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.
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...
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.
Why would refueling be preferable to recharging?
Speed. Which is faster: filling your car's empty tank, or recharging you laptop's empty batteries?
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.
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...
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.