Engines that run on water could become reality

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,922
0
76
From Newscientist,

Forget cars fuelled by alcohol and vegetable oil. Before long, you might be able to run your car with nothing more than water in its fuel tank. It would be the ultimate zero-emissions vehicle.

While water, plain old H2O, is not at first sight an obvious power source, it has a key virtue: it is an abundant source of hydrogen, the element widely touted as the green fuel of the future. If that hydrogen could be liberated on demand, it would overcome many of the obstacles that till now have prevented the dream of a hydrogen-powered car becoming reality. Producing hydrogen by conventional industrial means is expensive, inefficient and often polluting. Then there are the problems of storing and transporting hydrogen. The pressure tanks required to hold usable quantities of the fuel are heavy and cumbersome, which restricts the car's performance and range.

Tareq Abu-Hamed, now at the University of Minnesota, and colleagues at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, have devised a scheme that gets round these problems. By reacting water with the element boron, their system produces hydrogen that can be burnt in an internal combustion engine or fed to a fuel cell to generate electricity. "The aim is to produce the hydrogen on-board at a rate matching the demand of the car engine," says Abu-Hamed. "We want to use the boron to save transporting and storing the hydrogen." The only by-product is boron oxide, which can be removed from the car, turned back into boron, and used again. What's more, Abu-Hamed envisages doing this in a solar-powered plant that is completely emission-free.

The team calculates that a car would have to carry just 18 kilograms of boron and 45 litres of water to produce 5 kilograms of hydrogen, which has the same energy content as a 40-litre tank of conventional fuel. An Israeli company has begun designing a prototype engine that works in the same way, and the Japanese company Samsung has built a prototype scooter based on a similar idea.

The hydrogen-on-demand approach is based on some simple high-school chemistry. Elements like sodium and potassium are well known for their violent reactions with water, tearing hydrogen from its stable union with oxygen. Boron does the same, but at a more manageable pace. It requires no special containment, and atom for atom it's a light material. When all the boron is used up, the boron oxide that remains can be reprocessed and recycled.

Abu-Hamed and his team are not the first to investigate hydrogen-on-demand vehicles. The car giant DaimlerChrysler built a concept vehicle called Natrium (after the Latin word for sodium, from which the element's Na symbol is drawn), which used slightly more sophisticated chemistry to generate its hydrogen. Instead of pure water as the source of the gas, it used a solution of the hydrogen-heavy compound sodium borohydride. When passed over a precious-metal catalyst such as ruthenium, the compound reacts with water to liberate hydrogen that can be fed to a fuel cell. It was enough to give the Natrium a top speed of 130 kilometres per hour and a respectable range of 500 kilometres, but DaimlerChrysler axed the project in 2003 because of difficulties in providing the necessary infrastructure to support the car in an efficient, environmentally friendly way.

Engineuity, an Israeli start-up company run by Amnon Yogev, a former Weizmann Institute scientist, is working on a similar strategy, but using the reaction between aluminium wire and water to generate hydrogen. In Engineuity's design, the tip of the metal wire is ignited and dipped into water to begin splitting the water molecules. The liberated hydrogen is piped into the engine alongside the resulting steam, where it is mixed with air and burnt. Engineuity is looking for investors to pay for a prototype, and claims it will be able to commercialise its idea "in a few years' time". The US company PowerBall Technologies envisages a hydrogen-on-demand engine containing plastic balls filled with sodium hydride powder that are split to dump the contents into water, where it reacts to produce hydrogen.

Abu-Hamed says the generation of hydrogen for his team's engine would be regulated by controlling the flow of water into a series of tanks containing powdered boron. To kick-start the reaction, the water has to be supplied as vapour heated to several hundred degrees, so the car will still require some start-up power, possibly from a battery. Once the engine is running, the heat generated by the highly exothermic oxidation reaction between boron and water could be used to warm the incoming water, Abu-Hamed says. Alternatively, small amounts of hydrogen could be diverted from the engine and stored for use as the start-up fuel. Water produced when the hydrogen is burnt in an internal combustion engine or reacted in a fuel cell could be captured and cycled back to the vehicle's tank, making the whole on-board system truly zero-emission.

Hydrogen-on-demand, whether from water or another source, could address two of the big problems still holding back the wider use of hydrogen as a vehicle fuel: how to store the flammable gas, and how to transport it safely. Today's hydrogen-fuelled cars rely on stocks of gas produced in centralised plants and distributed via refuelling stations in either liquefied or compressed form. Neither is ideal. The liquefaction process eats up to 40 per cent of the energy content of the stored hydrogen, while the energy density of the gas, even when compressed, is so low it is hard to see how it can ever be used to fuel a normal car.

