moving the pollution elsewhere by shmlco · · Score: 4, Insightful
      You're being very reasonable here, but I think you need to go back to the article as there's a small detail lurking there that you seem to have missed. We're talking about boxes three times the weight (220 pounds) of an equivalent tank of gas. As such, I don't see a gas station attendent or driver casually unloading a standard delivery truck full of "gas".

      From TFA, "Refuelling the car based on this technology will also be remarkably simple. The vehicle will contain a mechanism for rolling the metal wire into a coil during the process of fuelling and the spent metal oxide, which was produced in the previous phase, will be collected from the car by vacuum suction."

      So, functionally, we need to load a "pump" with several tons of metal wire, and then suck the waste back out again for disposal.

      That being the case, I suspect the infrastructure requirements in terms of loading, transportation, unloading, fueling, and recovery might be a bit more involved than you, or the author or the article, make them out to be.

      "Remarkably simple," indeed.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    4. Re:Example of moving the pollution elsewhere by shawb · · Score: 4, Funny

      it is unfair to expect a car to be run on water or air or dirt. and solar technology is not good enough yet for a solar car

      Why is it unfair? I can think of a self replicating transportation device which is powered by the result of proper application of water, air, dirt and solar energy. Technically, an initial seeding device uses solar power to combine water and air into the fuel used, and generally creates more copies of the special seeding device in the process, sometimes the copies are imperfect though leading to changes in the fuel delivery system. This fuel creation device does needs adequate application of other chemicals, such as nitrates, phosphates and trace metals, but these can be extracted directly from the soil by a fuel production plant. Additionally, byproducts from the transportion device itself can be used to replenish the chemicals used. Although improper disposal of the byproducts may be noxious and pose a potential health risk.

      These devices are often matched up in speed competitions, similar to automobile races. This remarkable system has been used to great effect in law enforcement and military operations for quite some time now. This device has also seen great success in farming and ranching operations.

      There has been discussion of adapting this technology for flight, however most experts find the idea is not feasible to implement. Repair of malfunctioning units does require specially trained technicians and it takes delicate care to reassemble any broken parts, although there is a limited repair system built in to the device.

      Oh, and a lot of girls find men who get around using this method to be far more attractive than a guy who drive a Prius.

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    5. Re:Example of moving the pollution elsewhere by Vellmont · · Score: 3, Funny


      Personally, I prefer activism to terrorism.

      Personally, I prefer not taking signatures so literally.

      --
      AccountKiller
  4. Sounds like BS by pinkocommie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Reading the article it says the way it works is by superheating water and using a metal catalyst to seperate H2 and O using the super heated steam and hydrogen to fuel the car. The problem not mentioned at all in the article is where does the super heated water come from?

    1. Re:Sounds like BS by theguywhosaid · · Score: 5, Funny

      Forced hot air from press releases?

    2. Re:Sounds like BS by anOminousCow · · Score: 5, Informative

      The superheated water and H2 come from the magnesium metal reacting with water. The metal oxidizes, gives off heat, and releases the hydrogen part of the water. However, there's still the problem of obtaining the metal in the first place.

      --
      Spokesbossy for ominous cow herds everywhere.
  5. Nice but... by lothar97 · · Score: 4, Informative
    The second article in as many months. I now know of a second target for big oil.

    In all seriousness, I wish them success. It remains to be seen whether they can create an efficient system for collecting the corroded/expended metal. How often do you see puddles of leaked material under a car? No mention of how much "metal oxide" this venicle produces, but I cannot imagine it's something we want leaked onto the ground.

    I'd put my money on the H2N-Gen, but then again that guy's being sued for patent infringment.

    --

  6. No no no no by ericdano · · Score: 4, Funny

    No no. This simply can not be. The Oil companies, with their record profits, are developing this type of thing. If they haven't come up with it, then it simply does not exist.

    --
    It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
    I moderate therefore I rule!
    --
  7. Where do Slashdot editors come from? by Ancil · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The Hydrogen car Engineuity is working on will use metals such as Magnesium or Aluminum which will come in the form of a long coil.
    Is there any posibility we could send the entire slashdot editorial board to a class called "Thermodynamics 101"?

