Micro Fuel Cells surge with power to spare

OogamrM writes "CNN (http://www.cnn.com) has a story (http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/ptech/09/22/micro.fu el.cells.ap/index.html) about a new generation of fuel cells. They are so small that they are expected to be able to replace batteries in mobile phone and notebook PCs, and last 10 times as long as the best batteries available today. "In the long run, just about anywhere where high-end batteries are the right answer, these devices should be a better answer," say one fuel cell developer. Expect to be able to buy one sometime in 2004."

Comments

links

[oyenstikker]

I like this format of links in the story. Nice and clear. (:

Fuell Cells in mobile devices?

[Locke!Erasmus]

Does this mean I will have to get my pager refitted with a nozzle to pour the water into?

That's nice... but...

[HaloZero]

What sort of modifications will I have to make to my laptop/PDA to use such a device? Will it be reversible? What about the reactants in the fuel cells? Wouldn't Federal Aviation Administration guidelines prohibit bringing such material aboard one of their aircraft?

Just being a pessimest. :) Anywho, I'd be interested in seeing the applications for such a device, and where I would be able to take it. I apologize in advance for my seeming ignorance, I just enjoy observing peoples reactions. The best way to find someone's true opinion. Er. Great. I've wandered off-topic. :-\ Sorry.

Re:That's nice... but...

[Anonymous Coward]

What'd be great is a conversion kit for laptops at least, for planes.

Plug in a normal battery for flights, return to crazy newfangled power once you're on the ground.

Indeed, if the FAA didn't fly (pun intended) with the idea of these cells on planes (I can't imagine that they'd refuse them being stored away though, not in overhead, mind you.), laptop manufacturers would almost certainly have to allow a conversion from cell to mundane battery and back.

These cell things would be beautiful for casual laptop users for myself, but woe to the manufacturer who would ignore the fact that businessmen like playing solitaire on long flights. ;)

But......

[Catmeat]

I bet battery companies going to love this. A laptop battey may not have much of a runtime but the actual cost of running it is minimal. A fraction of a penny is all it costs to recharge the thing.

In this scenario, a fuel cell powered laptop would need a reactant cartridge that the user must throw away and replace periodically. I'd be willing to bet they'll use some sort of propriatory interface so you're stuck with buying cartridges from the same company for the whole lifetime of the laptop. Aside from an improved runtime, it's really no different to running your equipment from throw-away batteries.

Rechargable batteries suck but I think I'd prefer to stick with them.

This is one step in the right direction

[Kiwi]

Technology like this is one step in the right direction.

Another step would be for consumers who buy laptops to consider battery life more important than raw megahertz. Right now, Intel (or AMD, or someone else) could create a Pentium or Pentium II clone using modern .013 micron technology which would consume very little power and generate very little heat.

For anything besides video game playing, the equivalent of a PIII 500 is more than adequate.

Another area where battery usage in a portable can be decreased is by using solid-state memory instead of a hard disk. It should be feasable to have a gigabyte of solid state memory in the near future; this should be more than enough for OS + Web browser + basic office suite (I remember complaining ten years ago that Microsoft Word was all of 15 megabytes big).

The display looks to be the biggest power-hog which current technology has no really good solution for. It may be possible the electronic paper displays will use less power than a current TFT display (which needs a strong backlight to go through 3 layers of LCD display).

With all of these technologies combined, one may be able to make a laptop which lasts over two or three days of continous usage; for example, over a trans-pacific flight or on a long bus trip. Another example: This would allow one to use their laptop for basic email checking over a two-week vacation without needing to charge the beast.

- Sam

Re:This is one step in the right direction

[photon317]

Several companies already make commercially-available large solid-state flash disks. They come in IDE and SCSI, sizes down to 2.5" IDE form factor that fits in notebooks, and sizes as large as 77G (in 3.5" ultra scsi). Some of the manufacturers have even solved the write-cycle problem by having a block remapper that evens out the writes, making it a non-issue. Other benefits over regular drives (besides the low power, low heat, and no moving parts to break), is that the latency can be in the low microseconds, and the sustained transfer rates can match the bus speed in most cases.