Hydrogen-on-demand would not only remove the need for costly hydrogen pipelines and distribution infrastructure, it would also make hydrogen vehicles safer. "The theoretical advantage of on-board generation is that you don't have to muck about with hydrogen storage," says Mike Millikin, who monitors developments in alternative fuels for the Green Car Congress website. A car that doesn't need to carry tanks of flammable, volatile liquid or compressed gas would be much less vulnerable in an accident. "It also potentially offsets the requirements for building up a massive hydrogen production and distribution infrastructure," Millikin says.

There is a potentially polluting step that has to be tackled. "You'll need an infrastructure to produce and distribute whatever the key elements of the generation system might be," Millikin warns. While Abu-Hamed's scheme still requires a distribution network and reprocessing plant, he has devised an ingenious plan that will allow the spent boron oxide to be converted back to metallic boron in a pollution-free process that uses only solar energy (see Diagram). Heating the oxide with magnesium powder recovers the boron, leaving magnesium oxide as a by-product. The magnesium oxide can then be recycled by first reacting it with chlorine gas to produce magnesium chloride, from which the magnesium metal and chlorine can then be recovered by electrolysis.

The energy to drive these processes would ultimately come from the sun. The team calculates that a system of mirrors could concentrate enough sunlight to produce electricity from solar cells with an efficiency of 35 per cent. Overall, they say, their system could convert solar energy into work by the car's engine with an efficiency of 11 per cent, similar to today's petrol engines.

Experts are sceptical that we'll be seeing cars running on water any time soon. "It's not the kind of thing you're going to see appearing in a car in five or even ten years' time," says Jim Skea, research director at the UK Energy Research Centre in London. For example, DaimlerChrysler is now focusing its efforts on cars running on compressed hydrogen because filling stations that supply it already exist in some places.

Proponents of cars that run on water are banking that long term the idea will win out. Engineuity's Yogev claims the running costs will be comparable to those of today's petrol engines and expects to have a prototype built within three years.

My other car runs on water? Don't bet against it.

No magic cars for at least 5-10 years. How about 20 years?
 

Ika

Lifer
Mar 22, 2006
14,264
3
81
Interesting. I hope this brings fuel cells to the market sooner, because FCs are very promising.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
25,765
4,291
126
Again, WATER IS NOT AN ENERGY SOURCE. Water is an energy storage medium. We still would need massive amounts of energy to remove the boron oxide, chemically react it back to boron and oxygen, and to return the boron to the car.

No car can ever or will ever run on water. It'll instead run on whatever power plant produced the energy stored in the water (and/or hydrogen and/or whatever other variation).
 

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,922
0
76
Originally posted by: dullard
Again, WATER IS NOT AN ENERGY SOURCE. Water is an energy storage medium. We still would need massive amounts of energy to remove the boron oxide, chemically react it back to boron and oxygen, and to return the boron to the car.

No car can ever or will ever run on water. It'll instead run on whatever power plant produced the energy stored in the water (and/or hydrogen and/or whatever other variation).

Nowhere in the article did it say that water is an energy source :p

Ultimately the "fuel" that you put into your car would be water. The hydrogen in the water is what is burned after it is liberated from oxygen. According to the article, the team working on this has found an inexpensive way to remove boron oxide and convert it back into boron. Did you read it?
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
25,765
4,291
126
Originally posted by: Eeezee
Nowhere in the article did it say that water is an energy source :p

Ultimately the "fuel" that you put into your car would be water. The hydrogen in the water is what is burned after it is liberated from oxygen. According to the article, the team working on this has found an inexpensive way to remove boron oxide and convert it back into boron. Did you read it?
From the original post (your text and/or the article's text):

[*]"Engines that run on water"
[*]"magic cars"
[*]"Before long, you might be able to run your car with nothing more than water in its fuel tank."
[*]"While water, plain old H2O, is not at first sight an obvious power source..."
[*]"My other car runs on water? Don't bet against it."

I could go on and on with quotes from that post all of which imply the water is the power source. Heck the bolded section is the most damning.

Yes, I read the article. And yes it did later on change it's mind about "NOTHING more than water in its fuel tank." It goes on to contradict itself into saying other things are needed (such as boron). And it does address the real source of power could be a solar power plant. Well duh, we can do that now. Water simply is not a source of power. It is a battery that lets us use the power produced at the power plant.

And initially that power plant will most likely get it's power from coal, oil, or some other fossel fuel because that is where most power plants get their power from.
 

Lazy8s

Golden Member
Jun 23, 2004
1,503
0
0
I'd like to point out that if it uses a combustion engine it won't be 0% emission like they claim. I wonder how expensive pure boron is...
 

