Phinergy demonstrates aluminum-air battery capable of fueling an electric vehicle for 1000 miles

Lurker2358

1.7 / 5 (26) Mar 27, 2013

Booo...

Aluminum is too precious as a structural component and a food preservation to be using like this. Besides, stopping every 200 miles for water sort of defeats the point of wanting more range, because I'm sure the convenience stores will start charging money for water if this was actually on the market. They'd charge like $3.00 per gallon for water, and everyone would be right back where they are now.

Llewellian

4.1 / 5 (13) Mar 27, 2013

And not to think of how much energy is needed to produce Aluminium.

daqddyo

3 / 5 (15) Mar 27, 2013

All metallic aluminum in use today comes from processed aluminum oxide.A lot of electrical energy is required to accomplish this.

When this type battery is discharged, the used aluminum (oxide) can be reomved and recycled just like aluminum cans are today. However, as expected, the process to produce metal from the oxide requires a lot of electrical energy. No metal is wasted.

Lurker2358

1.6 / 5 (13) Mar 27, 2013

daqddyo:

Yeah, but post some numbers on the real energy, labor, and equipment costs for that process of recycling.

Second law of thermodynamics says it's much more expensive in energy alone to reverse the process than what you're going to get back out of it, and that's not even counting labor and facilities costs.

Let's say this energy comes from solar. It will be so expensive it's a joke, because you'll be buying and re-buying the batteries, get ripped off by the convenience store where water will be marked up to ridiculous prices, and then you'll have to spend a significant fraction of the battery's charge (probably as much as several percent,) just driving back and forth to the manufacturer to make swaps.

If the manufacturer is 5 miles out of your way, that's a ten mile round trip, which has already wasted 1% of the one-time charge. If they are farther than that it just gets worse.

d3bug

2.1 / 5 (12) Mar 27, 2013

Booo...

Aluminum is too precious as a structural component and a food preservation to be using like this. Besides, stopping every 200 miles for water sort of defeats the point of wanting more range, because I'm sure the convenience stores will start charging money for water if this was actually on the market. They'd charge like $3.00 per gallon for water, and everyone would be right back where they are now.

Seriously... I mean what were they thinking making a battery out of rare things like Aluminum ad water. And can you imagine them charging for water? People would riot... that reminds me... I need to pick up some Zephyrhills.

d3bug

3.3 / 5 (12) Mar 27, 2013

daqddyo:
... and then you'll have to spend a significant fraction of the battery's charge (probably as much as several percent,) just driving back and forth to the manufacturer to make swaps.

If the manufacturer is 5 miles out of your way, that's a ten mile round trip, which has already wasted 1% of the one-time charge. If they are farther than that it just gets worse.

I know right? It's not like anyone would ever think to carry batteries anywhere other than the manufacturer which reminds me, I need to take a trip up to St. Louis, MO so I can pick up a pack of AA batteries for my remotes.

ScottyB

2.6 / 5 (17) Mar 27, 2013

. Besides, stopping every 200 miles for water sort of defeats the point of wanting more range, because I'm sure the convenience stores will start charging money for water if this was actually on the market. They'd charge like $3.00 per gallon for water, and everyone would be right back where they are now.

Yes... apart from the fact that no CO2 will be released.... Id rather pay the same price to full up my car with water than [ay to fill it up with nasty polluting petroleum!

Tri-ring

3 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2013

In Japan there is Magnesium air battery that is being tested utilizing the same principle. I believe Magnesium holds a stronger punch then Aluminum. Retrieving Magnesium-oxide is much simpler than Aluminum-oxide, you just evaporate it and it will release the oxygen returning back to Magnesium.

triplehelix

1.8 / 5 (17) Mar 27, 2013

"Yes... apart from the fact that no CO2 will be released"

The process of recycling the aluminium requires electricity. This electricity is made from power plants, burning fossil fuels making CO2. UK alone has many 60's and 70's coal plants and natural gas plants which are very old infrastructure and aren't very efficient at all.