    Actually, a lot of Hydrogen Economy True Believers need to enroll in that same class. Nothing against hydrogen per se, but half the nation seems to think of it as an energy source, which of course it isn't..

    1. Re:Where do Slashdot editors come from? by Quirk · · Score: 4, Informative
      Is there any posibility we could send the entire slashdot editorial board to a class called "Thermodynamics 101"?

      I nominate the entire DOE Handbooks, not only for the /. editors but for the most part of /.ers overall, myself included. DOE-HDBK-1012/1-92 will cover Thermodynamics, Heat Transfer, and Fluid Flow. The math and science DOE Handbooks are a great free, downloadable resource. The basics of Physics, Chemistry, Electricity, Materials science, Reactor science and attendant math are all covered.

      The DOE Handbooks are a rich resource that cover every aspect of implementing and running an organization. The books cover disputes, roundtables, the list is very nearly all encompassing.

      Nothing speaks to independence like your own in house nuclear reactor and the DOE Handbooks guide you through nearly every step of the way.

      --
      "Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
      Cohen
  8. Bollocks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yes, you can get hydrogen out of acids by combining them with metals like aluminium or magnesium -- or hell, even sodium with water. But the cost of refining these metals in the first place is very high.

    For instance, aluminium is produced by electrolysis: the ore is dissolved in cryolite, and the pure metal produced by passing an electric current through it. (Details)

    There's a number of aluminium smelters in Australia (my home country); at least one of these has its own dedicated power plant, burning brown coal to produce its electricity.

    So no, it's not "making its own fuel". The fuel is the refined metal and the acids (or water) that are combined with them to make the hydrogen gas. The fact that burning the hydrogen is what generates the useful energy is irrelevant to this point. The pollution is shifted to wherever the power to make the metals is produced.

    When it comes to energy, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

    1. Re:Bollocks. by jazman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      > The pollution is shifted to wherever the power to make the metals is produced.

      True. But how does it compare with zillions of cars worldwide being started in the morning on full choke? If Al/Mg/Zn/whatever can be produced at a power plant that runs continuously at peak efficiency, then ok it's still polluting but it's better than what we currently have.

      One enormous benefit of this approach is that the raw materials are completely recycled. Burn oil, you have no oil left. Convert Mg to MgO and back again and you still have your original Mg.

      A completely pollution free solution this is not. But it's an improvement, no?

  9. Re:I don't get it... by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 4, Informative

    I don't get it... What does a built in vacuuem have to do with fuel?

    remove the used magnesium oxide. Essentially, the waste is contained in the car instead of spewed out, and I think there is a use for magnesium oxide. Also they need to change the water. Since they have to take stuff out of the tank, refueling is a bit more complicated.

  10. Re:Article Text by Zen+Punk · · Score: 5, Funny

    I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your press releases.

    --
    Sleep is futile.
  11. /. editors played video games in science class. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 5, Informative

    One thing I've learned over the years: Slashdot editors aren't much interested in science. The publish a lot of pseudo-science articles, or nonsense science articles like this one.

    The issue here is that the process works, but it is very expensive in energy, because the metal oxide must be refined.

    Anyhow, there is nothing new in the referenced article. The fact that it is possible to produce hydrogen using reactive metals has been known since perhaps 1860, maybe much earlier.

    If I remember correctly, there was an explosion in Antoine Laurent Lavoisier's lab caused by hydrogen released by heating with metal. Mr. Lavoisier died in 1794, and not from the explosion.

  12. obSimpsons reference by furiousgeorge · · Score: 4, Funny

    LISA! In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!!

  13. Re:Too good to be true by anOminousCow · · Score: 3, Informative

    Read about magnesium on wikipedia. It's a very reactive metal. Put it this way - you don't want to have a pile of magnesium shavings sitting around your house. If it catches fire, there's no way of putting it out. It can 'burn' without oxygen, in a pure nitrogen atmosphere.

