The researchers had earlier discovered that slow-cooling and fast-cooling the new 95/5 aluminum alloy produced drastically different versions. The fast-cooled alloy contained aluminum and the gallium-indium-tin alloy apparently as a single phase. In order for it to produce hydrogen, it had to be in contact with a puddle of the liquid gallium-indium-tin alloy.

“That was a very exciting finding because it showed that the alloy would react with water at room temperature to produce hydrogen until all of the aluminum was used up,” Woodall said.

This is probably an accomplishment for a chemistry department, but dual liquid-phase dynamics is a core field of study in Chemical Engineering.  It’s no wonder it took less than a year to solve this “hurdle” (real hurdles are mass transfer issues like those found in aerobic fermentation systems).   Prof.  Woodall’s lab seems to be a great job of pushing this technology forward.

The article also indicates that the lab is thinking of using this technology as a means of hydrogen “transport” in cars.  Meaning you would have a gas tank full of these metal (aluminum-gallium-tin) brickettes that you would pour water on to generate hydrogen inside your car.

That sounds really cumbersome and prone to operational variability.   A better solution would be to build a low footprint hydrogen production system to generate hydrogen on-site at a gas station (or one central station that services a region of stations).  The water distribution part of the equation would be settled – use the tap with a water softener if necessary.  Drivers wouldn’t have to bother with brickettes – just filling with hydrogen which, albeit in early stages, has developed solutions already.

Furthermore, the amount of material that can be in circulation in the auto fleet would be significant.  Having an industrial-scale solution would seem to be an easier sell to customers, OEMs, and filling stations than managing the brickettes.

 We’ll keep an eye on this one.

Previous post:

-  Hydrogen from Metal

(Image of Toyota 1/X from autoblog.com)

I wrote a post earlier about the cost tunnel for cars. This topic is in many ways related to energy efficiency. But there’s more to it than just “underweighting” and “good fuel”. Cars have a very difficult proposition to make in terms of the energy they need to exhibit the performance we want. Let’s look at some of these from our energy efficiency framework.

Reducing Load

The car has many opportunities for gaining energy efficiency; it also has just as many constraints. Load can be defined for cars as two things: weight and drag. These concepts are pretty easy – less drag means the fuel has to fight the air less and drive more; less weight means less fuel needed to carry around a car’s obesity.

The trouble comes up with marketability. The Lincoln MKX is a really nice crossover. It actually gets good mileage. But for all its greatness, it’s drag isn’t “optimal”. Sleekness is really important in selling cars – so reducing drag could detract from the look and style of the car. That’s not easy to balance.

Weight has traditionally been associated with safety. But newer designs – especially discoveries from auto racing – are showing that this correlation need not be the case. The challenge of reducing weight is in designing safety and stability into the lighter designs. Auto makers can cut some weight out of their current car designs. But to really unlock underweighting, a whole new paradigm of car design and assembly needs to be developed (carbon fiber bodies). And that’s no small task.

Smarter response

A great opportunity for auto efficiency has been in building in systems that allow the car to operate at the most optimal conditions in different situations. GM’s 2-Mode Hybrid system is designed with this thought in mind. This system activates its electric motor at different points in the driving cycle to keep the gasoline motor operating at its most efficient point at all times (including turning off completely at a stop sign). GM’s 2-Mode Hybrid Vue is said to get over 30 MPG, but have a 250 HP engine with a 3500 lb towing capacity. That’s efficiency and muscle – something that has eluded other hybrid systems.

Reducing Economic Friction

This is a vote for energy efficiency in the context of cost of ownership. This, in many ways, is the biggest challenge for automakers. Hummers are great cars, but they’re expensive both coming and going. They have high sticker prices and they cost a lot to maintain. But most of all, there aren’t that many of them – so all of their parts and labor are incrementally more expensive. A Camry, by comparison, is very inexpensive and parts are easy to get. The trade-off with respect to energy efficiency is how to price cars with improved efficiency.

There are many elements to this story. But to cut to the chase, auto companies have to allow customers to capture part (say, half) of the value of the energy efficiency by pricing more efficient models more on-par with less efficient models. That’s the only way to alleviate the ongoing cost burden to the owner of that car.

So what does all this mean?

This framework, basic as it may be, illustrates why something like batteries have a limited potential. An electric car would go a long way in opening up options for drag-efficient shapes with potentially lighter bodies. Batteries are really the only thing holding back the electric car.

The problem is that batteries are not really efficient ways of storing a lot of energy. A small car can get around 500 miles range on a tank of gas. But there has yet to be a car that got any farther than the EV-1′s 120 mile range (and I’d like to see some actual data on that 120 miles thing too).

