The second law of thermodynamics isn't all it's cracked up to be

I've had some pushback on the article about Purdue's breakthrough in hydrogen generation technology using an alloy of aluminum and gallium to generate hydrogen from water.  Several emailers since then have cited the undeniable fact that it takes more energy to make (and refresh) the aluminum alloy than the alloy-plus-water will subsequently yield for propelling our automobiles.  In short: "Steve, it's a net loser of energy, and don't forget: you can't repeal the second law of thermodynamics*." 

I keep hearing the argument that such-and-so process is a "net energy loser."  The typical fallacy in that argument is that not all energy is useful to humankind.  It clarifies things for me when I mentally separate "energy" into at least two categories: useful and not-useful.  [Note: "unexploited energy" might be better terminology than "not-useful energy," but I'll stick with the latter for this article.] 

An isolated waterfall in the Canadian Rockies is a lot of energy, but left alone, it's not very useful to residents of Manhattan.  On the other hand, a hydroelectric generator on that same waterfall, if used to help make ten million aluminum-gallium bricks, transforms the waterfall's energy into something extremely useful for ten million vehicle drivers in Manhattan. 

When not-useful energy is affordably transformed into useful energy, you and I shouldn't care if the second law of thermodynamics is impossible to violate.  We should be happy to use not-useful energy in order to make useful energy.  A barrel of oil a mile below ground inside the arctic circle isn't much use to me, but 13 gallons of gasoline at the station a mile south of my house is very useful to me.  Likewise, 5000 kilowatt-hours of potential energy in a Canadian river isn't much use to me, but 400 kWh of electric generating potential in an aluminum-gallium brick for my car would be very useful to me. 

So, when I think of the not-useful energy as merely an input to the production process for useful energy, it makes the Purdue discovery look very promising.  In fact, the solar and wind crowd should be thinking the same way; aluminum-gallium bricks just might be a way to convert not-useful coastal winds and not-useful Mojave sunshine into useful vehicle-miles for residents of Minneapolis. 

Why I'm doubtful about corn ethanol
This dichotomy (useful versus not-useful energy), by the way, helps to illustrate one reason why I'm highly skeptical of the corn ethanol idea.  (The distorting effects of government subsidies is another reason.)  Many have questioned whether ethanol production is a net energy loser—a question that sounds deceptively similar to the aluminum question above.  But there's a big difference: ethanol requires a large input of useful energy (gasoline and diesel) to produce, and that changes the equation in a big way.  The question is whether it takes more useful energy to make ethanol from corn than the useful energy ethanol delivers.  (It's similar to the "energy breakeven" issue for nuclear fusion reactors.)   

Come to think of it, one way to find out more quickly whether corn ethanol is a useful-energy loser might be to ask farm-belt politicians the following question: 

Would you support a federal law mandating the use of unsubsidized ethanol fuel only (instead of gasoline or diesel) in the production of ethanol?  Why or why not?

While we're waiting for that answer, I'll still be pulling for ultrabatteries, ultracapacitors, or aluminim-gallium bricks.  If you spot anything else I should be keeping an eye on as a potential gasoline-free, diesel-free method of powering personal automobiles, let me know. 

==============
End note:

* The second law of thermodynamics says that our universe [the only "closed system" of which I am aware] is always progressing towards a higher and higher state of disorder—aka "entropy."  It's a process that is unstoppable and irreversible.  I learned that thirty-seven years ago in professor Charlie Brown's thermodynamics class at Purdue, and after all that time, the second law still holds true today, surprisingly enough. 

Although I agree that repealing the second law is out of the question, I also know that creating the illusion that the second law is in fact being broken is most certainly not out of the question.  It happens all the time.  The emergence of life is a prime example of more and more order emerging from chaos; the emergence of economies as complex-adaptive systems, as Eric Beinhocker explained in his excellent book, is another example.  Those aren't general defeats of the second law, but they are definitely "local defeats" of entropy.  Houdini never really sawed a woman in half, he just made it look that way; similarly, the emergence of living organisms and complex economies don't violate the second law; it just looks that way from our local point of view. 

Comments

[Bob]

A transition from gasoline to any other energy source represents a paradigm shift. Our mental (and economic) models are very familiar with what we have now. Propose a change to those models pro-actively (very desirable) as opposed to a reactive, forced change (pain relief and highly undesirable)and our mental models
get all out of whack. Inject this proposed change into a familiar economic model and it gets worse. The spreadsheet junkies get a big fix, though.

Somehow, we prefer stasis (status quo) even when facts prove that stasis is unsustainable. Bureaucrats are particularly fond of preserving stasis because their
self interest demands it.

Hey Bob, are you one of those change zealots? No and I have an aversion to those "everything is broke, fix it" people. Some stuff should, indeed must, change and some stuff is better left alone is the way I look at it. We could get a big discussion going about all that "stuff" but that's not the purpose of this blog.

We either have an energy problem or we don't. I'm convinced we do and the sooner we go about solving it (and it may mean more than one solution) the better. Doing nothing is no longer an option and we have been doing nothing for far too long.

I don't if I'll be plugging my car in an outlet or running my garden hose to the tank. However, regardless of the net energy debate surrounding ethanol I find it absurd to consider using foodstuffs as fuel.

Sorry, Steve, I had to get that in.