    --
    Spokesbossy for ominous cow herds everywhere.
  14. Google News Headline, 23rd October 2040 by Wolfier · · Score: 4, Funny

    Water price dips to $50 a barrel...

  15. Re:/. editors played video games in science class. by Max+Romantschuk · · Score: 3, Interesting
    One thing I've learned over the years: Slashdot editors aren't much interested in science. The publish a lot of pseudo-science articles, or nonsense science articles like this one.


    This is the very kind of article that belongs on Slashdot. The whole point of posting something like this is having it taken apart and scrutinized by the Slashdot community.

    How much fun would an article be was bullet proof? There would be nothing to say about it.
    --
    .: Max Romantschuk :: http://max.romantschuk.fi/
  16. Let's do some math... by Darth+Cow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    100kg of aluminum costs around $200 at ~$2/kg. Looking at the graph on this page for Aluminum manufacturing costs, about 75% of the cost is raw materials and supplies (mostly the aluminum). So that's at least $50 net to fill up your "tank" assuming perfect effeciency in converting that aluminum.

    Neglecting the costs of taking the recycled aluminum oxide out of your car and turning it back into Al rods, the maintaince costs for the fuel station, infrastructure costs to build all this, and so forth. Shipping costs will of course astronomically climb since metal can only be transfered in by train, truck or ship unlike cheap pipelines and is also no longer an easily moveable liquid. Nevermind the cost of your aluminum powered car itself, or the engineering difficulties inherent in moving a 100kg metal coil into your engine, this "upgrade" is already going to break the bank.

    I think I'll leave the hydrogen production outside of the vehicle, thank you. Nice try, but no dice.

  17. "Emission free", my ass! by Kymermosst · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And it's completely emission free.

    Ah, so the processes for gaining the aluminum and magnesium are completely green! The mining does no damage, getting the the metals out of the ore releases no pollutants and the process takes no nasty chemicals or fuel.

    What a revolution!

    --
    "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
  18. Re:FP BS!, Al smelters? Not in the USA by jimmydevice · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Aluminum plants are being demolished at an amazing rate. A plant in Troutdale Or. I had done work for in 2001 was leveled. Likewise most of the existing aluminum plants in the USA have been flattened due to energy costs. Sounds like a great way to save energy, reduce alumina to aluminum and then reduce aluminum to alumina.
    I doubt there is enough smelter capacity to supply beer can and airplane part requirements without recycling the metal that is in the system.
    BTW: Beer can metal is a top grade alloy. Last I heard, 27 cans/Lb.

  19. Re:FP BS!, Al smelters? Not in the USA by Technician · · Score: 3, Informative

    A plant in Troutdale Or. I had done work for in 2001 was leveled.

    I have more information on that.

    The plant operated with reduced energy costs. They bought excess BPA power wholsale, not retail. This included shutting down operation when surplus power (spring runoff from hydro power, low residentual heating demand, not yet heavy AC season in LA) was in short supply. Even with cheap energy costs, the cost of operation finaly failed to make economic sense.

    Sounds like a great way to save energy, reduce alumina to aluminum and then reduce aluminum to alumina.


    If anyone thinks aluminum and other metal prices are not related to the rising price of energy, they have not been paying attention.

    When gas prices then electric prices go up, so does smeltering costs.. This is not a breakthrough in high fuel prices.

    --
    The truth shall set you free!
  20. Re:/. editors played video games in science class. by einhverfr · · Score: 4, Informative


    Man, are you stupid. The entire freaking Sun is filled with metal oxide.


    Sorry, there ought to be a Godwin's law about calling people stupid.

    My grandmother was G. R. Caughlin (as in Fowler, Caughlin, and Zimmerman-- the authors of s seminal paper on the generation of elements in stars). Some of their figures have been refined by others but the general theories seem to hold. So while I may not be an astrophysicist, I am not entirely unfamiliar with the field either.