Liquid fuels have an extremely high energy density when compared to batteries. Telsa Motors’ battery stack for their roadster is enormous – like one of those old-school big screen TVs. And it only goes 220 miles on one charge. That’s actually not bad. But if you look at the car, you can easily tell that they’re not going to be able to pack any more batteries on that thing.

In engineering terms, battery charge / unit of weight has to get orders of magnitude better to make using them for an auto application. Essentially, adding more batteries adds more weight. So at some point, you can’t add more batteries without weighing the car down critically. There’s an optimum point that is reached with any vehicle. If you assume that a vehicle cannot weigh more than 2000 lbs (which is VERY light – a basic 2008 Honda Civic weighs over 2500 lbs with no passengers; the Tesla Roadster is around 2690lbs) you start to get some appreciation for the inherent challenge of cramming batteries and a car into that box.   Some of that weight has to go towards the seats, the car body, the wheels, etc. That further reduces the amount of battery weight that can be carried.

I’m hopeful that battery improvements can be done (I have no biases against it).  But liquid fuels can already accomplish this feat very comfortably.  So why fight it?  Joining the technologies – an electric car with a small, rechargable battery (by fuel and electricity) – makes sense. That is the REEV, Range-Extended Electric Vehicle. That is the platform that GM’s E-Flex, Ford’s Hyseries, and Tesla’s…whatever Tesla calls theirs…are based on.

It makes sense, particularly using this basic framework to think about some of the critical items.

We’ll look at buildings next.

Also see
» Hybrid value analysis: which hybrids worth the price tag?
» Biofuels Essays Part 3: What the solution should look like?
» Hydrogen from Algae
» Insightful Interview on chemical energy

ExxonMobil is already known as the prototypical oil company. They epitomize everything that people stereotype about oil companies – stuffy, overpaid executives with no regard for their impact on the environment.

So what is there interest in developing technologies for batteries? I don’t know – but that won’t stop me from speculating.

There are two theories I can think of:

1) They see batteries as a unique investment opportunity

Batteries as a general investment area is a pretty low risk business proposition. If these batteries that companies like A123Systems are producing end up not being good for cars, they can always be put into many different types of applications. Biofuels by comparison is a much longer term committment with many inherent risks associated with it.

So it could be just an interest in getting into a new investment area, if not only for the return potential, but for more positive publicity.

2) More conspiratorially, this could be a ploy to have a long-term impact on their company’s oil reserves. In this sense, this would be a way of creating “negabarrels” of oil – oil that doesn’t need to be consumed, but within their own ownership.

There are two issues going on with oil – increased demand (world economic growth) and reduced supply (peak oil). It’s not quite clear how one impacts the other (mostly because we don’t really know how much oil is out there still) other than one of them acts as an accelerant.

Oil reserves are a big metric for a company’s success. They are essentially a measure of the company’s ability to generate revenues in the future. From an oil company perspective, they will have to evaluate how fast they can grow their reserves with respect to the growth in oil demand. Growth in oil demand will be a driver for keeping oil prices high. But if that demand increase is significantly faster than the ability for an oil company to grow its reserves (i.e. the quickly growing “dry”) than the company could face long-term financial issues with regard to suppling oil to the market.

Hybrids, in many ways, help oil producers to enhance the lifetime of their oil reserves. It serves as a means of reducing their future financial viability by curbing the oil demand in the long term.

Of course, so do biofuels, gas-to-liquids, and other types of technologies which they believe will not be of any significance in the future. I wonder if that’s an intentional belief (meaning, they’ll make sure it’s the case).

So I don’t know what this means for Exxon, but I no longer think it’s so strange anymore.

Researchers at the University of Twente in The Netherlands have developed molecular seives that operate at low temperatures (< 150C). This has many applications including those for separations in alcohol production (for drinking or driving), hydrogen production, and other types of filtration processes. It has the benefit of lowering the energy usage in these industrial processes.

…Read the press release.

Solar

One of the big technological barriers for solar technologies is the efficiency of materials to absorb light. Researchers at McMaster University have developed a nano-wire structure (photo above) using Group III-V materials such as gallium arsenide, indium gallium phosphide, aluminum gallium arsenide, and gallium arsenide phosphide. These nanowires are capable of absorbing as much as 40% of sunlight (as opposed to the mid-teens as seen in commercial solar installations).

What I find most interesting about the photo is that it looks like grass. It seems to me that grass probably has a more efficient means of absorbing sunlight (by its ability to survive and persist) to grow. Perhaps scientists are rediscovering this element to grass’ survival. But what do I know….

…Read the Technology Review Article

Smog Free Building

Architect Vincent Callebaut has designed an Anti-smog pavilion for placement in Paris. It’s not clear that it will ever get built, but it’s ambition is well taken. It’s design features several solar energy saving/utilizing features as well as a green roof / siding…thing that is designed to absorb the smog from the surrounding city.