The only real caveat remaining is the cost. They're running in the range of $1-2/MB on the smaller ones (1-4G range), so even a little 4 gigger can cost obver $4k. Haven't seen prices on the larger capacities, hopefully it scales better up there, and the 77g drives don't cost more than a really nice car.

Re:This is one step in the right direction

[ConceptJunkie]

Another step would be for consumers who buy laptops to consider battery life more important than raw megahertz. Right now, Intel (or AMD, or someone else) could create a Pentium or Pentium II clone using modern .013 micron technology which would consume very little power and generate very little heat.

It would also generate very little money for Intel or whomever. Let's face it, the processor people are plowing everything in to "megahertz" because it's easy for consumers to understand, like horsepower. Plus we have people like Microsoft, who bloat down their code with useless resource-consuming crap to help feed the megahertz frenzy. Even AMD has bought into this with their misleading product names, implying higher clock speeds than really exist.

It reminds me of the days doing C programming on a 286 when the boss's secretary did word-processing on a 386. I bought a new laptop rather than fix the old one, because it didn't seem worth it, so I went out and looked for cheapest laptop I could find, short of going used or refurbed. It's a 1.2GHz Celeron and it blows away my dual 433Mhz desktop machine, but I don't feel a great need to have the latest and greatest =3Ghz machine. I also have my desktop machine loaded up with memory and harddrives, which makes up greatly for processor speed. How many applications are processor-bound rather than memory- or I/O-bound on a modern PC? Very few.
I play games, do raytracing and video editing, in addition to developing full-time but speed's not that big a deal for me, yet how many people pay a 50% premium for 10% more speed?

Intel, et al, make good products, but they are using a marketing strategy based solely on this numbers game and they are not going to stop now. Too bad for us sensible customers.

Re:This is one step in the right direction

[lux55]

The display looks to be the biggest power-hog which current technology has no really good solution for. It may be possible the electronic paper displays will use less power than a current TFT display (which needs a strong backlight to go through 3 layers of LCD display).

Slightly off-topic, but what ever happened to OLED displays? Aren't these supposed to be thinner, cheaper to manufacture, clearer/brighter, and less power hungry?

Re:This is one step in the right direction

[Anonymous Coward]

Still being worked on.

Re:This is one step in the right direction

[Anonymous Coward]

write-cycle problem

please explain in more detail

Miniturization

[ktulus cry]

Judging by the size of the current micro fuel cell prototype and depending on how much smaller they can get, this power source may at least temporarily reverse the trend of ever shrinking phones that are becoming so small that I am rather afraid to use some of them. The major thing I would personally be worried about - one nice thing for all those environmentalists about rechargable batteries is that you rarely need a new one, hence rarely throwing them out. Even when these cells last 10 times as long, how disposable are they?

Re:Miniturization

[n9hmg]

Much more disposable than most current rechargeables. Nickel, lead, cadmium? Yummy! Lithium oxide neutralizes down to a salt in any acid, so LiION batts aren't too bad, but all these have is generally a platinum catalyst(in the reformer) and an organic membrane(the actual fuel cell), The fuel can fit in anything that isn't dissolved by methanol and makes a good seal.
Unfortunately, I expect these to be like inkjet cartridges, and since they're useful for so many more applications than that (all electronics use electricity, only inkjets use inkjet cartridges). The stakes are higher, and they'll probably bust ass trying to keep them from being refilled. Maybe special regulatory authority under "safety" concerns. My hope is, though, that public outcry about paying USD 40 for USD 0.002 worth of methanol will get regulatory action. It'll just be a matter of whether we're madder than the fuel cell makers are willing to bribe and politicians are greedy. Maybe it will balance out around USD10 or so.