    Part of the problem with your theory is that metal oxides don't exist in the sun in any way you might think. First, stars are powered by fusion of hydrogen and helium (in terms of alpha capture-- you have the possibility of three helium nuclei fusing to form Carbon12). C12 can then capture another alpha particle (helium nucleus) to form Oxygen. Although I don't really understand the rest of the physics, I gather that many of the heavier elements are generated in the stars through other processes as the star ages. So for the sun, I would expect most of the sun to consist of Hydrogen, Helium, Carbon, and Oxygen.

    (Hydrogen is fused into helium, 3 heliums become carbon, carbon + helium becomes oxygen. The Oxygen does not seem to fuse at these temperatures though one wonders about neutron capture.)

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  21. Re:why yes! by seaniqua · · Score: 4, Informative

    Aluminum doesn't spontaneously oxidize when you leave it out in a 21% oxygen atmosphere, does it?

    Actually, it does. In all likelihood, you've never actually seen pure aluminum, just aluminum oxide. The reason that we can have things such as aluminum foil or aluminum can is that aluminum oxide forms an airtight barrier, preventing the underlying aluminum from further oxidation. Aluminum is exposed when you tear the foil, but it (nearly instantly) oxidises and reforms the protective layer. This becomes an issue in bulk processing of aluminum for powder (for things like paint and some pyrotechnic compositions). If the aluminum is not "burped" in the process of breaking down the particles, the powder will absorb all of the oxygen in the container, and the newly exposed surface area will cease to oxidise. When the lid id opened, "poof!" all of the unoxidised Al is suddenly exposed to a supply of O2, and a fast, exothermic reaction takes place. Being a highly reactive metal in a finely powdered state, this is BAD, but I digress...

    --
    That's right, I read at +2 and post at +1. Not even I care what I have to say.
  22. Re:/. editors played video games in science class. by Ariane+6 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Only up to Iron. After that they're all made in supernovae, as iron fusion is endothermic.

  23. Metal-Air batteries by klic · · Score: 3, Insightful
    There are already systems that convert metals into oxides, producing power. They are called batteries. They are heavy, because metal atoms are a lot more massive for a lot less energy per reaction than hydrocarbon fuels.

    That said, this is a bass-ackwards way to do something that was done better at Livermore perhaps 30 years ago ( you can find a reference in the old "Access to Energy" newsletter by Petr Beckmann, if any of those are online ). Some Lawrence Livermore scientists developed a metal-air battery, which produced electricity directly from the reaction of the metal (aluminum or zinc plates, IIRC) with air via some catalytic electrode system. Like the Israeli system, you ended up with powdered metal oxide. Unlike the Israeli indirect-combustion system, the metal-air battery efficiencies were high and direct drive electrical power was produced, so you could control power to the wheels, do regenerative braking, etc. Since the metal-air battery produces electricity directly, the energy efficiency is probably 4X to 5X better than a hydrogen generator feeding a heat engine. With the metal-air battery you also can get the additional efficiency of a hybrid-type vehicle, so my guess is that you have 10X to 20X more energy efficiency than the Israeli Metal / Hydrogen / Internal Combustion / Mechanical Linkage system.

    The Livermore engineers did not use magnesium, or sodium, or lithium, or other light metals. These metals pack higher energy density than aluminum. They also easy to ignite and burn very easily, with flames that are impossible to put out in air (sodium even burns in water). Yes, hydrogen burns faster (Hindenburg! Hindenburg! Oooooh scary!). But hydrogen burns UP, while burning metal just stays around and does a thermite/napalm number on you and your car. A magnesium slab in a car is NOT safer than a hydrogen tank in a car.

    Even with the much better efficiency, Air-Metal batteries are not practical. It takes far too much energy to refine the metal, and handling metal and debris, cleaning the system, etc. are all far too much work. Now divide the value by 20, and wonder what those Israelis are smoking ...

    P.S. Some researchers claim that the Hindenburg caught fire because of the ignition of the highly volatile doped fabric, which in turn set fire to the metal in the dirigible frame. The hot hydrogen vented upwards, remember, heating up the air far above the Hindenburg, but not affecting the passengers underneath. They got roasted by the burning dirigible body.

