[HN Gopher] Powerpaste, the hydrogen technology for small vehicles
___________________________________________________________________
Powerpaste, the hydrogen technology for small vehicles
Author : apsec112
Score : 67 points
Date : 2021-02-04 17:04 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.fraunhofer.de)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.fraunhofer.de)
| tomas789 wrote:
| Solving hydrogen storage has great implications. Hydrogen has
| high gravimetric energy density (1 kWh worth of H2 is light) but
| very low volumetric density (1 kWh takes up a large volume). Easy
| solutions are compressed hydrogen (H2 is a small molecule and
| easily escapes even through a material, steel embrittlement and
| energy for compression are big issues), cryogenic cooling (energy
| intensive and cryocoolers have significant capex) and metal
| hydrids. To put it simply the crystalic structure of the metal
| acts as a high pressure storage tank. H2 is typically released by
| heating the material up.
|
| One thing they didn't mention is energy used for round trip per
| unit of H2 and cost of the material itself. Neither was discussed
| there. Many similar materials exist already.
|
| Many CO2 neutral pathways with other molecules exist. Amonia,
| methanol, ethanol, DME, urea, formic accid and so on.
|
| PS: If you're into this stuff, keep an eye on the Fraunhoffer
| institude. They have many cool projects. (I am not affiliated
| with them in any way)
| usrusr wrote:
| > One thing they didn't mention is energy used for round trip
| per unit of H2 and cost of the material itself.
|
| I also did not see anything about recycling the carrier
| materials which seems suspiciously odd in a context so closely
| related to environmentalism.
|
| But the big picture news is that this is another datapoint that
| shows how, like you said, the solution space for what I like to
| call "bound hydrogen" is apparently not exhausted at all yet.
| In recent months I have seen (all on hn) power-to-ammonia, that
| Dutch group that proposes iron powder as a heat fuel of roughly
| coal performance that is recycled by reducing the returned iron
| oxide powder with hydrogen (and started to fuel a brewery as a
| pilot) and now this "powerpaste" which sound like straight out
| of the back to the future future. The claimed energy density is
| absolutely amazing! If the required infrastructure hardware is
| small enough it could be a gamechanger for BEV: size the
| battery to be sufficient for 80% of driving days and install
| the "1000 miles extra" block where it can be accessed for
| replacing, e.g. where an ICE car would have it's engine.
| Chances are the extra miles fuel won't be cheap, but you'll
| surely be able to buy a lot of RX refills for the battery cost
| saved if a strong majority majority of your driving can be done
| on battery only.
|
| I always considered the term "hydrogen economy" silly because
| of how annoying H2 is to deal with at scale, but "bound
| hydrogen" can change that in so many ways. It's almost as if
| hindsight was trying to win a bet or something wrt how we look
| back at George W. Bush, first him appearing so unexpectedly
| presidential compared to a certain successor, then suddenly
| hydrogen economy ceases to be a joke. What's next, discovery of
| actual WMD so they could have well stayed honest had they just
| looked a little harder? Harris becoming president after
| "pretzel incident 2"? Bound hydrogen is the most exciting
| technology field since many years.
| beyondcompute wrote:
| Really exciting news! I am a big believer in both small electric
| vehicles as the future of urban transportation and hydrogen as a
| better energy storage mechanism than lithium batteries. :)
| zhengyi13 wrote:
| In '99, while working at a solar hydrogen startup as a recent
| grad, I was exposed to a fellow who proposed to transport H in
| the form of H2O, and his solution for cracking it was to make
| purple ping pong balls filled w/ Na. He'd deliver a hopper of Na
| ping pong balls, and a machine filled with water. Feed balls into
| the machine, which would then use a ram to split the balls
| underwater, and siphon off the resulting H2 gas to feed to your
| fuel cell.
|
| The racket it made, with a loud kerchunk splitting the balls, and
| the hissing immediately following, was just slightly terrifying.
|
| This paste seems a good deal saner in comparison.
| blacksqr wrote:
| Reminds me of my undergraduate days in the 1980's, when the
| chemistry majors' idea of fun was stealing chunks of sodium
| from a lab and throwing them off a bridge into a nearby river.
|
| Boom.
| ginko wrote:
| If you're going to use metallic sodium as energy storage you
| might as well use it directly in a battery.
| ksdale wrote:
| Not that internal combustion engines are the model to aspire
| to... but they're just a metal contraption full of explosions.
| Being terrifying isn't necessarily a disqualifier, haha.
| jonsen wrote:
| Full of _combustions_ , not explosions.
|
| "The speed of the reaction is what distinguishes an explosive
| reaction from an ordinary combustion reaction." - Wikipedia
| on explosion.
|
| "An internal combustion engine nominally operates on a
| controlled rapid burn." - WP on combustion.