Brand spanking new engines these days are much more efficient.

No such thing as perpetual motion engines. At some point CO2 will be made in the chain, in the engine or charging the battery, or recycling the battery....

Shootist

1.3 / 5 (21) Mar 27, 2013

I don't give a rat's butt about CO2, but this design is, and always will be, an energy sink. We don't need energy sources that use more energy than they produce.

Drill here, drill now.

Save your nation: Re-elect no one. Ever.

Eikka

3 / 5 (12) Mar 27, 2013

Generally speaking, making aluminium out of aluminium oxide is roughly 70% efficient with today's technology. Given similiar efficiency for the battery device and the collection, packaging and distribution of aluminium as batteries, one gets about 50% throughput efficiency.

The only problem is that aluminium electrolysis plants don't work with intermittent renewable energy sources. You can't shut them down for the night because they operate with the solution in a molten state and the heat from the electrolysis keeps them molten.

Eikka

3.8 / 5 (16) Mar 27, 2013

In concrete numbers, 12.9 kWh are required to make 1 kg of aluminum storing 8.6 kWh of energy.

It's similiar to the energy spent on refining oil into gasoline. Except with gasoline you only get 1/3 of the energy out.

sstritt

1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 27, 2013

The entire approach is novel in the respect that a metal is used almost as a fuel source, rather than as a battery component.

The author apparently does not understand the definition of fuel source, as aluminum does not naturally exist in its metallic state, but must be refined in a very energy intensive process.

nkalanaga

4.9 / 5 (7) Mar 27, 2013

Gasoline doesn't exist in nature either. It has to be manufactured from crude oil, which requires energy.

I wonder if the entire battery could be packaged, with a separate water tank? If so, it could be made in a standard size, similar to other consumer batteries, and a service station would pull the entire unit out and replace it. The water tank would hold more than enough for the entire battery life, with a small pump to keep the battery filled. Two wires and a water line would be easy to fit into a quick-connect system.

CapitalismPrevails

1.1 / 5 (7) Mar 27, 2013

Can't ionic liquids be used as electrolyte instead of water?

hemitite

2.4 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2013

They did say that they were working on a rechargeable Mg-air system; I think that that would be the way to go.

dschlink

3 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2013

This would be a very good replacement for the engine in a plug-in hybrid. It is much lighter than an engine and more efficient. Putting it in a plug-in would eliminate range anxiety and since it would typically be activated only for longer trips, the time between replacements would be long.

dschlink

3 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2013

dup

Silverhill

5 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2013

(from the article)

being metal, it's rather heavy—one pack of 50 plates weighs roughly 55 pounds.

Or 25 kg, in modern measurements. This should not be a show-stopper, however--40 liters of gasoline, for instance, has a mass of 30 kg, and many cars' tanks hold even more than this.

@Tri-ring

Retrieving Magnesium-oxide is much simpler than Aluminum-oxide, you just evaporate it and it will release the oxygen returning back to Magnesium.

Do you mean thermal dissociation of MgO? That's rather energy-intensive too, you know--remember how much heat energy is release when magnesium burns.

powerup1

4 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2013

Booo...

Aluminum is too precious as a structural component and a food preservation to be using like this. Besides, stopping every 200 miles for water sort of defeats the point of wanting more range, because I'm sure the convenience stores will start charging money for water if this was actually on the market. They'd charge like $3.00 per gallon for water, and everyone would be right back where they are now.

I'm not sure how viable this technology is, but your criticisms are inane and without value. Enjoy your trolling.

Lurker2358

1.3 / 5 (15) Mar 27, 2013

I'm not sure how viable this technology is, but your criticisms are inane and without value. Enjoy your trolling.

You can't seriously be that naive.

You'll pay for the battery and the energy and the water. The dollars cost per mile worth of energy will be like 2 or 3, hell maybe even 4 times that of gasoline.

As for the moron implying they could have batteries everywhere...there isn't THAT much space at places lke convenience stores, so I guess you expect the battery manufacturer to have a garage and a warehouse on every corner in the country?