[mark]

It all boils down to generation, storage, and conversion to useful form. Biofuels are terrible at generation. They convert very little of the solar energy into useful energy. They are good at storage considering the energy density and lenght of time they can be stored. Photovoltaic is over 100 times better than bio at converting solar into useful energy, but the storage is much worse. The other problem with photovoltaic (and wind) is the upfront cost. Once the systems are installed there are very little additional cost involved. This makes it almost impossible for middle class America to impliment. Imagine if you had to pay for 20 years of gas upfront for your car. Solar is cost competative - over the life of the system. So this puts middle class America at the mercy of maximum profit seeking, politician buying, business America. We can see where that has taken us over the last 30 years (still no energy plan for this country).
If Congress were to subsidize the upfront cost of solar, who would be eligible? Should be anybody with land. That means middle class homeowner Americans could collectively generate a big chunk of energy taking away pricing power from big business America. Like Congress is going to do that!

[rufus]

I've been studying this for a couple of years on an amateur level. Here are a few of my conclusions.

It takes a bit less than 10 gallons of ethanol (in a properly tuned engine) to grow 150 bushels of corn, or, about 450 gallons of ethanol. Note: your newer plants that utilize some of the cobs and stover will increase this by about 100 gallons/acre.

By fractionating the kernel, and burning the fiber, you can refine the ethanol with about $0.05/gal worth of nat gas, and you can co-produce enough fertilizer, and char, to replace all but about another $0.05/gal worth of nat gas.

So yes, Steve, it would be a Big-Time Winner to use ethanol in the production. Be careful what you believe. A huge amount of what you're reading is API "Talking Points."

[Andrew]

Reading the comments, the energy used to make the fuel vs. energy given to the wheels debate seems a moot point. The real issue is the one pound of aluminum per mile aspect. Changing a 300 pound brick once a week is not going to fly with the average driver. That would be like having to change out your whole gas tank at every fill up.

Refining aluminum is extremely energy intensive (there is a reason a lot of it is done in China and Canada, where wholesale electricity is cheap), but the real number we should be looking at is the energy storage density of this. Would 300 pounds of lithium ion batteries supply more power to the wheels than 300 pounds of Aluminum and Gallium? Both ways you need large amounts of electricity (to charge the batteries or recycle the aluminum), so the one that uses that electricity most efficiently while meeting size and weight targets seems the better choice. Anyone want to math that out?

[rufus]

The original Ethanol-Bashers (Pimenta, et al) based their goofy energy inefficiency meme on the amount of "Solar Energy" that was "Inefficiently Used" by the Corn Plant.

The fact that he was the founder, and director, of the Southern California Oil Consortium through which the Oil Companies paid him hundreds of thousands of dollars was purely coincidental I assume.

[rufus]

Yikes! It was "Patzek," not Pimental; and, it was University of Cal Oil Consortium. But, other than that . . . .

[caveat bettor]

I propose an experiment: grow, harvest, process, store and refine ethanol--USING ONLY ETHANOL as inputs. Subtract these inputs from the ethanol produced. End this silly, politicized, irrational debate once and for all.

But wait, the universities won't step up because they want federal grant money! And energy companies won't either because they are in the crosshairs of Congress and the Media (a pretty deadly concoction).

[rufus]

"Greener" Ethanol:

http://www.ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=3252&q=&page=all

[ultralame]

But the question remains, once we have green power, is it more efficient to convert the gallium catalyst and run our cars with hydrogen engines, or is it more efficient to channel that power directly into batteries and electric motors?

I have not been able to hear any info about that. Electric motors are pretty efficient, but batteries are heavy and not so environmentally friendly.

If the answer is the latter, what if we then take into account the manufacturing wastes and costs from each?

[rufus]

Ultralame, probably the most efficient well to wheels you'll see in the next ten or fifteen years will be a fuel cell powered by bio-gas (think natural gas derived from corn.) However, our whole infrastructure is set up for "Liquid" fuels. As a result, ethanol will play a bigger, and bigger role in the near to intermediate future.

It can, once you've accounted for co-products, be sold for $1.15/gal Wholesale very profitably (Without subsidies;) and, it can be marketed using existing infrastructure.

Keep in mind that the EPA, in cooperation with another agency (I can't remember which one off the top of my head, but I read the report) derived better mileage, and more power from a VW 1.9 liter 4 cylinder engine than could be achieved with either gasoline, or diesel. The main "tweak" was in much higher compression (ethanol is less dense than gasoline, but has much higher Octane rating.)

[rufus]

Oh, one other thing, then I'll shut up. The problem the Engine Manufacturers are faced with is: An engine that's optimized for gasoline (and, this includes FFV's) will run on high concentrations of ethanol, such as e85 (with, admittedly, inferior fuel mileage;) but an engine optimized for ethanol (e85, for instance) WILL NOT run on gasoline. The Compression ratio is just too high.

Considering that there are at present only 1284 stations in the U.S. that sell e85, you can see the Manufacturers' dilemma.

This will all work out, but it will be an uneven path with the Big Oil Companies fighting all the way. Bottom Line:

Wholesale Unleaded, today $2.04. Wholesale ethanol profitable at $1.15.

All you Really need to know.

[JorgXMcKie]

I'd still be more comfortable if the government didn't decide in advance which technology would be best. The record of governments in such situations is not good.

Mark, I don't know what the fascination with 'plans' is for some. A 'plan' solves nothing. The USSR had a steady progression of Five-Year Plans for the whole darned country. How did that work out?

I believe that a largish part of the problem actually *is* politicians pushing 'plans' because it gives them a chance to pretend that they're actually accomplishing something.

[JorgXMcKie]

I'd still be more comfortable if the government didn't decide in advance which technology would be best. The record of governments in such situations is not good.

Mark, I don't know what the fascination with 'plans' is for some. A 'plan' solves nothing. The USSR had a steady progression of Five-Year Plans for the whole darned country. How did that work out?

I believe that a largish part of the problem actually *is* politicians pushing 'plans' because it gives them a chance to pretend that they're actually accomplishing something.