    --
    Keith Lofstrom server-sky.com
  24. Perpetuum mobile or what? by haraldm · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The article doesn't say a couple of things:

    a) The metal industry will need energy to make the wires. Al, for one, uses a hell of a lot of electrical energy to be produced (not sure about Mg). Where does the electrical energy come from? Some more nuclear power plants? Thank you. (1)

    b) What about the infrastructure needed to carry the wires along? More trucks on the road? Powered by what? In Europe: Thank you.

    c) How much water is needed to make enough Hydrogen to get the power of a conventional car? Has this amount of water been added to the additional weight and size of the car? Even if the weight of the coil does not affect the performance of the car, the coil and the water will add to the weight, and hence reduce the overall efficiency.

    d) What is the efficiency behind the in-car process?

    e) What overall ecologic efficiency can be reached, as compared to other technologies?

    I admit the metal industry and the large energy corporations may not be that interested in answering all these questions. The photo of the car on the web site suggests this technology is ready to go. IMHO it has a LONG way to go.

    OK, let's move on.

    (1) And an excellent idea for the developing countries as well, where the track record of safe nuclear power plants is that long.

    --
    open (SIG, "</dev/zero"); $sig = <SIG>; close SIG;
    1. Re:Perpetuum mobile or what? by v1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Lets just address these in order.

      a) yes Al takes a lot of energy to make. we would call this a "high energy density" material. This is a good thing, not a bad thing. It means we can put more energy in a smaller (or lighter) package. Gasoline is not incredbily energy-dense. One way or another you have to put energy into the process of creating fuel. The only difference with petrolium is the energy has already been put in, and it just needs to be processed for us to use easily. Since you have to put energy into it, a source like nuclear power actually makes a great deal of sense. It's highly renewable, low pollution, and provides a very large amount of energy.

      b) um, the trucks can be wire-powered too, y'know. It'd be kinda silly for them NOT to be wire powered.

      c) Water will add to the weight, yes. I don't know all the physics, but in general I know you can get a LOT of hydrogen out of a little water. A system like this may require occasional refilling. On a guess I'd say you might need to tank up on water every 100 miles or so. The water is after all the source of your hydrogen, the wire is the source of the energy. This also greatly increases the safety of the vehicle, because there is no need for a very high pressure hydrogen tank, and the associated hazards of refilling and transportation of hydrogen.

      d) As for efficiency, there is always heat. Since the system uses heat to crack the water, it's not going to be too far off in efficiency from a regular car. It actually may be less efficient, since there are two heat losses - you have to burn the hydrogen after all, and that too releases heat. This may not matter as much since the fuel source is more easily renewable.

      e) it's an interesting system when you examine it. You are using a wire to generate heat, to turn water into oxygen and hydrogen, and then BURNING that hydrogen (presumably with the oxygen you make, to improve efficiency) and that actually gets you... water. I suppose technically it may not need water refils because of this. But then if you look at that, you've come full circle. The only addition has been the wire being turned into physical motion. It's too bad they need to go through the water-to hydrogen-to water conversion but it provides a buffer that allows for fast accelleration etc. Considering the zero emissions and loss of reliance on fossil fuels, it sounds like a very good move, environmentally.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    2. Re:Perpetuum mobile or what? by Faw · · Score: 4, Informative

      The photo of the car on the web site suggests this technology is ready to go. IMHO it has a LONG way to go.

      That car is actually a Ford concept car it is the Shelby GR-1.

    3. Re:Perpetuum mobile or what? by GungaDan · · Score: 3, Funny

      "in general I know you can get a LOT of hydrogen out of a little water"

      Roughly 2 atoms per molecule would be my guess.

      --
      Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
    4. Re:Perpetuum mobile or what? by Viper+Daimao · · Score: 3, Funny

      Great, it runs on water.

      Price of gas - $2.50 a gallon.
      Price of water - $1.50 for 20oz.