OS

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
15,581
1
76
Originally posted by: dullard
Again, WATER IS NOT AN ENERGY SOURCE. Water is an energy storage medium. We still would need massive amounts of energy to remove the boron oxide, chemically react it back to boron and oxygen, and to return the boron to the car.

No car can ever or will ever run on water. It'll instead run on whatever power plant produced the energy stored in the water (and/or hydrogen and/or whatever other variation).

seriously

i'm not a chem major, but the key here is energy must be expended to refine/process the boron.

water, hydrogen or whatever else will not be a true energy source such as oil.
 

LordMorpheus

Diamond Member
Aug 14, 2002
6,871
1
0
Originally posted by: Lazy8s
I'd like to point out that if it uses a combustion engine it won't be 0% emission like they claim. I wonder how expensive pure boron is...

when you burn hydrogen you get water - good enough to say 0% emmissions. edit - actually, you could cycle this emmissions water back to your water tank - your only consumed substance would be the boron, which could later be recycled. And oxygen, I guess, but that would come out later at the recycling plant.

At the deal with boron is that you store the boron oxide you generate when you make the hydrogen, so that you could later recycle it. There have been similiar ideas using a metal-hydrogen slurry, storing the byproduct for re-hydrogenation.

I see this being used in internal combustion engines before FC's, because the actual fuel cell is still prohibitively expensive, but a internal combustion engine converted to burn hydrogen isn't.

This is an interesting developement, I didn't know boron + water gave you a good clean source of hydrogen, and a recyclable byproduct.

2000USD/kg boron with 18kg of boron . . . 36,000 USD for the catalyst alone, assuming recycling is cheap. Maybe it'll come down?
 

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,922
0
76
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: Eeezee
Nowhere in the article did it say that water is an energy source :p

Ultimately the "fuel" that you put into your car would be water. The hydrogen in the water is what is burned after it is liberated from oxygen. According to the article, the team working on this has found an inexpensive way to remove boron oxide and convert it back into boron. Did you read it?
From the original post (your text and/or the article's text):

[*]"Engines that run on water"
[*]"magic cars"
[*]"Before long, you might be able to run your car with nothing more than water in its fuel tank."
[*]"While water, plain old H2O, is not at first sight an obvious power source..."
[*]"My other car runs on water? Don't bet against it."

I could go on and on with quotes from that post all of which imply the water is the power source. Heck the bolded section is the most damning.

Yes, I read the article. And yes it did later on change it's mind about "NOTHING more than water in its fuel tank." It goes on to contradict itself into saying other things are needed (such as boron). And it does address the real source of power could be a solar power plant. Well duh, we can do that now. Water simply is not a source of power. It is a battery that lets us use the power produced at the power plant.

And initially that power plant will most likely get it's power from coal, oil, or some other fossel fuel because that is where most power plants get their power from.

I invite you to go on and on with more quotes, but ultimately the article demonstrates that you are not burning water, you are burning hydrogen. The water is not an energy source, but its components are. Logically, hydrogen is the fuel, water is what you put into the tank.

The real source of power is not a solar power plant. What you did was skim the article without really paying attentino to anything in it. Here's what the article said.

[*]The engine has water in its fuel tank with a separate tank full of boron
[*]A water-boron reaction liberates hydrogen and boron oxide
[*]The hydrogen is burned, providing energy
[*]The boron oxide is removed from the car and transported
[*]The solar power plant produces fresh boron by liberating it from the oxygen
[*]The boron is transferred back to your home or a fuel station

What do you put into your car?
1) Boron
2) Water

The power plant does NOT produce the power that is used in the car. The only purpose of the power plant is to provide energy for the production of boron. Ultimately, the water is the source of power because it is hydrogen that is burned.

And yes it did later on change it's mind about "NOTHING more than water in its fuel tank." It goes on to contradict itself into saying other things are needed (such as boron).

The above quote is not proof of a contradiction. What is in the fuel tank? Nothing more than water.

And it does address the real source of power could be a solar power plant.

Wrong, the boron produced by the energy produced by the power plant is not the source of power in the car. Boron is used to separate oxygen and hydrogen (very little energy is required to do this), and the hydrogen is burned (produces a lot of energy). The solar power plant is not producing the energy that the car runs on. Technically any source of boron could be used, therefore making the power plant unnecessary until boron supplies run low.
 

Lazy8s

Golden Member
Jun 23, 2004
1,503
0
0
Originally posted by: Aflac
Originally posted by: Lazy8s
http://biotsavart.tripod.com/bmt.htm

Damn, $2000USD/kg at the cheapest? Hope it doesn't use much boron....it would be like a car that runs by burning $20 bills...but it has no emissions!!!...