Photos (from Vincent Callebaut Website):

Biofuels, when successful, might close the gap on overall CO2 emissions. But they still do emit CO2 (and other stuff) when combusted in our cars; it’s still a local pollutant in cities where it is consumed.

Today, ethanol is grown in Iowa and shipped to, say, Illinois for refining then sold in Minneapolis or Chicago. The CO2 was removed from the atmosphere in Iowa, but re-emitted as a pollutant in Minnesota (who suffers all of the local effects).

Does Iowa “owe” Minneapolis or Chicago something for exporting its CO2 as a pollutant? Did these cities assume this risk when they decided to sell Iowa-based ethanol? How would anyone know where the ethanol came from to collect on such a debt? Should Chicago or Minneapolis only allow ethanol that was made nearby?

This is a strange sort of thinking on my part. I don’t know the answer to it and, frankly, I would hate to see what type of policy these politicians would mutate from this. What this scenario illustrates is that there are still issues to be solved regarding how we balance our global environmental opportunities with our local environmental responsibilities. While we all want to be carbon neutral (or, given the name of this blog, carbon-free), there’s always more to consider than just the technological capability.

(Images from Jilopnik.com).

GM is unveiling its Concept GMC Denali XT Hybrid. It’s a Flex Fuel, 2-Mode Hybrid with Active Fuel Managment. As Jalopnik.com notes, it’s very reminicent of an El Camino/Caballero.

It’s clearly a striking vehicle. But it’s also a bit of a far-out concept – GM is usually more reserved with its concept vehicles. This is a bit strange though, as is much of GM’s energy efficiency work.

Even in their website, they make no claims about expected fuel economy. Why go through all the trouble of shoving all of this fuel saving technology in a concept without at least speculating on MPG performance? It’s 326 HP number is pretty good. But I need more details.

My hope is that this concept is just a prelude to putting these technologies in more deserving existing cars like the GMC Acadia/Buick Enclave/Saturn Outlook.

From the press release:

Today’s announcement builds on advancements in technology made since 2003 and allows for electricity to be produced and greenhouse gas emissions sequestered at a rate and scale that offers tremendous potential for commercial viability.  The restructured approach will focus on separating carbon dioxide (CO2) for CCS, and does not include hydrogen production, which the concept announced in 2003 included; however, hydrogen production for commercial use will remain an important component of DOE’s other energy initiatives.  Also, engagement with the international community will remain an integral part of DOE’s efforts to advance CCS technology on a global scale.

This is a good thing.  I was a little worried about this project as it had a lot of high-cost pieces to it that were probably not worth the money doing anymore.  Industry already knows quite a bit about gasification and combustion cycles from the natural gas industry.  But it’s the CCS function that needs a body of knowledge to draw from.

Press Release:

By genetically modifying the bacteria, Thomas Wood, a professor in the Artie McFerrin Department of Chemical Engineering, has “tweaked” a strain of E. coli so that it produces substantial amounts of hydrogen. Specifically, Wood’s strain produces 140 times more hydrogen than is created in a naturally occurring process, according to an article in “Microbial Biotechnology,” detailing his research.

This is very interesting development as it could lead to a new usage for hydrogen. E. Coli is a very well-known and utilized throughout industry. So this type of development for a production of hydrogen makes a lot of sense from a technology perspective.

The question I have is around the cost to produce. The press release implies a distributed power use-case:

“Take your house, for example,” Wood said. “The size of the reactor that we’d need today if we implemented this technology would be less than the size of a 250-gallon fuel tank found in the typical east-coast home. I’m not finished with this yet, but at this point if we implemented the technology right now, you or a machine would have to shovel in about the weight of a man every day so that the reactor could provide enough hydrogen to take care of the average American home for a 24-hour period.

Let’s think about this from a cost stand point. If the image here is a “standard” size house with a “HydroEColi Reactor” black box in the back of the house that provides power. To run this reactor, you need to feed it…I don’t know… ReactorFood (some bag you buy at WalMart or something like that). I want to find out how expensive ReactorFood needs to be.

Let’s assume both cases: (1) 80 kg usage per day and (2) 80 kg / day.

My house in Palo Alto, CA – a 4 BR, 3 BA, two story home with four adult males – cost around $190/mo for gas and electric (not water). California tends to have high energy costs, but it also doesn’t have harsh winters or extremely hot summers like in Cleveland or Houston. So we can assume that while the consumption load may vary, the pricing should be about the same. This is an important point to note as consumption amount is a better index to use.

We’ll ignore the cost of the reactor, but we should expect it would cost only a % of the material cost of a house (say, like $15,000 or less).