      --
      "In the game of life, someone always has to lose. To me, if life were fair, that someone would always be Oklahoma." -DKR
    5. Re:Perpetuum mobile or what? by phlegmofdiscontent · · Score: 3, Informative

      "I know you can get a LOT of hydrogen out of a little water"

      Not really. 1 gram of water will yield .11 g of hydrogen. By comparison, though, 1 gram of methane (natural gas) yields .25 g of hydrogen, ethanol (sweet sweet alcohol) yields .13g of hydrogen, and gasoline will give on average .16 g of hydrogen. So really, water is not all that efficient if you want hydrogen. Overall, this implementation of a hydrogen vehicle doesn't seem that workable, especially compared to others I've seen.

    6. Re:Perpetuum mobile or what? by Ced_Ex · · Score: 4, Funny

      Great, it runs on water.

      Price of gas - $2.50 a gallon.
      Price of water - $1.50 for 20oz.


      Unless you're driving a racing version with high compression, you don't have to run on premium water like Evian for top performance.

      You can fill on regular tap water for a couple of cents per cubic metre. Or, if you're one of those environmentalist, you get an engine conversion done and you can get your water from sewage pipes and septic tanks for free!

      --
      Live forever, or die trying.
    7. Re:Perpetuum mobile or what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      a) yes Al takes a lot of energy to make. we would call this a "high energy density" material. This is a good thing, not a bad thing.

      It would be a good thing if it were true. The massive ammounts of energy used to reduce bauxite are mostly lost as waste heat. If they were actually stored in the material, this might be an efficient system to transport energy.

      Water will add to the weight, yes. I don't know all the physics, but in general I know you can get a LOT of hydrogen out of a little water.

      Well, I do know the physics involved. No, you can't get "a LOT" of hydrogen from water. Water is only 2/18 hydrogen by weight. So you only get 111 grams H2 per kg H2O. That's elementary chemistry. The heat of combustion of H2 is about 141 MJ/kg (IIRC), and the heat of combustion of gasoline is about 44 MJ/kg. But if you're only getting 11% H2 from water, then the effective heat of combustion from the products of electrolysis is about 16 MJ/kg of H2O. Therefore, even neglecting the weight of the metal, this is not a very energy dense system as you claim it to be.

      There so much wrong with the rest of your post, but I don't feel like addressing it. The FP had it right: this is bullshit.

    8. Re:Perpetuum mobile or what? by MythoBeast · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It would be a good thing if it were true. The massive ammounts of energy used to reduce bauxite are mostly lost as waste heat. If they were actually stored in the material, this might be an efficient system to transport energy.

      Actually, this is true. Thermite is a substance that burns at around 5000 degrees, and is capable of welding metal plates and destroying metal machinery. I've always wanted to see someone put a thermite grenade on top of one of those really big soda machines and watch it explode.

      Thermite is a mixture of aluminum shavings and rust. The heat is produced by the oxidation of the aluminum as oxygen is transfered from the rust. There's a car in the St. Louis Science Center that is entirely powered from that reaction. It's an experimental thing and I've never heard about why it wasn't practical, but I know it works.

      Haraldm is, in fact, correct in that they're just moving the energy production back to a central power plant, and the efficiency of the process is in question. Until they figure out how to turn bauxite into aluminum in solar furnaces, I'd say that this solution is not terribly effectual.

      In response to the "where do they get the water?" comment, distilleries figured out how to condense fluids from gasses centuries ago. Properly designed heat exchangers and condenser coils should notably limit the loss in that direction.

      All things said and done, either this isn't a complete idea, or they're hiding the rest of it because they think they're clever. It's certainly not a NEW idea, it's just feeding off the hype of "hydrogen fuel!", and propogating because people don't understand the thermodynamics of the process.