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _Full of_ combustions _, not explosions._
|
| It's both, no? Aren't all chemical-based explosions
| considered combustion?
|
| If "explosion" means "a violent release of energy", that
| seems a reasonable word to describe what happens in a
| cylinder in about ~5 ms.
| jackyinger wrote:
| Internal combustion engines do in fact attempt to burn fuel
| and oxidizer at maximum stoichiometric efficiency, and they
| also are trying to burn it as quickly as possible to
| capture all of the heat rather than exhausting a partially
| burnt mixture and wasting fuel.
|
| Effective explosives have the exact same chemical goals and
| nearly the same thermodynamic goals.
|
| If that isn't a carefully controlled explosion I don't know
| what is. I mean, come on, a piston moving up and down
| thousands of times per minute isn't explosive enough for
| ya?
| jonsen wrote:
| The speed of burn in an internal _combustion_ engine is
| not explosive:
|
| "Knocking (also knock, detonation, spark knock, pinging
| or pinking) in spark ignition internal combustion engines
| occurs when combustion of some of the air/fuel mixture in
| the cylinder does not result from propagation of the
| flame front ignited by the spark plug, but one or more
| pockets of air/fuel mixture explode outside the envelope
| of the normal combustion front." - WP on engine knocking.
| hinkley wrote:
| There was another group during that era doing something similar
| with sodium hydroxide, which is a little less... violent. Not
| quite sure I recall how that chemistry worked, but I think the
| idea is 'find something where the hydrogen bonds are easier to
| crack than H2O'.
|
| Now there are other groups trying to figure out if they can
| increase the power capacity of batteries by replacing the
| electrolyte. Which sounds like a fuel cell/battery hybrid to
| me.
| gioscarab wrote:
| 1) What happens to the waste? 2) How much energy is required to
| make the paste?
| allanrbo wrote:
| In 2005 there was similar hype around efficiently storing
| hydrogen, but using ammonia. Can't find any sources on why that
| didn't go anywhere though.
|
| https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050907102549.h...
| hannob wrote:
| Ammonia is currently considered as one of the more promising
| options for future shipping fuels.
|
| There are a number of projects planning to create green ammonia
| at scale, e.g. this: https://asianrehub.com/
|
| Ammonia is already made from hydrogen today, making that green
| is pretty straightforward, you just need enough clean
| electricity. Just get the hydrogen from electrolysis, the
| ammonia synthesis process itself is well established
| technology.
| corty wrote:
| Ammonia is one of the less pleasant chemicals one could use.
| I'd rather have Hydrogen-exuding paste than Ammonia in an
| accident. The Hydrogen _might_ explode. But the Ammonia
| definitely _will_ hurt you.
| Nasrudith wrote:
| Why not just use a closed loop hydrocarbon from electricity
| system as a shipping fuel if you have excess power and a need
| for transit?
|
| The main theoretical point of hydrogen is very high specific
| energy per mass but it is essentially purest acidic gas and a
| pain. Bonding it to something else mitigates it so why 3 H
| per N instead of 4 H per C? Both are toxic gases at this
| point leaving ammonia's main advantage in the context being
| its own oderant.
| hannob wrote:
| The problem with every hydrocarbon-based fuel is that you
| need the carbon.
|
| You get that from CO2. But then you need to get the CO2.
| Where do you get it from? From a fossil-based plant? Well,
| ideally you'd want to get rid of those, not exactly smart
| to create incentives to keep them running. The alternative
| is either biomass (problematic) or direct air capture
| (expensive and inefficient). (Some insightful discussion on
| green methanol: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXACyUxxBts
| )
|
| With non-carbon based fuels like hydrogen or ammonia you
| skip that problem (air is 78% nitrogen, much easier to
| extract).
| NickM wrote:
| _or direct air capture (expensive and inefficient)_
|
| The big question in my mind is whether direct air capture
| is _inherently_ expensive and inefficient...or if this is
| just a chicken /egg problem where we haven't invested
| time and money in making it cheaper because it's
| expensive, and it's expensive because we haven't invested
| time and money in making it cheaper.
|
| I don't know enough about physics and chemistry to answer
| the question on what the theoretical lower bound on cost
| might be.
| hannob wrote:
| It seems pretty obvious that extracting a gas that is
| less than a tenth of a percent in the air is inherently
| difficult.
|
| That said: I'm all for investing in DAC technology. We
| will definitely need it for some sectors. But you need to
| consider the costs and if there are alternatives they
| will in many cases make more sense.
| extrapickles wrote:
| Direct air capture is inherently expensive unless you are
| doing it in the airstream of some industrial process that
| produces large amounts of CO2, and even then its still
| somewhat expensive.
|
| Even as a waste product from separating Nitrogen, Oxygen
| and Argon from the air, its still expensive (retail its
| ~$1/lb of liquid CO2).
| jbay808 wrote:
| It's inherently expensive, because you have to undo the
| entropy loss of letting the CO2 diffuse into the
| atmosphere. It basically means running an expensive
| molecule sorting operation, whose cost has a floor set by
| the laws of thermodynamics, in advance of whatever else
| you wanted to do with the CO2.
| e12e wrote:
| > The big question in my mind is whether direct air
| capture is inherently expensive
|
| Have a look at a tree...
|
| I suppose it's possible that billon years of evolution
| has ended on a local optimum for low energy input (direct
| sunlight), and we might revolutionize it with high energy
| (eg: high voltage electricity, fusion etc) - but I doubt
| it.