What we’re really finding here is an upper limit to how much the input into this process needs to be. If it costs as much as gold then it’s bad. If it’s dirt cheap, then we could have something.

We’ll use linear equations:

(1) 80 kg / day:

80 kg/day * X$/kg = $190/mo * 12 mo

80X = 2280

X = $28.50 /kg

(2) 8 kg / day:

X = $285 / kg (10X).

These are good numbers. For comparison, Corn Flakes costs around $15/kg at retail.

So if everything spoken in this article really pan out as spoken, then we’re certainly in the ball park of being able to afford such a device. The 8KG model would be a great opportunity as it would leave a lot of room to make a relatively high cost feedstock.

The next obvious question would be the application for a car. This type of system seems to be of interest to Honda. So it’s development would be a great opportunity for their FCX program.

In all, this is very encouraging research and I’m hopeful to see where it goes.

A definition
“Energy Efficiency (EE)” implies getting more out of the energy that we use. While that’s a perfectly fine definition, I think we need to look at this through three separate extrapolations:

Reducing load
Much of EE is captured by simply reducing overall “load”. “Load” has many contexts from an engineering perspective. It could refer to “weight” in products like a car.  Less weight requires less pull from the engine and less gas consumed (there are some other considerations like safety and durability as well).  It could refer to the amount of current needed in a lightbulb.  Compact fluorescents and LED lighting provide light at a lower wattage. The point being that whatever products we design, we build in a lower demand for whatever energy source drives it – lightening the “load”.

Smarter response
Smarter response refers to building in better capabilities to capture produced energy. In cars, there has been a lot of development on using control systems to make engines more responsive to driving conditions. An example is in GM’s new 2-Mode hybrid which synchronizes the number of pistons fired in the gas engine along with the utilization of an electric “helper” motor. A more simple example is a programmable thermostat that you can install in your home. This device will turn your furnace to different temperature controls based on the time of day (no need to have it on while you’re out).

Essentially, making products “smart” allows us to not consume energy in non-value-added situations.

Reducing economic friction
I didn’t really know what to name this title. But I want to point to the direct relationship between energy consumption and GDP growth. You can pretty much use a linear equation to derive this relationship. And of course, the more the GDP grows, the more energy we consume.

The same could be said for any company or household. The more economic friction – gas bills, fuel demand, etc – the less money lying around for buying fattening foods and paying for college tuition.

The good thing is that this relationship doesn’t work the other way around. EE also must be looked at as an economic growth enhancer. Having high energy costs amounts to a tax for all people in that economy. Low taxes makes it easier for individuals to live and for businesses to use their earnings to grow (or squander depending on the company).

I will have several follow-up posts to this one where I discuss how each of these can be applied to different products. I don’t purport to be an expert in many of these areas, but I hope that it serves as a thought exercise for others to extrapolate into more complex applications.

Some of the technologies to be implemented include (from the press release):

 · Transformation of existing metering infrastructure to a robust, dynamic communications network, providing real time, high-speed, two-way communication throughout the distribution grid.
· Conversion of substations to “smart” substations capable of remote monitoring, near real-time data and optimized performance.
· Installation of thousands of in-home control devices and the necessary systems to fully automate home energy use.
· Integration of infrastructure to support up to 1,000 easily dispatched distributed generation technologies (including plug-in hybrid electric vehicles with vehicle-to-grid technology; battery systems; wind turbines; and solar panels).

This is an interesting list of technologies – I wonder if a city of 100,000 is too big for implementation purposes.  But there’s a couple in here that sound interesting.

Smart Metering
The smart metering has been talked about for decades now.  It’s actually pretty stupid that we have locally read meters. There’s a lot of reasons as to why that hasn’t changed much – none of which are particularly good reasons.  But if they can show that remote metering technologies yield better results, then it would go a long way towards implementing them in other communities.

Grid batteries 
Second, the usage of battery systems within the grid is intriguing.  While solar and wind have the opportunity to augment peak demand loads, batteries provide a whole new opportunity themselves.

On a grid-wide scale, they could make night production more productive.  Raise productivity at night and store to the grid; consume at night when demand is high.  That’s the whole theory behind vehicle-to-grid applications.  But installing your own batteries directly to the grid might also be a winner.

On  an individual scale, could batteries provide an opportunity for customers to take advantage of lower demand prices?  I might dream of a business model where I can buy and sell my own electric power that I store on a home battery to/from the grid.  Could I do this with my solar installation?  That might provide a new way of augmenting my own income by being able to buy/sell electricity in its own marketplace.  This has been the dream of many others, but has never come to fruition.

In any case, this would be a great opportunity for Xcel to garner some learnings.  I hope in their search they review a lower-income urban neighborhood.  In many ways, lower income households are in greater need of these technologies – the improvements might make life a little less hectic.