Slashdot Mirror
Coleman To Sell Portable Fuel Cell Generator
HobbySpacer writes "
Popular Science reports that
Coleman Powermate
will soon start selling a small portable fuel cell power supply.
The AirGen Fuel Cell Generator provides 1.2kW for up to 10 hours
on a bottle of pure hydrogen. Interestingly, the company had to
set up its own distribution system to insure it could deliver a
refill anyplace in the US within 2 days. The unit, built by
Ballard, goes for a pricey $8k but perhaps worth it if an indoor emergency backup is needed. Fuel cells can also be found for sale at the
Fuel Cell Store and Greenvolt.
Perhaps the hydrogen economy is closer than most people thought."
Moderators should be allowed to moderate articles as (-1) Duplicate. :-)
Ross
Sure, at the beginning they are $8,000. I can't imagine this price will stay long once competition enters the field. It's similar to the way Apple does technology. Look at the flat-panel monitor for example. Prices have already begun to drop due to their exclusive distribution by Apple.
I'm glad to see that Coleman is entering this market. A bit pricy for most of us now, but at least this will start the ball rolling on clean-fuel generators.
Picture of the device can be seen on the Popular Science's website here.
You know, normally I wouldn't be thinking this way, but I suppose its the natural reaction.
If the world fuel "economy" switches to hydrogen, what happens to the countries which sole income is provided by oil and fossil fuels? Won't these places be absolutely devestated and ruined by the collapse of their energy-demand? Hydrogen power is an amazing thing, but it'd be something like suddenly replacing the staple foods in the world with chemical products - it dents a rather secure and stable part of our lifestyle and global economy.
I just hope something can be worked out before the "dream" of hydrogen power can be achieved... it's scary stuff, when you think about it.
Although, fuel cells are a door into a world of cleaner, more abundant energy, it must be said that with every great inovation and evolution in technology comes with an even greater responsibility. If the hydrogen economy is here, then we have to consider where that hydrogen is coming from. Is it going to come from hydrocarbons like oil? Is all that hydrogen going to be generated from the electrolysis of water? Are we going to use bimass? If its oil, then we may be in just as bad a situation. The refinement of oil leaves a tremendouos number of nasty by products, not to mention our continued dependance on a non-renewable resource. If we get it from water, then what generates t he electricity? Solar and wind are options, but will require tremendous investement to fulfill the requirements to generate the amount of hydrogen necessary to replace the internal combustion engine. If its biomass, I havent seen the numbers to indicate the amount of byproducts to make harvesting economical, although I know it had been done on a limited scale. There is a give and a take. There are no free lunches. I want to know if we are going to decrease the amount of pollution we are dumping into the environment, or make the situation worse. Fuel cells, and hydrogen power in general, have proved themselves efficient and clean on a small scale, but untested on a large scale. I still see the same unanswered questions of production, distribution, maintenance and disposal.
The Hindenburg blew up not because of the hydrogen, but because of the paint used. It was a mixture that very closely resembled aircraft fuel and was highly explosive. The hydrogen would not have exploded anyways. If ignite hydrogen it goes up almost like a puff and then its gone. Very limited reaction. More on this here http://www.ttcorp.com/nha/advocate/ad22zepp.htm. Yeah the site is done by the National Hydrogen Association, but this a very well excepted explination of what happened.
m l
Here is another link from PBS
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/html/e3-menu.ht
The main problem with hydrogen is that it takes a lot more energy to produce and store than it generates. Electrolysis is especially inefficient and you end up polluting anyway (power plant) so it's not clean energy. The story also left out an important detail:
. . . the company is confident a $100 refill could be delivered anywhere in the United States within two days.
And I thought laptop batteries were expensive. At $8,000 + $100 for each 10 hours to power just a few pieces of equipment we'll all be riding Segways long before this is practical for every day use.
Hydrogen in bottled form is, of course, fairly common and fairly safe, but it may simply be too inconvenient for this application. For something that heavy and big, maybe it would be more better if it could run on alcohol ("a bottle of vodka"), bottled gas, or some solid hydride that is activated with water and later recycled.
Pure hydrogen? Medical equipment?
You certainly wouldn't want to use them near any oxygen tanks. Why, if the two were to combine they would form the (very deadly) dihydrogen monoxide!
...Time is the best teacher, unfortunately it kills all of its students.
(Gas, Nat Gas, Prop Fueled), Vangard Engine, 9000/8000W, 120/240V Output, 4.5gal tank, ~1.8 to 3.7 hr runtime (List Price $2489) Our Price $2259
9 KW multifuel generator... $5500 will get you plenty of ventilation, silencers, IR signature reduction, 1000 gallons of fuel, sattelite DSL instalation and service for a year and a new Dell to plug into it so you can troll slashdot and surf pr0n.
If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
I still prefer Doctor Brown's Mr. Fusion, that appeared in Back to the Future III. It runs with banana peels, cans, whatever. Plus it can get you back in time.
It has a major drawback, though. It only runs on a Delorean like this or this .
