Searching \ for '[EE]: [OT]: hydrogen/aluminium' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=hydrogenaluminium
Search entire site for: '[OT]: hydrogen/aluminium'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE]: [OT]: hydrogen/aluminium'
2002\09\18@053919 by Roman Black

flavicon
face
Also-Antal Csaba wrote:
>
> http://www.keelynet.com/energy/cornish.htm


A very interesting way of producing hydrogen! :o)

Bear in mind that hydrogen burnt in air is NOT a pollution
free fuel like hyd/oxy mix is. :o)

I did some research a few years back re using aluminium
as a fuel, and it is quite feasable depending on the
relative cost of alternative fuels. Australia is a large
producer of aluminium and it has a fairly low cost here,
in fact about 70% of the cost of the aluminium is the
energy needed to convert it from aluminium oxide to
pure aluminium, and when burnt or oxidised back to the
oxide form it can release a lot of energy.

If the alternate fuel cost is around twice the cost
of electricity then aluminium can be a cost effective
fuel. Aluminium bought as waste (ie cans) can be more
cost effective still and cans represent a relatively
fixed particle size to base combustion on.
-Roman

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
spam_OUTpiclist-unsubscribe-requestTakeThisOuTspammitvma.mit.edu


2002\09\18@064445 by Also-Antal Csaba

flavicon
face
> I did some research a few years back re using aluminium
> as a fuel, and it is quite feasable depending on the
> relative cost of alternative fuels. Australia is a large
> producer of aluminium and it has a fairly low cost here,
> in fact about 70% of the cost of the aluminium is the
> energy needed to convert it from aluminium oxide to
> pure aluminium, and when burnt or oxidised back to the
> oxide form it can release a lot of energy.

1 kg AL can be store 21.4KWh energy, this some as benzin. I think the
better way for free it is the Air Al cell. This looks like a fuel cell,
but need only one porous electrode for oxygen (from air) and the
electrolyte remain clean/strong because no water produced (no need
reverse osmosis mebran, etc.). The cell voltage is about .5V and the
efficiency is 90%. But difficult to change the used AL in the battery.
The Air-AL battery energy density is 800Wh/kg, but if possible to put
continuously the AL to battery and remove the ALO2,  I think will be
much more.


udv
Csaba

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
.....piclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspamspam@spam@mitvma.mit.edu


2002\09\18@092342 by Morgan Olsson

picon face
Also-Antal Csaba wrote 2002-09-18 enligt nedan:
>1 kg AL can be store 21.4KWh energy, this some as benzin.

Interesting!  Then as electric motor have about three-four times higher efficiency at nominal load than ugly Otto, then an Al-electic car would go *VERY* far :)

Do you know an Internet site about this?

I guess Al is more energy/mass than Zinc as Al have more electron/atom ions?
I just have never heard of Al cells before and did not thinkit was possible.

/Morgan

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
piclist-unsubscribe-requestspamKILLspammitvma.mit.edu


2002\09\18@112355 by Also-Antal Csaba

flavicon
face
Morgan Olsson wrote:
>
> Also-Antal Csaba wrote 2002-09-18 enligt nedan:
> >1 kg AL can be store 21.4KWh energy, this some as benzin.
>
> Interesting!  Then as electric motor have about three-four times higher efficiency at nominal load than ugly Otto, then an Al-electic car would go *VERY* far :)

Yes, the efficiency of the asynchrony motor (which have big starting
force) is about 92..95% on 30..100kW power range. The otto motor is
about 30..38% and the diesel motor is 35..50%. But big question how you
produce electricity for make AL from bauxit/AL02.


> Do you know an Internet site about this?
>
> I guess Al is more energy/mass than Zinc as Al have more electron/atom ions?
> I just have never heard of Al cells before and did not thinkit was possible.

I think this some as all metal -> Faraday II. law. But if you make a
battery from it, the result is not same. Big problem about AIR-AL
battery is the corrosion. No possible to make long life battery without
difficult mechanical parts.

udv
CSaba

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
.....piclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspamspam.....mitvma.mit.edu


2002\09\18@130256 by Roman Black

flavicon
face
Also-Antal Csaba wrote:

> > Also-Antal Csaba wrote:
> > >1 kg AL can be store 21.4KWh energy, this some as benzin.
> >
> > Interesting!  Then as electric motor have about three-four times higher efficiency at nominal load than ugly Otto, then an Al-electic car would go *VERY* far :)
>
> Yes, the efficiency of the asynchrony motor (which have big starting
> force) is about 92..95% on 30..100kW power range. The otto motor is
> about 30..38% and the diesel motor is 35..50%.
> But big question how you
> produce electricity for make AL from bauxit/AL02.