They said they could recycle the boron.

And they'll do it for free right?

It's like the oil you use in your car. It's all recycled. I used to work at a car shop. We charged people more than the oil we bought cost, then we sold the old oil to be recycled. If you remove what we made for recycling the oil it cost about $1 to do an oil change but we charged $14. I'm sure it will be recycled but we will still pay for it on both ends.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
25,765
4,291
126
Eeezee, I'm out of this thread. You clearly have no idea of the proper definitions, so a debate is useless. When you educate yourself more on this area, then come back to me and we can have a productive discussion.

<- Dullard is a PhD in chemical engineering, energy transfer/storage is his job and his education.
 

ZOOYUKA

Platinum Member
Jan 24, 2005
2,460
0
0
Somebody already figured out how to do this in 70's, but the government covered it up.
 

KarmaPolice

Diamond Member
Jun 24, 2004
3,066
0
0
Originally posted by: dullard
Eeezee, I'm out of this thread. You clearly have no idea of the proper definitions, so a debate is useless. When you educate yourself more on this area, then come back to me and we can have a productive discussion.

<- Dullard is a PhD in chemical engineering, energy transfer/storage is his job and his education.

no need to be stuck up about it.

I read the article and I got what they are saying. Sure mabye they didnt use the terms or wording you wanted them to but it seemed pretty straight forward to me.

Water is what we are going to be puting in
Hydrogen will be the energy source

 

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,922
0
76
Originally posted by: Aflac
Originally posted by: Lazy8s
http://biotsavart.tripod.com/bmt.htm

Damn, $2000USD/kg at the cheapest? Hope it doesn't use much boron....it would be like a car that runs by burning $20 bills...but it has no emissions!!!...

They said they could recycle the boron.

Exactly, and if a solar power plant is able to do it, I assume the process is relatively cheap. I think this all depends on how much hydrogen you get from a gram a boron and how much energy you get from burning a gram of hydrogen.

3H20 + 2B = B2O3 + 3H2

I don't know offhand how much energy you get from burning hydrogen.
 

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,922
0
76
Originally posted by: dullard
Eeezee, I have no idea what I'm talking about and didn't bother reading the article. The real source of power is the hydrogen that is being burned, not the power plant as I so foolishly declared. Because you pointed this out to me, I am going to leave the discussion.

Fixed
 

Ika

Lifer
Mar 22, 2006
14,264
3
81
Originally posted by: Lazy8s
Originally posted by: Aflac
Originally posted by: Lazy8s
http://biotsavart.tripod.com/bmt.htm

Damn, $2000USD/kg at the cheapest? Hope it doesn't use much boron....it would be like a car that runs by burning $20 bills...but it has no emissions!!!...

They said they could recycle the boron.

And they'll do it for free right?

It's like the oil you use in your car. It's all recycled. I used to work at a car shop. We charged people more than the oil we bought cost, then we sold the old oil to be recycled. If you remove what we made for recycling the oil it cost about $1 to do an oil change but we charged $14. I'm sure it will be recycled but we will still pay for it on both ends.

no, recycle as in "convert it to boron oxide, then convert it back to boron" while in the car. At least, that's what I got from the article...

 

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,922
0
76
Originally posted by: Aflac
Originally posted by: Lazy8s
Originally posted by: Aflac
Originally posted by: Lazy8s
http://biotsavart.tripod.com/bmt.htm

Damn, $2000USD/kg at the cheapest? Hope it doesn't use much boron....it would be like a car that runs by burning $20 bills...but it has no emissions!!!...

They said they could recycle the boron.

And they'll do it for free right?

It's like the oil you use in your car. It's all recycled. I used to work at a car shop. We charged people more than the oil we bought cost, then we sold the old oil to be recycled. If you remove what we made for recycling the oil it cost about $1 to do an oil change but we charged $14. I'm sure it will be recycled but we will still pay for it on both ends.

no, recycle as in "convert it to boron oxide, then convert it back to boron" while in the car. At least, that's what I got from the article...

They'll still charge you for it, but it's not going to be the $2000/kg that Lazy8s quoted for purchasing Boron. The process will be cheap for them, so they can reduce the cost to the consumer considerably and still be making huge profits.
 

mercanucaribe

Banned
Oct 20, 2004
9,763
1
0
Hydrogen isn't the energy source... The supposed solar power plants are the energy source and boron is a storage medium that happens to react with water. This is not the same as burning hydrogen and making water as a by product-- in that case, pure hydrogen actually is the pure fuel.

Edit: And boron is NOT a catalyst in this reaction.