      --
      Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
    9. Re:Perpetuum mobile or what? by sillybilly · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're very right when it comes to hydrogen carrying capacity. You also need to haul around 24g Mg to make 2g H2, or 27g Al/3g H2. That's a big difference, though volumetrically may be competitive compared to the very low density of liquid H2 (0.13 g/cm3), or NiMH/Pt/Pd type hydrogen storage that achieves the same volumetric density, though at much higher weight.
      Lithium you'd need 7g Li/1g H2, beryllium(toxic) 9g Be/2g H2, and Boron 11g B/3g H2(though spontaneous reactivy is worse, so there is a reason why organic electrolyte lithium ion batteries use lithium.) Guess what? As you say it, carbon you need 12g /4g H2, but reactivity is the worst, plus, unlike any of the other stuff up to carbon, carbon oxides are gaseous and emittable. Methane is also gaseous, problematic to carry just like hydrogen gas was. As far as solids go, lithium borohydride has probably the highest hydrogen carrying capacity in a solid form that results in solid waste lithium borate, though it's expensive to make, and to recycle the lithium/boron back to the hydride.

      The obvious question with this metal solution is what do you do with your metal oxide? Dump it out on the asphalt behind you? Or haul it around with you? You certainly wouldn't be able to dump lithium borate, because it's so expensive, but if we're at dumping, you might burn metallic silicon (cheap, metallurgic grade purity prepared by non-carbon routes) to make quartz which is sand, which should be OK to dump behind you. You need 28g Si/4gH2, compared to 12g C, but the energy density of Si, on a weight basis is still close to that of C, because the Silicon oxide formation releases more heat than carbon dioxide formation, on a molar basis. Problem with silicon is that it's unreactive (also meaning that it's very safe,) and barely anything bites it at room temperature, while at high temperatures (molten silicates) your engine parts would wear out. (If these engine chambers are cheap, such as graphite molds, you might have a cheap consumable engine cavity that burns silicon, somehow harvests the energy, then recycle your whole engine cavity.) So anyway, dumping silicon dioxide would create a mess on the roads, and probably cause silicosis in all the drivers, so solid effluents from your car would suck. Even a carbon dioxide effluent is preferable to silicon dioxide, but hydrogen oxide is always the most preferable.

      Probably the best solution with such metals is to keep the "effluent" with you and haul it around, and exchange it at the nearest gas station. Lithium/boron stuff would still be expensive, would need recycling, but aluminium oxide capsules that you can just toss in the garbage would probably be more cost effective, even given the 27g Al/11g B ratio, because aluminum is more abundant, nontoxic, other than some correlation with the aluminum fluoride in it that may be causing Alzheimer's. As far as this Alzheimer's threat goes, there is an expensive nonfluoride aluminum production (carbochlorination), by the Alcoa/Toth aluminum company, that can even process clays into aluminum, silicon, etc, but nobody has bothered commercially so far to recylce the CO from the carbochlorination back to C and O2 via zirconia electrolysis, and even fluoride aluminum production these days releases mole per mole stoichiometric quantities of carbon, so you might as well just burn gasoline instead of aluminum, (or even silicon, pidgeon process magnesium. In fluoride/cryolite aluminum production they are coming up with new anodes (titanium diboride instead of graphite) that will require more electrical energy and be more expensive compared to cheap coal, but generate direct oxygen instead of carbon dioxide. The problem is that burning coal/carbon to carbon dioxide is the cheapest thing on the planet, replacing that with expensive electricity (hydro, nuclear, solar, wind,) well, it's just not cost competitive these days without some government push, either via regulations or via tax credits.

      Still, you waste a lot of available energy just converting the metal

  25. Actually its an old technique by crovira · · Score: 4, Informative

    It works too. It was used by the Nazis to produce hydrazine for a rocket propelled plane.

    That counts as irony.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  26. I know that car by Samurai+Mac · · Score: 3, Funny

    from somewhere... oh yeah! That's clearly a lifted picture of the Shelby GR-1 concept car at the top of their "press release."

    Here's a desktop version from Serious Wheels.com for you car nuts.

    Laugh!

    --
    "Why is it that every time I need to get somewhere we get waylaid by jackassery? PANTS!" - Doc Venture
  27. Physorg Link by duerra · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here is the link to the Article the Parent Submitted. Note that at the bottom of the page, it says that the posted was not the original article, and links to the original - which was the one that the Slashdot editor used.