The energy used to make pure Al from the naturally
occuring oxide form is heat energy bought generally
as coal or natural gas, whatever is mega-cheap in
that area and bought under bulk contracts by large
corporations. Hence this energy is bought much cheaper
than what an end user would pay for household
electricity etc. There is a margin that makes aluminium
a viable fuel if the alternatives are expensive.
What wrecks the idea is the low efficiency of
converting the heat energy released on Al oxidation
to usable energy.
-Roman

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
EraseMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu


2002\09\18@145808 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Also-Antal Csaba wrote:

*>1 kg AL can be store 21.4KWh energy, this some as benzin. I think the
*>better way for free it is the Air Al cell. This looks like a fuel cell,
*>but need only one porous electrode for oxygen (from air) and the
*>electrolyte remain clean/strong because no water produced (no need
*>reverse osmosis mebran, etc.). The cell voltage is about .5V and the
*>efficiency is 90%. But difficult to change the used AL in the battery.
*>The Air-AL battery energy density is 800Wh/kg, but if possible to put
*>continuously the AL to battery and remove the ALO2,  I think will be
*>much more.

Meanwhile there is this:

http://www.electric-fuel.com/

I can buy a 3.5Ah 7.2V use-once (actually several times but you have to
put it in a special bag when not in use) zinc air cell (for cellphone use)
from them here in a shop for $8 or so. Shelf life is 3 years, after
opening 3 months. One model (for Nokia I think) comes with a pigtail wire
and plug so it attaches externally with a plug. Self contained battery for
flying robots / helicopters ? Did I make anyone's day yet ? ;-)

Note: the model I described is in the picture on the top of the page:

http://www.electric-fuel.com/israel/index-plus.shtml

however the page is in Hebrew, so you'll see gibberish excepting for the
picture.

ZnO is easier to recycle than Al2O3 (alumina) and Zinc is easier to work
with in general. Even in toy rockets as far as I hear ... (Zn + S). ZnO
recycling can be done by heating with carbon (coal f.ex.) without air in a
big furnace. This should result in Zn + CO2. This process could run
continuously since the reaction products separate naturally in the oven
(input = solid, output = liquid + gas). I am no chemist though. Reduction
with carbon has been the standard way to extract metal from ore since
forever (almost). There may be better ways. Zn is non-toxic and has a very
long history in humanity (so no surprises there - ZnO is used in ointments
for putting on sores and burns) unlike Al which turns out to be associated
with Alzheimer and other problems. Also Zn does not burn in air afaik (Al
does after it is ignited).

Recycling Al2O3 is much harder and Al-air technology does not seem to be
mature (at least for everyday applications) yet. The only pro for Al is
the fact that Al is the fourth (?) most abundant element on earth afair.
There is no shortage of Zinc though.

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
piclist-unsubscribe-requestspamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu


2002\09\18@151610 by Morgan Olsson

picon face
Roman Black wrote:
>Also-Antal Csaba wrote:
>
>> > Also-Antal Csaba wrote:
>> > >1 kg AL can be store 21.4KWh energy, this some as benzin.
>> >
>> > Interesting!  Then as electric motor have about three-four times higher efficiency at nominal load than ugly Otto, then an Al-electic car would go *VERY* far :)
>>
>> Yes, the efficiency of the asynchrony motor (which have big starting
>> force) is about 92..95% on 30..100kW power range. The otto motor is
>> about 30..38% and the diesel motor is 35..50%.

All theese are optimum, but deisel and especially otto drops very low at loads below designed Nominal (such as at constant speed in cars). Then there are transmisison losses.  I read in a book the total efficiency from gas to drag on the road surface was 6% in a typical car keeping normal speed then (in the senventies)  now probably much better, maybe 10%... i.e a small turbo charged engine behaves better than a big non-turbo.

Electric cars have lower loss in the simpler transmission, but added loss in the VFD.

>The energy used to make pure Al from the naturally
>occuring oxide form is heat energy bought generally
>as coal or natural gas, whatever is mega-cheap in
>that area

Usually hydropower in my part of world.  IIRC in Norway such industries are located close to hydroplants.

>What wrecks the idea is the low efficiency of
>converting the heat energy released on Al oxidation
>to usable energy.

That is a big problem, and those industries are generally far from cities.

As the oxide of AL batteries would be pure, maybe some easier method is plausible?