| choeger wrote:
| I know this sounds awfully complicated to handle (and recharge),
| but I think the market for practical applications of H fuel is
| existing, so these ideas _can_ be evaluated in practice.
|
| Also, not every invention has to save the world. So this paste
| might become useful for drones or in spacecraft. Depending on the
| energy density it might even be very usable for electrified air
| travel.
| frankus wrote:
| I'm trying and failing to come up with a use case where this is
| more practical than a rechargeable (and/or swappable) battery in
| a scooter.
|
| Refueling something like this would be faster than recharging,
| but if "quick recharge" is part of your requirements then it's
| straightforward to make a scooter battery swappable and maybe
| even standardized across brands.
|
| Power outlets are ubiquitous, and these things just don't use
| enough energy to be more than a rounding error on anyone's
| electric bill (100 (scooter) km worth of energy is roughly the
| difference between washing your hands in hot water instead of
| cold water for 30 seconds).
|
| There might a weight savings but lithium ion is something like 60
| grams per kilometer of range for a light, slow vehicle. So a
| reasonable range battery is not prohibitively heavy even for a
| vehicle that you have to carry.
|
| I'm sure there's a use case for this stuff, and scooters are
| trendy right now, but I don't think the two are a good match.
| airstrike wrote:
| From the article, one other use case are drones, in which case
| even minor weight savings can be extremely valuable.
| h2odragon wrote:
| > Onboard the vehicle, the POWERPASTE is released from a
| cartridge by means of a plunger. When water is added from an
| onboard tank, the ensuing reaction generates hydrogen gas in a
| quantity dynamically adjusted to the actual requirements of the
| fuel cell. In fact, only half of the hydrogen originates from the
| POWERPASTE; the rest comes from the added water
|
| OK sounds great! so this stuff is more sensitive to moisture than
| LiPo batteries and yet has to be dispensed somehow; that's going
| to be fun.
|
| I'd like to see the reaction, here... We talking a little steam
| or dropping sodium chunks into a pond?
| amluto wrote:
| Sodium is boring. Potassium is much better!
|
| Seriously, though, this sounds like a horrible technology.
| Synthesize fancy goo that is unstable when wet. React with
| water to make hydrogen (itself moderately dangerous). Produce
| some kind of slush containing magnesium hydroxide (presumably)
| and miscellaneous organic crud as waste. What, exactly, happens
| with the waste?
|
| At least magnesium hydroxide is not as nasty as sodium or
| potassium hydroxide, but you still don't want to get it on your
| skin if you can avoid it.
| WJW wrote:
| It's not like petroleum is all that nice though, it's just
| that the handling around it has been pretty much perfected
| over the decades. You can collect spent sludge at the same
| place a scooter has to come anyway to refill and then re-
| hydrogenate the sludge into fresh paste.
| zdragnar wrote:
| The big difference, of course, is that petroleum doesn't
| explode or combust when rained on. Aside from sparks or
| ignition sources, it can sit in a bucket or puddle and be
| happy staying put.
| WJW wrote:
| Neither does this substance though. It releases hydrogen
| when in contact with water, not explode or combust. It
| might, of course, explode if sparks are introduced but
| the same thing can happen to hydrocarbon based fuels.
|
| In any case, what a substance does when rained on is not
| very relevant for a fuel that is kept in a fuel tank at
| all times. By the time it's exposed to the weather, the
| vehicle must have crashed and in such a circumstance most
| safety guarantees are out of the window anyway.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| No hydrocarbon fuels aren't oxygenated. Put a spark plug
| in your gas tank, run it day and night - nothing. Has to
| be oxygen in there.
| WJW wrote:
| The same happens in a pure hydrogen atmosphere? Not sure
| what you are trying to convey here.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| Sorry, that comment about a spark being a problem
| prompted my comment. I must have misunderstood.
| Animats wrote:
| Storage of hydrogen in a solid has come around a few times
| already.
|
| University of New South Wales. (2020) [1]
|
| Lawerence Livermore Lab (2018) [2]
|
| University of Salford (2006) [3]
|
| Older approaches involved lithium hydride chips. Not ICs, just
| chips of metal. The University of New South Wales system used
| titanium and other secret ingredients. That one is being offered
| as a product for stationary storage, Real Soon Now.[4] Original
| article said it would ship by the end of 2020, but it has slipped
| to June 2021. You can pre-order the "launch edition" now. It's
| not a Kickstarter, but it's close.
|
| Unclear if this is a good idea, or the next Bloom Energy Server.
|
| [1] https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/alchemy-
| of...
|
| [2] https://str.llnl.gov/2018-01/wood
|
| [3]
| http://usir.salford.ac.uk/id/eprint/16768/5/Hydrogen_storage...
|
| [4] https://lavo.com.au
| goda90 wrote:
| The military has worked on a similar concept with a metal powder
| + water to produce hydrogen on the fly.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium-based_nanogalvanic_a...
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| I've wondered if aluminum powder could be used in this way. It's
| the most common metal in the world, cheap and available.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-04 23:01 UTC)