The nearest auto manufacturer, department store, or auto parts store are each at least 5 miles from where I live, and they couldn't put enough batteries in their available space to service more than a ridiculously small number of people. It's not like ordinary auto batteries which are only replaced every few years. These things would need to be replaced every one to three weeks.

Lurker2358

1 / 5 (14) Mar 27, 2013

Laser shark alert. Laser shark alert.

It's worse than laser sharks.

Tri-ring

2.5 / 5 (2) Mar 28, 2013

@Tri-ring
Retrieving Magnesium-oxide is much simpler than Aluminum-oxide, you just evaporate it and it will release the oxygen returning back to Magnesium.
Do you mean thermal dissociation of MgO? That's rather energy-intensive too, you know--remember how much heat energy is release when magnesium burns.

The person who is doing the research has an answer for that too. Solar heat condensation, target a convex lens to the material in the desert and let the sun do the rest. There was a TV report stating they are negotiating with various Middle east nations to participate in this project.

nkalanaga

5 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2013

As for storage space at the service station, it wouldn't take any more room than storing liquid fuels. True, those go underground, but there's no reason every convenience store would HAVE to have a bunch of these. For one thing, they wouldn't have to be changed as often as the current tanks need to be filled. At 1000 miles each, I could drive across the US on 4 of them, 800 miles each. Since it would take at least five days, that's less than one change per day. I usually refuel every 200 miles now, as I don't like to let the tank get much below half full. Also, one would need at least a manual lifting device to handle them, so it won't be "self service".

kaypee

5 / 5 (1) Mar 28, 2013

When considered as a closed cycle, the energy used to recycle these batteries far exceeds what they provide during oxidation, meaning that mass adoption of such batteries would be impractical.

Overland rod

1 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2013

The report didn't address the major problem which the aluminium battery has always had, which is that Aluminium Hydroxide forms as a gel which coats the plates and reduces the output, eventually stopping it. If they have solved this problem (which has so far stopped everyone else) they have a winner. Reprocessing to recover the aluminium is not the problem many comments have suggested, and it could become almost a local industry for any medium sized city.

_traw_at

3 / 5 (4) Mar 28, 2013

Stopping every 200 miles to refill the fuel cell with a gallon of water or so. Or about every 4 hours of travel at 50 mph.

Such a hardship. Boo hoo.

Ian_Coleman

1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 28, 2013

As for the moron implying they could have batteries everywhere...there isn't THAT much space at places lke convenience stores, so I guess you expect the battery manufacturer to have a garage and a warehouse on every corner in the country?

I'd lay odds that back around the time the internal combustion engine was first being developed there was some bright spark who said - "Don't be naive. It's not like there's ever going to be a gas station on every corner." :-)

ValeriaT

1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 28, 2013

The production of aluminum is very carbon dioxide dirty not only because of low energy efficiency during production (electricity consumed), but because of using of graphite anodes during its manufacture by electrolysis. It means, that the usage of aluminium doesn't bring any environmental advantage even at the moment, when all electricity will be of nuclear origin (which currently is only from 17 - 30%). I cannot understand, how someone could call such a technology clean and environmentally friendly: it's actually just a waste of energy.

antialias_physorg

3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 29, 2013

The process of recycling the aluminium requires electricity. This electricity is made from power plants, burning fossil fuels making CO2. UK alone has many 60's and 70's coal plants and natural gas plants which are very old infrastructure and aren't very efficient at all.

"We can't use new technology because we'll want to use old technology - forever"...what a stupid way to argue.

Don't you think this would be a perfect time for replacing those old powerplants with other types? And the energy needed for recycling isn't bound to a particular time of day (as no manual labor is involved) - so it would be perfectly suited to the variability these new energy sources have.

one pack of 50 plates weighs roughly 55 pounds. For that reason, Phinergy is promoting the aluminum-air battery as a trip extender

Why? 1000km worth of gas weighs roughly double that. OK, so you need water extra - but is it really that much?

antialias_physorg

3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 29, 2013

The report didn't address the major problem which the aluminium battery has always had, which is that Aluminium Hydroxide forms as a gel which coats the plates and reduces the output, eventually stopping it.