Help!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Can somebody give me the URL for CNN's site???

Thanks,

The free market will not be denied

[Spamalamadingdong]

In this scenario, a fuel cell powered laptop would need a reactant cartridge that the user must throw away and replace periodically.

When refill kits for overpriced ink-jet cartridges have been the rage for years, how long do you think it would be before someone had a methanol refill kit for your fuel-cell cartridge?

Re:The free market will not be denied

[n9hmg]

methanol refill kit
Maybe on the black market. These'll be engineered with "safety" features to ensure that the cartridge is from the correct manufacturer, probably in the form of a key in flash, and if you defeat that, you'll be in violation of the DMCA. I wouldn't be surprised to see such a powerful resource "licensed", and attempts to reverse-engineer it, even strictly by and for yourself, would be a violation.

IANATOTH (troll or treehugger) but...

[evacuate_the_bull]

...methanol is introduced to a catalyst to produce electrons, protons and carbon dioxide.

Granted this fuel cell doesn't produce much of a byproduct (the article says it will produce about a drop of water a day) but do we really need more products that produce extra CO2 for the environment? It might not seem like much, but that is not much per fuel cell. I have three cell phones, a few laptops, and countless other items around the house that use batteries (and would hopefully some day use these fuel cells).

Of course you don't end up with all kinds of nasty chemicals in the landfills, but you are polluting in a different way. And this way is one in which we are already far over-polluting...

funny thing... no one mentions the water

[zejackal]

I didn't read this article, mainly because I'm tired of seeing the same old rosy picture of fuel cells presented without talking about their one big problem. I don't think I've read one article that mentions this, but water vapor is a green house gas. In the latest Scientific American issue, there is an article about the Hy-Wire fuel cell concept. In this article they mention how clean burning fuel cells can be. When fueled with pure hydrogen, the only emissions come in the form of water vapor. That's great, no Ozone, no CO2, no sulfer, no soot. Indeed a huge improvement. Not to mention that they are twice as efficient as internal combustion engines. But all of those plusses aside, there is no talk of the fact that water vapor is a green house gas. Plus, if you are living in a dry climate that can get rather warm (read the desert southwest) and you start pumping out tons of water vapor from all of the new clean cars in your city, pretty soon it's going to be muggy, miserable, and it will effect the local environment. There's a simple solution, condense the water vapor out of your exhaust and store the water in a collection tank. It can be electrolyzed later to reclaim the hydrogen. But no one talks about this. Sorry to rant, but I find it a little bothersome. There are of course issues that would have to be addressed in a water collection scheme, but I'm done typing for now. Just my opinion... I could be wrong.

Re:funny thing... no one mentions the water

[geoswan]

... their one big problem ... water vapor is a green house gas.

Well, yes. But I am not quite sure I follow your argument.

Plus, if you are living in a dry climate ... and you start pumping out tons of water vapor from all of the new clean cars in your city, pretty soon it's going to be muggy, miserable, and it will effect the local environment.

Am I missing something? Won't internal combustion produce nearly as much water vapour? Burning petroleum fractions, ethanol, biomass, produces H2O doesn't it? Burning methane would produce CO2 and 4x H2O, wouldn't it?

So, if you want to reduce your addition of H2O, you have to reduce the number of your trips.

There's a simple solution, condense the water vapor out of your exhaust and store the water in a collection tank. It can be electrolyzed later to reclaim the hydrogen.

Do you see an advantage in shipping this condensed water back to a hydrogen production facility, rather than just using locally available water?

Re:funny thing... no one mentions the water

[zejackal]

I see your point. Internal combustion does produce H20 as well. I'm not sure what the relative amounts are between fuel cells using H2 or methane or other suitable fuels and ICE's so I can't really say with any certainty that the car produced H20 emissions would go up/down/stay the same.

However when we start talking about replacing batteries with fuel cells we are taking a whole spectrum of products that used to produce solid chemical waste (used batteries) and turning them into producers of green house gases.

