this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2024
47 points (77.6% liked)

Technology

59589 readers
3024 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] zazo@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Here's some math on that "revolutionary" idea to put things into perspective, as it turns out, it's pretty underwhelming:

  • If we used ALL the aluminum produced globally in a year (about 65 million tons), we'd get around 7.30 million tons of hydrogen.
  • While that might sound like a lot, it really isn't.. That hydrogen would contain about 8.30 x 10^14 BTUs of energy.
  • Meanwhile, our annual global methane production is sitting pretty at 1.14 x 10^17 BTU.
  • Doing the math, and our "amazing" aluminum-to-hydrogen process gives us a whopping 0.73% of the energy we get from methane...

And remember, this is assuming we use EVERY SINGLE BIT of aluminum we produce globally!

Obv hydrogen is "cleaner" than gas, but the point is the scale - this method is a drop in the ocean compared to current energy usage.

TL;DR: Using ALL the world's annual aluminum production to make hydrogen would only give us 0.73% of the energy we get from natural gas....

.

.

.

.

For the math nerds, here's more detail on the chemistry and energy calc:

  • The reaction: 2 Al + 6 H2O → 2 Al(OH)3 + 3 H2
  • Global aluminum production: ~65 million metric tons/year
  • Molar mass of Al = 26.98 g/mol
  • Moles of Al = 65,000,000,000 kg / 0.02698 kg/mol = 2.41 x 10^12 moles
  • H2 produced = (2.41 x 10^12 moles Al * 3) / 2 = 3.62 x 10^12 moles H2
  • Mass of H2 = 3.62 x 10^12 moles * 2.016 g/mol = 7.30 x 10^12 g = 7.30 million metric tons

BTU Calculation:

  • Energy content of H2 = 113,738 BTU/kg
  • Total energy from H2 = 7.30 x 10^9 kg * 113,738 BTU/kg = 8.30 x 10^14 BTU

Methane Comparison:

  • Annual natural gas production ≈ 4,000 billion cubic meters
  • Assuming 80% methane content: 3,200 billion cubic meters of methane
  • Energy content of methane ≈ 35,663 BTU/m^3
  • Total energy from methane = 3,200 x 10^9 m^3 * 35,663 BTU/m^3 = 1.14 x 10^17 BTU
  • Ratio: (8.30 x 10^14) /(1.14 x 10^17) = 0.0073 or 0.73%
[–] katja@lemmy.blahaj.zone 17 points 4 months ago

That article almost hurt to read.

[–] eleitl@lemm.ee 16 points 4 months ago

Written by an idiot.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yeah sure ok dot gif

If the MIT marketing department was a fuel cell, we'd have the energy crisis solved.

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 13 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

MIT just explores shit.

You can't blame them for naive press jumping way ahead of what their papers say.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

MIT and there marketing and promotion of their research is itself an established meme. No body hypes shit harder than MIT. They also do make amazing discoveries. Also, they've solved the world's energy problems a hundred times over.

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 months ago

im all for using hydrogen instead of lithium but this sounds like bullshit