Slashdot Mirror
Fuel-Cell Power With Methanol
foaty writes: "It has been reported that Japanese electronics companies have developed prototypes for fuel-cell batteries that can power the smallest of electronic devices for long periods of time, and they only need refueling, not recharging! See the article at FutureEnergies.com." That article links to this piece at ZDNet; what's interesting is that instead of hydrogen, this article talks instead mostly about methanol-based fuel cells.
This isn't some new miracle pulled out of the hat by the Japanese. For example, an MIT Technology Review article on some American work on a methanol fuel cell is here. A whole bibliography on recent Direct Methanol Fuel Cell (DMFCs) work is here.
Why would refueling be preferable to recharging?
I kind of like having only to plug into a wall to recharge my laptop, as opposed to having to stop off at a gas station, or buy a big supply of this stuff to keep in my garage.
Hemos posted methanol portable fuel-cells almost a year ago to the week - made by Motorola.
I'm a 2000 man.
Canaries. You'll have to carry around a canary, and if he drops dead, roll down the window on your SUV.
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
Actually, the "common" name for methanol is "wood alcohol". "Rubbing alcohol" generally refers to isopropyl alcohol. Methanol is actually fairly toxic and I don't think you'd want it routinely rubbed into your skin...
As this idea seems to be more and more common, I wonder what would happen if I try and take my fuel cell powered laptop on a plane. The only place I really like to use my laptop is when I travel. I don't know that I see the airlines allowing me onboard with a flammable liquid powered laptop.
Is it a repost of old news or new news? I can never tell... all this fuel-cell vapor we've been getting for the last several years has me blind.
They all say the same thing:
Scientists in [Japan, America, Europe] have developed a portable prototype fuel-cell that will come to market in [2, 5, 10] years.
Well we've been getting this for 5-10 years now, so we can stop calling it "News".
I don't want to see another one of these stories unless it says:
Scientists in [Japan, America, Europe] have developed a portable fuel-cell that you can buy right now.
If I get any more fuel cell vapor in my eyes I'll begin to suffer the effects of methanol poisoning.
Did you ever take any chemistry classes? It is used as a solvent, grease remover and makes a large part of cooking/technical alcohol. Methanol is pretty harmless unless you drink it. Of course, breathing a saturated atmosphere of metanol is dangerous, but then there couldn't be much more than a few millilitres in an electronic device.
There is also the environmental aspect. Methanol can be made from wood, so the net CO2 pollution is 0. I'd rather have a spill of some alcohol than undegradable heavy metals.
One can imagine the confused look on the Gas Station Attendant's face when you hand him a nickel and tell him "3 cents on Pump #7."
------
Today's Top Deals
In case you don't know what inhaled methanol will do to you, expect liver failure, blindness and brain damage.
I think you overreact a bit. If you spill a few millilitres of methanol and inhale the vapour, you're not going to come to harm, as long as you mop it up and ventilate the area. Also, you'd need to inhale a very large amount to get liver failure and brain damage. These symtoms are usually caused by ingestion.
I for one prefer a nice safe, Ni-Cad or Lithium-Hydride battery, but then I'm pretty health conscious.
As a chemist, I very much hope that was sarcasm. Cadmium is a cumulative poison (like lead but worse) which can cause lung and kidney damage.
Lithium Hydride reacts very violently on contact with water to produce Hydrogen and clouds of hot Lithium Hydroxide solution vapour, which are highly irritating to the respiratory system, and generally not very nice.
One has to take these things in perspective, and methanol fuel cells are no more dangerous that any other type of battery.
>>>
:-P
I've seen so many companies/labs/etc... with prototype portable personal fuel cells for running electronics over the past 5 years
>>>
Hydrogen gas 3x the energy of gasoline but takes too much space. Methanol has slightly less energy than gasoline but has comparable space requirement and able to use in fuel cell. What you want to look for is ROOM TEMPERATURE fuel cell which hydrogen can readily do (although is optimum at 60-70'C. Methanol with platinum catalyst need to be heated up above boiling point. For laptop this probably not a problem because we can finally put that heat from the microprocessor to good use.
Oh, sounds so dangerous. It would never be possible. I mean, carrying a small amount of a highly flammable liquid in a small container so close to your body. The technological hurdles to make that safe are huge.
Hang on, let me light a cigarette...
oh wait...nevermind.
From what I was able to gather from the article, it seems that only very, very small amounts of methanol will actually be used in cells. As such, I don't think you'll actually have enough fuel there to cause much of a safety/security hazard. There are quite a few different materials in common use that are quite unsafe and/or explosive in much larger quantities.
Keep in mind that 'safety' and 'security' concerns should deal primarily with 'accidental' hazards, not purposeful exploits which the technologies themselves cannot prevent. Take for example a standard Dell laptop with a front loadable battery and modular drive that can have a second battery inserted. What if a extension battery were purchased then had the Li core removed, replaced with an explosive of some sort and inserted into the expansion slot. The cursory examinations that laptops are subject to in most security conscious situations (airports, court rooms, etc.) involve simply turning it on - well, if a standard battery is installed next to the explosive, this test will pass. Voila, you've breached security purposefully. Not only that, but an X-ray of the laptop will likely show only the same thing as if an actual extension battery were installed. The image (as seen by an X-ray) of an explosive and Li battery is likely very similar.