As for what to do with the condensed water, I say store it on board. Yes there is a cost in space (space for water tank) and weight (added weight of the Oxygen from the reaction), but now there is also added utility. You could use solar power (even a small installation of panels could be helpfull) to slowly electrolyze the water and produce H2 again. You could also plug the car in at home to electrolyze the water in the tank. There would be loss in the system, so occasionally you would have to top off with some H2, but the benefit is that you rarely have to visit an H2 station and so the infrastructure demands on an H2 economy decrease. Also if you start with a fuel like methane, after 1 pass through your system you've converted it all to pollutants (some Carbon compounds released into the air)and water/available H2 so next time you use it (after electrolyzing the water again) your emissions are zero again even though you started with a "dirty" fuel to begin with.

Re:funny thing... no one mentions the water

[iggymanz]

If the methanol (what this article says powers the cells) comes from plant matter, there would be no net increase in CO2, H2O, or heat for the planet.

Re:funny thing... no one mentions the water

[klanza]

Sheesh, have you no sense of proportion? Look up in the sky. See the clouds? Condensed water vapor. Consider that the atmosphere currently has probably billions of tons of water vapor (no, I don't feel like doing the math). And you worry about a drop or so per device?

Re:funny thing... no one mentions the water

[zejackal]

That's pretty vacuous. Look up at the sky... you see tons of CO2 (well you don't actually see it, but since all plant life on earth hasn't wilted and died, there's a pretty good chance that it is out there). According to your logic, we shouldn't care about the CO2 emmissions of our vehicles. But we do.

Looking at a fuel cell vehicle, if you exhaust all of the H2 in your tank, all of the H2 is converted to H20... that's more than a few drops. Your position is basicly that we can't effect the environment with our tailpipe emissions; a position which has been, to everyone but the U.S. gov't, definitively proven wrong.

Re:funny thing... no one mentions the water

[zejackal]

Not quite, but I see where you are going. With that logic, burning fossil fuels results in no net increases in pollutants either. However, they have changed form and locale. As in real estate, the 3 big things with pollution are location, location, and location. No one cares about veins of Uranium buried deep down in the earths crust, but put that stuff in your local park and people might have a problem with it. Ozone in the upper atmosphere, no big deal, at street level it's a problem. CFC's in a can... who cares, in the atmosphere look out. H2 locked up in some field, big whoop, but floating around free in our atmosphere at increasing levels... problems. Nothing we do changes the net value of anything on our planet very much, it's the form and position of pollutants that causes a problem. If I lived in an old building with asbestos insulation it would make a hell of a difference to me if the asbestos was free floating or sealed up in the walls... I wouldn't care that as a closed system, the net amount of asbestos in my apartment is the same in both situations.

Re:funny thing... no one mentions the water

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, locale of released energy/material will be somewhat of a problem even with fuel cells (or even solar energy as regards local heat pollution, for that matter). But there is a *big* difference in merely storing and releasing energy & materials bound for a few months (as in crops) to be reused again in a few months, and the release of *many, *many* years accumulation within less than a month. I'll have to find reference for the shear volume of plant matter a year's consumption of coal or oil use represents, but it's awesome. We'd be better off than what we have now (I'm not an environmentalist by any means, but though believing we have the absolute right to modify our environment, and even to exterminate animal species if we so choose, we need to start doing it with more wisdom for the best long-term human benenfit.)

Re:funny thing... no one mentions the water

[Anonymous Coward]

now that's weird, I was logged in and yet posted as AC when I did simultaneous login/preview. Oh well, I'll just blame it on my Windows 98 tax/scanning/photo machine.

