There are 454g in a pound, so one pound of Gallium costs $1362.
I don't know what the ratio of Al/Ga would be in this magic alloy, but assuming it's 10:1 in favour of Al - somewhat conservative - you're looking at a tank that costs $47,670 to make if there are 350 pounds of Al.
If it's 1:1 it's more like half a million.
Even at 100:1 you still have a tank that costs nearly $5,000.
This would make cars very, very valuable commodities - possibly even more so than they are now.
The press release doesn't specify the amount of gallium needed.
Maybe someone should call them and ask?
Now that is a 2005 price, but still this is significantly lower. I think that purity matters here. Not cheap, but since it's able to be recycled, as a capital cost $1000 or $2000 isn't a huge price tage. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
Total annual world production a few years ago was estimated to be 61 tons, so growth would presumably have to be huge, in percentage terms. Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.
you are the media you consume.
This is the first new tech that I have had good vibes about since I started studying peak oil. Breaking down water with a common earth element? Gimmie.
It does sound promising - noting of course, that it only moves the problem to electricity generation, where there are a lot of options, but where those currently used are also problematic (coal, gas, nuclear, etc...) In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
By the way, the reason Gallium is an impurity in Aluminum oxides is that Aluminum and Gallium are chemically similar [both contiguous elements in the the Earth Metal (s2p1) series, Al is 1s2 2s2p6 3s2p1 and Gallium is 1s2 2s2p6 3s2p6 4s2d10p1]. Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
And better batteries are the ongoing holy grail for EV's.
Now, using hydrogen as a benchmark is, of course, making it sound much better than it may be, since as a battery, hydrogen sucks really bad. Being much better than hydrogen is something we have already accomplished, so the question becomes compared to other batteries, how effective is this.
It would seem that what it really has going for it is stability ... one presumes that it is not going to discharge on its own even if not tapped for hydrogen for weeks at a time. So I would think that the most likely use for this is for the back up power supply component in PHEV's, which is presently provided by gasoline/diesel. Utsukushikereba sore de ii
The only advantage of this over pure hydrogen is that storing Aluminum and Gallium in a "just add water!" hydrogen fuel cell is easier than handling pure hydrogen. But the result of this is to produce Aluminum oxide from recycled aluminum, so the spent fuel cells would have to be recycled into Aluminum-production again. Also, I am not convinced the Gallium will catalyse as oppose to being consumed and ending up as impurities in the Aluminum Oxide.
This scheme will result in making Aluminum, Gallium and electric power more expensive, and no reuse of existing liquid fuel infrastructure. Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
And carbon powder can be created from biomass through direct charcoal conversion, giving very good transportability and stability.
But altogether I'd rather bike to the closest electric train and let the train operator worry about dragging the motors and brakes and all of that around. That way I don't have to park anything in front of the house. Utsukushikereba sore de ii
And if the impurities in Gallium that mess up the formation of micron scale electronics are not a problem for the process, then 99% pure Gallium would be a lot cheaper $3/gram.
On the other hand, its really a fueled-battery, and the real comparison would be with charged-batteries and other fueled-batteries ... its cheating a bit to compare it with hydrogen, which under present technology really sucks as a power storage approach. Utsukushikereba sore de ii