Don't forget: the companies that are developing these technologies don't have morons working for them (by-and-large). If Sony, NEC and Toshiba are all pursuing this technology, I'm sure a few intelligent people have already brought up the possible security/safety hazards in the device's most typical usage venues. Additionally, the article mentions a targeted consumer release date of this technology as 2005 which makes this:
somewhat irrelevant. Who knows what conditions will dictate in 2005? I certainly do not!The interesting thing about this device is its incredibly small size.
The nanotechnology they are referring to is commericial technology that isn't really nanotechnology, unless you count the structure of the solid phase metal oxide catalyst nanotechnology. I'm guessing they're referring to the size of the metal oxide which does all the chemical work of converting the methanol to hydrogen and CO2. If so, then they're using NMOs (Nanoscale Metal Oxides) as catalysts, and this technology has been around for quite awhile and is in use today. Technically, NMOs are "nanotechnology" in that the active structure is nanoscale sized. But its not the type of nanotechnology most people think of.
The fuel cells mentioned are probably based on technology that came out of Los Alamos about 4-5 years ago. It used a ceramic support for the NMOs (cerium oxide I think) to convert the methanol into hydrogen and CO2. The hydrogen then gets "burned" to generate energy and water. Again, this isn't blue sky stuff, it exists now.
Interestingly, water-based fuel cells can work as well. Some prototypes exist, but they're solar powered and the catalysts which breaks the water down into hydrogen and oxygen don't have a lot of catalytic cycles before they die. Also, they're VERY expensive, which is the big reason why they're not being used, even if they have great potential use.
-When going for broke, go for Ithaca!
How long before we'll have vending machines dishing out fully-charged batteries (and accepting your discharged ones in return, only to charge them and put them back in circulation) ? Just an idea...
Emphasis on the word little. It has about as much flammable liquid, and heat output, as a full zippo lighter.
Unless you can make a molotov cocktail out of a zipplo lighter, you're not going to be able to do much with these fuel cells either.
Now 20+ fuel cells all taped together, that's a bit different. However, the units would be sealed, so you'd have to put fuses into each, which breaks the integretity of the system, and the methanol evaporates before it gets a chance to ignite.
The other thing here is that methanol burns much cooler than the kerosene/sterno/whatever you're putting into a molotov cocktail. Therefore, its destructive power and fire hazard level is much less than the before mentioned Zippo full of butane, which burns much hotter.
-When going for broke, go for Ithaca!
Methanol is only poisonous if you chug a few ounces of it. That's why they put it in denatured rubbing alcohol. You can't suffer any harm from inhaling a few milliliters of the stuff.
Also, its not explosive. Alcohol WILL NOT EXPLODE. It just burns. It's not as volatile as gasoline. The fire danger is much less than if you carry a lighter in your pocket.
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
I used to use methanol in an ultrasonic cleaner to remove crud from instrument parts. After the sonic bath, I would use a spray bottle of methanol to hose the deposit dissolved alcohol from the parts. I have gotten quite a bit of it on my hands and it did not make me go blind or even so much as get dizzy. I worked in a well ventilated room and neither drank or deliberately inhaled the stuff. It's toxic if you drink it or inhale a boatload of it.
A few drops on your hand will NOT make one go blind. Gasoline is more dangerous than this stuff.
BTW I sense some flames coming so I will point out the ultrasonic cleaner was NOT filled with methanol. The tub held water as usual and the parts were put in a little tupperware dish of methanol. The tupperware dish was covered and THEN put into the cleaner. Once the parts were cleaned and rinsed with fresh methanol, they were allowed to drip dry and then baked out in a lab oven.
There are too many preannouncements in the fuel cell business, and very few products shipping. Ballard Power Systems maintains the illusion of having a product line, but when you look closely, you can't actually order units and get delivery. Everything is a prototype.
Does anyone know if it would be possible to use fuel cells in place of large diesel enigines?
For example: Locomotive engines use a giant diesel engine to power a generator, the generator in turn powers electric motors that turn the wheels. If you replaced the diesel engine with a shit-load of fuel cells, you lose the weight of the engine and generator and have no emissions, but would there be sufficient torque to pull several thousand tons of rail cars?
Another use would be for industrial UPS's or maybe even larger fuel cell plants to supply residential electricity.
Would any of this be practical?
A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with. - Tennessee Williams
Cadmium is a cumulative poison (like lead but worse) which can cause lung and kidney damage.
Chemist #2 here. Cadmium can also cause your testicles to rot. Or so they taught me in that one class where we did heavy metal poisoning and chelation therapy and that kind of thing. Pretty peculiar, eh?
I have an artist friend who licks his paintbrushes... I keep telling him that's not such a good idea. Sadly the more IQ points he loses the less likely he is to listen!