Anyway, easier than to recollect the exhaust from otto/diesel cars and recombine to fuel... ;)

/Morgan

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
@spam@piclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspamspammitvma.mit.edu


2002\09\18@152846 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
> The only pro for Al is
> the fact that Al is the fourth (?) most abundant element on earth afair.

Hmm, really?  The top three would have to be hydrogen, oxygen, and silicon.
I wouldn't have expected aluminum to be next.  Even for the crust, I would
have expected more iron than aluminum, and what about carbon?  If you
include the center of the earth, iron should be a big winner.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
KILLspampiclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspamspammitvma.mit.edu


2002\09\18@161054 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Olin Lathrop wrote:

*>> The only pro for Al is
*>> the fact that Al is the fourth (?) most abundant element on earth afair.
*>
*>Hmm, really?  The top three would have to be hydrogen, oxygen, and silicon.
*>I wouldn't have expected aluminum to be next.  Even for the crust, I would
*>have expected more iron than aluminum, and what about carbon?  If you
*>include the center of the earth, iron should be a big winner.

I was wrong. It is the third most abundant. Never think, google :

http://www.shef.ac.uk/~phys/teaching/phy320/topic2.html

second link from 810.

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestTakeThisOuTspammitvma.mit.edu


2002\09\18@161915 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
So, no comments on http://www.electric-fuel.com batteries ;-)

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
spamBeGonepiclist-unsubscribe-requestspamBeGonespammitvma.mit.edu


2002\09\18@162956 by Morgan Olsson

picon face
Olin Lathrop wrote:
>Hmm, really?  The top three would have to be hydrogen, oxygen, and silicon.

Lot of mineral is Aluminium oxide based, and other silicon oxide.
Yes iron is IIRC plenty in the core.

But hydrogen is very rare exept it is plenty in the thin layer we call oceans ;)
Carbon also is rare deep down.

/Morgan

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
TakeThisOuTpiclist-unsubscribe-requestEraseMEspamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu


2002\09\18@182239 by Sergio Masci

picon face
----- Original Message -----
From: Roman Black <RemoveMEfastvidspamTakeThisOuTEZY.NET.AU>
To: <PICLISTEraseMEspam.....MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: [EE]: [OT]: hydrogen/aluminium


> Also-Antal Csaba wrote:
>
> > > Also-Antal Csaba wrote:
> > > >1 kg AL can be store 21.4KWh energy, this some as benzin.
> > >
> > > Interesting!  Then as electric motor have about three-four times
higher efficiency at nominal load than ugly Otto, then an Al-electic car
would go *VERY* far :)
{Quote hidden}

Are you sure about this? Do you have a reference? I thought you could only
reduce Al using electrolysis. The processes being performed on the fused
ore. You need heat to fuse the ore but once the current is flowing this
generates more heat to keep the electrolyte molten.

The problem with oxidising Al to release energy is the very tough Al oxide
produced at the surface. Chemicals that damage or disolve this layer could
be what you need. I know that modest strength hot NaOH solution will react
with solid Al to release H2. I belive it produces Al(OH)3 in solution.
Another chemical that acts on the oxide layer is Hg. Rub a little on a sheet
of solid Al and you end up with lots of tiny piles of oxide and a very holy
sheet. Every wondered why you're not allowed to take thermometers onto
planes?

Regards
Sergio Masci

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
EraseMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestspammitvma.mit.edu


2002\09\18@192051 by Morgan Olsson

picon face
Sergio Masci wrote:
>You need heat to fuse the ore but once the current is flowing this
>generates more heat to keep the electrolyte molten.

True.  But still the resistive heating in electrolysis makes heat that has to be removed.

I guess it is possible to thermal isolate, and keep the temperature "down" by letting exess heat generate overheated steam (temperature is in suitable range) to drive turbine and generate electricity, but as those plants are located where electricity is as cheapest i guess that is the reason they do not do so... yet?

>Hg. Rub a little on a sheet
>of solid Al and you end up with lots of tiny piles of oxide and a very
>holy sheet.

holy shit ...

>Every wondered why you're not allowed to take thermometers onto
>planes?

Now, dont tell that to mr bin Laden ... ;)

/Morgan

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestEraseMEspamEraseMEmitvma.mit.edu


2002\09\18@192054 by Morgan Olsson

picon face
Peter L. Peres wrote:
>So, no comments on http://www.electric-fuel.com batteries ;-)

You know why... so much info out there!
For a start their bus http://www.electric-fuel.com/ev/index.shtml is interesting.

googeling for

"zinc-air" electric car

Make a *lot* of interesting hits, as do the same word translated to my language

/Morgan

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestspam_OUTspamKILLspammitvma.mit.edu


2002\09\19@020547 by Also-Antal Csaba

flavicon
face
> electricity etc. There is a margin that makes aluminium
> a viable fuel if the alternatives are expensive.