--Iggymanz

Re:funny thing... no one mentions the water

[zejackal]

By all means I agree that automotive pollution levels will be decreased by using fuel cells. Don't get me wrong. I'm just saying that fuel cells are always billed as putting an end to automotive pollution and that is just plain false. I hate when people twist the truth through omission to sell things to the public. It's not even that they outwardly claim fuel cells will be an end to pollution, it's the fact that they are always saying, "the only emissions come in the form of water vapor". They project a false sense of harmlessness that really irks me. It's an improvement that's all.

Also, the fact that fuel cells will be placed in other devices to replace their batteries does mean that some of the gains made in the automotive field will be lost by increased number of polluting devices. That said, I am all for fuel cells. They do indeed represent a marked improvement in efficiency and emissions. It's just the way they are sold to the public that upsets me.

Extra CO2?Re:IANATOTH (troll or treehugger) but...

[samjam]

Extra CO2? What do you mean generating extra CO2?

How do you think the electricity that charges your current rechargable batteries is generated?

By burning fossil fuels producing CO2!

This time you just burn it locally. Plant trees locally to make up for it if you are that worried.

Sam

Catalyst?

[zhiwenchong]

My question is: what catalyst are they using?

On a volcano plot, platinum gives the best electrocatalytic activity but it is still very very expensive.

There has been work done in applying binary alloys e.g. Ni-W, Ni-V, Ni-Mo and the results have so far been very promising... these alloys allow one to get catalytic activities similar to that of platinum at far lower prices.

[Non-Profit] Website on Fuel Cells...

[ivi]

"Fuel Cells 2000" or sim
http://www.fuelcells.org

Lotsa dope there, folks!

It'll likely answer most of the questions
that have come up in response to this art.

---

Sad to see so few comments on this article
- given the importance (& general conveni-
ence) that attach to alternative energy...

Go figure! (Maybe /. is the wrong forum?)

So, what are some of the better fuel cell
forums out there, people? TIA

hold on a sec...

[evacuate_the_bull]

10% of US energy is produced using non-fossil fuel sources.

technologies involved in the production of renewable energy sources is improving considerably.

so when i say "extra CO2" i guess i really mean "more CO2" (unlike potential car fuel cells which run off H + O2). oh well, a little C02 probably would beat nasty batteries :)

Re:hold on a sec...

[esonik]

it's 20% - you forgot nuclear power, which is non-fossil and therefore does not create CO2.

Give me FUD

[Myco]

I assume there is a reasonable amount of anti-fuel cell propaganda out there spread by petroleum interests and the like. I'm curious to see what the FUD has to say -- should be good for a laugh, anyway. Anyone seen any good FUD?

Re:Give me FUD

[pla]

Anyone seen any good FUD

What can its opponants say about it? As long as they use something like methanol rather than hydrogen gas, it has less risk of fire/explosion than either gasoline or a typical rechargeable battery (those things have some *NASTY* chemistry in them). *FAR* fewer pollutants. Greater efficiency.

Really, I cannot understand why we even still *have* internal combustion engines or "legacy" rechargeables, when fuel cells can give more power, cheaper, and cleaner.

The only problem I see with market penetration comes from the ubiquity of "gas" stations (batteries I see as less of a problem - it seems like almost every high-end product takes its own obscure battery type, and that hasn't stopped anyone from running out to by the new digital-camera-of-the-week). But really, I've seen lines wrapped around the block when a gas station has prices a mere nickle per gallon cheaper than the competition. Selling methanol for $0.40/gallon would crush the competition hands-down.

I don't tend to believe in conspiracies, but *someone* must have gone to a lot of trouble to keep fuel cells out of popular use, and it seems to me like a supply-side problem rather than a lack of demand or available technology.

From Corn, back to Corn

[MichaelPenne]

Uhh, methanol is made from corn. The corn takes the CO2 from the air and converts it to sugar, which a distiller converts to methanol.

The fuel cell puts the CO2 back into the air. Thus there is no net increase in the amount of CO2.

If you still feel bad, for the amount these little cells will produce, pick up a few more houseplants. Or grow yourself some corn.