Because it doesn't need to address that. If you had read the article you might have noticed that the batteries get removed/recycled after one use.

You'll pay for the battery and the energy and the water.

Water isn't all that expensive. Electrical energy isn't all that expensive. And you don't pay for it, anyhow, because this type of battery isn't charged. The electricity is produced by the oxidation of the aluminum.
And you don't pay for the battery but for a lease on it's use and the recycling costs - which largely only needs energy, which, as noted, isn't all that expensive.

So this could be pretty cost effective.

Steven_Anderson

Mar 29, 2013

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

antialias_physorg

2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2013

Can someone point out where I am wrong with my logic?

You forgot the water needed. Also a 55 pound stack of aluminum takes up considerable space.

Steven_Anderson

1 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2013

Well You could mold the aluminum to a better shape and you could extract water from the air perhaps? http://rawcell.com

Eikka

2.9 / 5 (10) Mar 30, 2013

Also a 55 pound stack of aluminum takes up considerable space.

Not really. Aluminium is about three times heavier than water. 55 pounds of solid aluminium sheets would easily fit in a briefcase.

If all you needed to do was replace some plastic casette with aluminium sheets inside, then a service station could simply have a small shed full of new casettes and store the spent ones in a pile at the back until the delivery truck comes around. They'd be completely inert, no danger from smoking or cellphones, no leaching chemicals into the environment and no need to dig up the whole place as toxic waste after you decommission the station.

A 20 lbs casette isn't too difficult to lift by hand and you'd only need two per car so you don't even need any fancy forklifts and loading equipment to get them in the car. It'd be exactly like exchanging propane cylinders.

Eikka

2.3 / 5 (9) Mar 30, 2013

The annoying bit about the aluminium battery is, that 55 pounds of aluminium going in is 82 pounds of aluminium oxide coming out.

It actually gets heavier in use.

Mike_Massen

1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2013

The question arises:-

How does the overall utility of this system compare with using the same mass of Aluminium (however physically prepared) and just exposing it to air and water (by physical agitation etc) to generate hydrogen and burning the hydrogen directly in conjunction with petrol/diesel for presumably:- reduced gaseous emissions and extending range and by how much for say 55 pounds of Aluminium ?

Has anyone actually done the comparative thermodynamic calculations and offered any caveats/observations over the hydrogen consumption cycle and the method of managing the caustic aluminium hydroxide ?

Thanks

TheKnowItAll

2.2 / 5 (10) Mar 30, 2013

Aluminum is too precious, rare? Lol Aluminum is the third most abundant element (after oxygen and silicon), and the most abundant metal, in the Earth's crust. This process has no pollutants other than aluminum oxide which will be reprocessed. Why be so afraid of clean air? Sure reprocessing the aluminum oxide will take energy and 'might' create some level of pollutants depending on how the energy is produced but it's easier to take care of those at a plant designed for it. The way the electricity is produced is an entirely different problem that is also being addressed. Don't be afraid! lol

Parsec

5 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2013

Of those concerned about the efficiency of the process, note also that most aluminum smelters are located near cheap sources of power, like hydro. I wonder exactly what the efficiency of the process actually is considering all aspects of the cycle.

phiumetta

3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2013

"Yes... apart from the fact that no CO2 will be released"

The process of recycling the aluminium requires electricity. This electricity is made from power plants, burning fossil fuels making CO2. UK alone has many 60's and 70's coal plants and natural gas plants which are very old infrastructure and aren't very efficient at all.

Actually most aluminum smelters co-exist with hydro or nuclear plants, 'cos they get cheap rates. So direct CO2 is low. Please don't make stuff up – if you don't know... check.

Mike_Massen

1 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2013

The company claim their waste product is Aluminium hydroxide which is caustic, yet people here are claiming its only aluminium oxide.