The big problem is that, the AL is not source of energy its only store
that.

> What wrecks the idea is the low efficiency of
> converting the heat energy released on Al oxidation
> to usable energy.

Let forget that patent. If put the AL to fuel cell, we get high effiency
result.

udv
CSaba

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2002\09\19@081026 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
> The big problem is that, the AL is not source of energy its only store
> that.

Just like gasoline, propane, coal, or any other fuel.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2002\09\19@095515 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> > The big problem is that, the AL is not source of energy its only store
> > that.
>
> Just like gasoline, propane, coal, or any other fuel.

Indeed. The advantage of Aluminium is that it is potentially recyclable -
effectively "rechargeable" by again performing the original electrolytic
process on it. Adds are though it's more economic to just use more Bauxite
than to collect the used Al oxide. Quite what you do with it instead is
another matter. As someone else pointed out, Zinc is arguably rather easier
to handle in this respect.


       RM

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2002\09\19@134958 by Also-Antal Csaba

flavicon
face
Olin Lathrop wrote:
>
> > The big problem is that, the AL is not source of energy its only store
> > that.
>
> Just like gasoline, propane, coal, or any other fuel.

Yes, but the AL is AL02/bauxit when come up from earth and need
21.4kW/kg energy to transform AL. So, you only store the energy (what
produced other way) in AL.

udv
Csaba

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2002\09\19@144839 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
> > Just like gasoline, propane, coal, or any other fuel.
>
> Yes, but the AL is AL02/bauxit when come up from earth and need
> 21.4kW/kg energy

Units of power/mass makes no sense in this context, and I wouldn't call it
"energy" in any case.

> to transform AL. So, you only store the energy (what
> produced other way) in AL.

All exothermic chemical reactions merely transform the energy stored in one
set of molecules to somewhat less energy stored in a different set of
molecules of the same mass, plus some additional energy usually in the form
of heat.  The energy in the original molecules had to get stored there at
some time.  In the case of metallic aluminum, in an aluminum manufacturing
plant.  In the case of coal or crude oil it was stored by conversion of
sunlight by green plants of long ago.  Both propane and gasoline require
processing the raw material taken from the earth in a man-made plant, and
both these processes require energy, just like aluminum.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2002\09\19@162404 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Olin Lathrop wrote:

*>> The big problem is that, the AL is not source of energy its only store
*>> that.
*>
*>Just like gasoline, propane, coal, or any other fuel.

Yes but those are 'primary' fuels and non-renewable. Al is more or less
like a rechargeable battery.

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2002\09\20@060432 by Also-Antal Csaba

flavicon
face
Olin Lathrop wrote:
>
> > > Just like gasoline, propane, coal, or any other fuel.
> >
> > Yes, but the AL is AL02/bauxit when come up from earth and need
> > 21.4kW/kg energy
>
> Units of power/mass makes no sense in this context, and I wouldn't call it
> "energy" in any case.

kWh/kg

> All exothermic chemical reactions merely transform the energy stored in one
> set of molecules to somewhat less energy stored in a different set of
> molecules of the same mass, plus some additional energy usually in the form
> of heat.  The energy in the original molecules had to get stored there at
> some time.  In the case of metallic aluminum, in an aluminum manufacturing
> plant.  In the case of coal or crude oil it was stored by conversion of
> sunlight by green plants of long ago.  Both propane and gasoline require
> processing the raw material taken from the earth in a man-made plant, and
> both these processes require energy, just like aluminum.

Well, the the water is also good fuel, just we must separate the
hydrogen from oxygen :). Of course the petrol, gas, need energy for
separate from heavy oil but this much smaller what already contain
before process. The bauxite is not contain any energy, because that
oxidized form of AL.

udv
CSaba

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\09\20@060659 by Also-Antal Csaba

flavicon
face
"Peter L. Peres" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Olin Lathrop wrote:
>
> *>> The big problem is that, the AL is not source of energy its only store
> *>> that.
> *>
> *>Just like gasoline, propane, coal, or any other fuel.
>
> Yes but those are 'primary' fuels and non-renewable. Al is more or less
> like a rechargeable battery.

Yes, this correct.

udv
Csaba

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2002 , 2003 only
- Today
- New search...