-
Roses are #FF0000, Violets are #0000FF, find / -name '*base*' |xargs chown -R us && mv zig greatjustice
Actualy I can give a shot at answering this one. You are correct in assuming hydrogen is difficult to store. The lighter a gas is, the faster it can seep through a fault in a container or a gas permiable material. A container that can contain CO2 for years, may lose all it's hydrogen in a very short time. Heilum is much heavier than hydrogen and much safer (I know it's not a fuel. It's used for leak detection because it's inhert) even though heavier than Hydrogen. Heilum is used for rapid "leak detection" in high vac systems because it can quickly find it's way in the smallest and slowest of leaks. Presence of the gas is sensed at the vac pump and almost gives a leak indication in real time when some heilum is blowen onto a faulty joint or seal. Many materials pass hydrogen readly like many plastic bottles pass water and many household chemicals. You can tell these older bottles on the shelf in the store as they start to collapse due to the product passing out through the plastic container. Seals and gaskets for hydrogen use are special. This is why soda pop and bottled water is put in Poly Ethylene Terephthalate PET plastic containers instead of regular Poly Ethelene PE, High Density Poly Ethylene HDPE, or Poly Propolene PPE plastic containers. The other plastics will not hold the CO2 very long. The PET container is designed to not pass CO2 so your favorite soft drink does not go flat on the shelf. This is why your heilum balloons will go flat much sooner than the same ones filled with air or CO2. Mylar is even better.
The truth shall set you free!
That would be so cool, running one off of the "waste" of the other
Trying to invent a perpetual motion engine again? Fuel cell tech is just a variation of the motor driving a generator to power the motor. The net losses bring these to a halt fairly quickly. It will never have a net gain of power. All conversions have some loss to them. None are more than 100% effecient.
The truth shall set you free!
The $100 within 2 days anywhere in US is a premium service. There is nothing to stop you buying an electrolysis kit, some solar panels, and generating your own. Or find a local supplier that will provide cheap bottles of hydrogen. After all, any local business can buy a hydrogen generator. Alternatively you can buy an all-in-one solution the regenerative fuel cell.
Interesting items from the DOE hydrogen faq:
How much energy is required to produce hydrogen via electrolysis of water?
"The energy required to produce hydrogen via electrolysis (assuming 1.23 V) is about 32.9 kW-hr/kg. [...] For commercial electrolysis systems that operate at about 1 A/cm2, a voltage of 1.75 V is required. This translates into about 46.8 kW-hr/kg, which corresponds to an energy efficiency of 70%.
"Most of the hydrogen produced today is consumed on site, such as at an oil refinery, and is not sold on the market. From large-scale production, hydrogen costs $0.32/lb if it is consumed on site. When hydrogen is sold on the market, the cost of liquefying the hydrogen and transporting it to the user must be added to the production cost. This can increase the selling price to $1.00-1.40/lb for delivered liquid hydrogen. Some users who require relatively small amounts of very pure hydrogen (such as the electronics industry) may use electrolyzers to produce high-purity hydrogen at their facilities. The cost of this hydrogen, which depends on the cost of the electricity used to split the water, is typically $1.00-$2.00/lb."
My fuel cell Segway will leave your old battery model at the lights.
Phillip.
http://www.FutureEnergies.com/
Property for sale in Nice, France
The cost of switching wouldn't be much of a consideration, because the easiest way to switch is attrition. Just require hydrogen burners on all new cars, and in a decade most of the cars on the road are hydrogen powered (think about those eye-level brake lights to see how attrition works). The real issue is switching things that don't turn over as fast as cars, like trucks (which burn a big percentage of the fossil fuels burned), planes, ships and power plants (which don't generally burn gas/oil but coal is a fossil fuel, after all). That's where the real costs involved in switching will pop up. So, even if cars all went to hydrogen, there would still be a large market for crude oil for a very long time (several decades at least).
Virg
I actually saw a legitimate proposal for this type of energy recovery that involved dirigibles which makes sense in a weird sort of way. The concept is to use Aleutian windmills to generate electricity to separate hydrogen (and, of course, oxygen) from seawater. Then, they would use the hydrogen to inflate large dirigibles that would carry suspended tanks of compressed oxygen south to the U.S. When the dirigible arrives, the envelope is deflated into capture tanks and the dirigible is packed on a ship for the return trip to Alaska. Safety is not such a concern as it was with the Hindenburg because the oxygen is in suspended tanks that can be dropped in the ocean in the event of a fire so they don't cause an explosion, the envelope won't be nearly as flammable as dirigibles were when the Hindenburg went down, and for the biggest safety boost they can be flown by remote with no human crew, over the Pacific until they're near their landing zone so the risk of collateral damage from a crash is minimized.
I can imagine that getting this whole thing to be cost-effective would be tough, but technically it's doable.
Virg
There's so many points to contend here that I can only begin to cover them all, but I'll try.
First, OPEC doesn't comprise only Middle Eastern countries, unless you consider Indonesia and Venezuela to be a part of the Middle East. Second, there are member nations in the Middle East (like Kuwait, for example) that don't exactly promote anti-American sentiment. Third, disallowing anti-American sentiment (or anti-anything sentiment, for that matter) is unamerican in nature, since it involves governmental suppression of free speech. Fourth, we would have more problems in the region if it was destabilized than not. Do you really think that wiping out the economies of these countries is likely to foster a more democratic or equitable society in any of them, or is it more likely to cause even more powermongering (in which it has been historically proven that the more extreme factions get control than the more moderate)?
Maybe you should spend more time considering why these countries have such large constituencies of anti-American people, and you'll get a clearer idea as to realistic ways to change that sentiment. Reducing our reliance on foreign (and domestic) petroleum is a laudable goal, but not for the purpose of damaging OPEC.