Clearly the process which uses water produces the hydroxide, how does one transport this waste to a refinery safely given its caustic and how many refineries are set up for converting the hydroxide to oxide and how much energy does that take ?

Steven_Anderson

1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2013

Anyone have specific numbers showing the weight of an electric car vs an ALL electric car VS Hybrid car. I can't seem to find a car that comes with all three types of engines. I would be interested in what the weight vs power ration of a car that has these batteries, an electric engine and an air water recovery system. Anyone?

Steven_Anderson

1 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2013

I found this for the Toyota Prius but couldn't find a gas and a hybrid version

Steven_Anderson

1 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2013

Toyota Brushless AC Nd Fe B PM motor[19] 36.3 kg 80.0 lb 50 kW 67 hp 1.37 kW/kg 0.84 hp/lb Toyota Prius[•] 2004

plaasjaapie

1 / 5 (10) Mar 31, 2013

Unless I am missing something major, you are going to have to recycle the oxidized aluminum plates using the same Hall–Héroult process that reduced alumina to aluminum metal in the first place. It's worth noting that the oxygen in the alumina and, presumably, the depleted plates, is turned into carbon dioxide via the carbon anodes in the reduction cells. If the point of these batteries was to reduce the carbon footprint of ground transportation, this technology just doesn't add up.

Have we got an electrochemist reading here who can carify?

arq

2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2013

Calm down people, nobody is a gun to your heads and forcing you dump your gasoline cars. This research is only in its preliminary stage and obvioulsy more research will be done to imporve it furthur. Same goes with other technologies.

Nothing wrong with exploring and investing in alternative technologies for our future needs.

Choice is not a bad thing!

Mike_Massen

1 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2013

arq knee jerked with

Nothing wrong with exploring and investing in alternative technologies for our future needs.

Choice is not a bad thing!

Sure !

But butt, please do the necessary homework first, ie Basic comparative thermodynamic 'net present' energy/cost calculations with a suitable weighting for the emissions.

Sigh, mutter, mutter...

arq

1 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2013

@mike, i was talking about alternative technologies in general. A lot of people here usually write them off even before they are fully explored.

Mike_Massen

1 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2013

arq responded

@mike, i was talking about alternative technologies in general. A lot of people here usually write them off even before they are fully explored.

Fair enough.
The thing that irks me with many so called 'advancements' is to get funding to experiment when most ground work can be done/saved on paper with an active intellect and maths. When you realise this step has been explored but ignored then you appreciate the money flow is the key not the advancement of technology per se'.

There are no really 'alternative technologies' until they pass some basic thermodynamics. Eg First cars on roads in UK ~120 years ago were electric with hub motors, was only when cheap oil/petrol arose that dynamics changed without appreciating/knowing (any long term) consequences.

Consequences of 'Aluminium-Water' are not (really) considered in overall transport applications (btw: Its not really Aluminium-Air is it!) for large stationary applications though - maybe ok

Pkunk_

1 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2013

"Yes... apart from the fact that no CO2 will be released"

The process of recycling the aluminium requires electricity. This electricity is made from power plants, burning fossil fuels making CO2. UK alone has many 60's and 70's coal plants and natural gas plants which are very old infrastructure and aren't very efficient at all.

Not if they are getting their electricity from nuclear plants. The CO2 released in mining for Uranium is almost negligible compared to the energy from fission which released no CO2.

TheKnowItAll

1.6 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2013

Yes sorry for misleading anyone by mistaking the aluminum hydroxide with the oxide. I'm not a chemist but I found out that 90% of the 100 million tonnes of aluminum hydroxide 'produced' annually is converted to aluminum oxide used in the manufacture of aluminum metal to begin with. So they are already wasting energy producing that stuff through the Bayer process. If there is someone with a Dr. in chemistry frequenting this thread please give your input.

Steven_Anderson

1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2013

Pkunk:
"Not if they are getting their electricity from nuclear plants. The CO2 released in mining for Uranium is almost negligible compared to the energy from fission which released no CO2."

It would be the same if it came from Wind/Solar/Wave although my preference is that it comes from generation IV nuclear reactors. They can't go boom and they have a million times the power density of coal (LFTR versions that is) We should make it happen as I have suggested here: http://rawcell.co...to-lftr/ where I came to a 1.6 Trillion capital cost figure for converting all the coal fire plants to LFTR reactors, starting in about a 5 year from now time frame after an investment of 23 billion or so (equivalent to the Manhattan project in 1942 in today's dollars. We could solve the inner core materials problem with this kind of effort in that short of time and another year after that for building and planning the ship to site reactors.

QuixoteJ

1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 01, 2013

The range extender idea for EVs that was mentioned in the article sounds like a decent idea. This would essentially make an EV a hybrid vehicle that could have range numbers closer to gasoline. You could rely on this battery as a fail-safe for when you forget to plug an EV in, and in doing so not have to tap into it very often.

JamesMaseoBrown

1 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2013

April Fools !!!

JustAnyone

1 / 5 (7) Apr 02, 2013

It's NOT A BATTERY if you can't recharge it ! 'Recycling' is NOT RECHARGING. Article (TFA) doesn't mention recharge time or a number-of-recharge-cycles limit, the crucial factors. it's a ONE-TIME solid fuel that's hard to change (heavy and solid). I'M CALLING SHENANIGANS. This isn't an article, editors failed, it's a promo for a group that has made an ususable (on a mass scale) object.

Pkunk_

1 / 5 (6) Apr 04, 2013

Steven_Anderson:
It would be the same if it came from Wind/Solar/Wave although my preference is that it comes from generation IV nuclear reactors. They can't go boom and they have a million times the power density of coal (LFTR versions that is) We should make it happen as I have suggested here: http://rawcell.co...to-lftr/ where I came to a 1.6 Trillion capital cost figure for converting all the coal fire plants to LFTR reactors,

The sad thing is the political opposition of the green brigade for the last 3 decades to nuclear power has made oil and coal king for the foreseeable future. These fools forced dozens of nuclear plants to close and made governments and corporations to pull back on nuclear research for decades. The governments worldwide spent only on defense related nuclear R&D which gave us better bombs since nuclear plants were "uncool".
Now with Fukushima the greens are once again back to their "principled" position of serving coal interests.

Steven_Anderson

1 / 5 (6) Apr 04, 2013

Pkunk: I actually wrote an article on the subject, it can be found at this link its titled ULTERIOR MOTIVES: ENERGY SOLUTION IGNORED SINCE 1942' http://rawcell.co...e-1942/. One of the four main causes of not adopting the LFTR nuclear solution had to do with the adoption of oil back in the 30's and 40's

Pisang

1 / 5 (5) Apr 07, 2013

Stating : Water isn't all that expensive.

Are you kidding????? Seriously!
I think, it is a misslead if the source of "alternative" energy is taken from basic needs of human.

antialias_physorg

3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2013

I think, it is a misslead if the source of "alternative" energy is taken from basic needs of human.

If those needs are abundantly available (AND are returned to the environment in pristine order after use) - where#s the problem?

Zinc-air batteries use air. Are you opposed to that, too?
Aluminum batteries use water. Well guess what: when you recharge them you get the water back.

We're not talking fuels here. We're talking batteries. That's an entirely different concept.

Mike_Massen

1 / 5 (6) Apr 07, 2013

Aluminum batteries use water. Well guess what: when you recharge them you get the water back.

Don't know if you have been reading the other comments but this is not a battery 'as such'.

You are left with a pile of caustic aluminium hydroxide with issues of transport, storage and 'recycling' ie Wet aluminium hydroxide which needs to be dried and processed by a smelter...

It would be cheaper and perhaps have more utility to get cheap scrap aluminium mix with water in a suitable container in the boot, provide appropriate physical agitation, generate hydrogen and use it to supplement the engine's fuel supply and produce just the same waste...

Essentially the same process but no confusion with the paradigm of a battery and a whole lot cheaper :-)