Slashdot Mirror
Building Longer-Lived Fuel-Cell Stacks
An anonymous reader writes "Ballard Power Systems tells Wired that they have built a hydrogen fuel-cell stack that runs uninterrupted for 20,000 hours straight. But DuPont's Nafion membranes are very delicate, which makes the roadworthiness of fuel cells an issue."
this would make a cool UPS then
But DuPont's Nafion membranes are very delicate, which makes the roadworthiness of fuel cells an issue."
Delicate now. Future membranes may not be so fragile. It's still a step forward.
Trolling is a art,
I've been following the fuel cell development for a few years now, and have been shocked at the lifetime expectancy increases. However, I think that it's about time to stop working on making them go longer and worry about making them more stable and less expensive. Once they can get the price down to where they are as cost efficient as gasoline, and relatively safe and reliable, then they should start increasing the lifetime.
I have no regrets, this is the only path.
My whole life has been "UNLIMITED BLADE WORKS"
First of all, there's the huge problem of how you're supposed to store hydrogen onboard your car. I've seen several proposals, but they all have their drawbacks (fuel too heavy, tank required too heavy, too explosive, too dangerous in a crash, etc.). It seems that nobody's come up with a reasonable solution to this problem.
Secondly, there's the problem of fuel distribution. Unless and until there's some way to hook up a fair number of gas stations with a hydrogen fuel supply that these cars can use, nobody's going to buy into fuel cells being used for transportation. Of course, along with this problem is the one of how such an infrastructure upgrade will be financed in the first place without a demonstration of existing demand. The only way I can really see this chicken-and-egg problem being overcome is massive government investment in infrastructure upgrades. Sorry, libertarians, but the free market is going to fail here.
So, basically, we have a long way to go (if we ever even get there at all) before we see cars powered by fuel cells in general use. Until then, they're mostly a curiosity (and a very expensive one, at that.)
That's 2.25+ years. I'm wondering if they've been tested for the last 2 years, or if it just looks good on paper.
Scientists also said that transporting hydrogen from fossil fuel plants to automobile filling stations will be more difficult than anyone has anticipated.
Why, because there might me a greater risk of something blowing up? Hello-Hindenburg in the 21st century.
This SIG pulled due to lack of funding. (This damn war is costing too much!)
Big deal, so a couple blow up when rear ended, who needs road worthy. We haven't had a Ford Pinto or Firestone tire problem in a couple years. We need more excitement on the roads.
Granted cell phone users still add a bit of excitement to driving.
Norris/Palin 2012
Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
The article mentions how getting hydrogen to the fueling stations is a problem. How is that? The fueling station probably has both tap water and electricity coming in, so if the hydrogen is going to be made using electricity in the first place, why don't they just do it at the station instead of hauling it across the country?
It doesn't seem to mention how big such a fuel cell, how much it costs, or how much energy it produces in those 20,000 hours it lasts.
Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
Fair point, but for what it's worth Nafion isn't an immature technology - it's been the proton-transfer membrane of choice in the fuel cell crowd for some time now. Point is, I wouldn't expect any sort of massive improvement from it alone.
Only possibility I can think of directly is some sort of support matrix, which would lessen the amount of membrane which is Nafion, tanking the current of hte cell.
As it happens, the transfer-membrane is generally the weak point of the cell, both from a chemistry as well as mechanical standpoint, so I don't find this incredibly surprising. ;)
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Fuel cells are a critical technology because of their high efficiency and low impact," said Charles Chamberlin, co-director of the Schatz Energy Research Center at Humboldt State University.
...
I love this stuff. Fuel cells are going to save the planet!
Or maybe not
Transport systems currently produce more pollution than power stations, and alternative solutions were mentioned in the letters by Ian Hurley (April) and Cedric Lynch (May). If battery-powered electric vehicles were adopted, the need to recharge them using electricity from conventional power stations would produce about as much carbon dioxide as the vehicles that they replace. Emissions of sulphur dioxide would also rise by up to 85%.
Don't get me wrong, I would love to see fuel cells in mass production, cleaner air and water, etc.
But we are not there yet, and nothing is gained since yes, running the vehicle from a fuel cell will make the tree huggers happy, but manufacturing/charging fuel cells is very dirty.
Now invent a system to charge fuel cells by solar power and you can hire Bill Gates as your butler.
-- Knowing too much can get you killed, but knowing who knows too much can make you rich.
Seeing article about technology and membranes makes me think that Gene Roddenberry (and his successors) predicted all this integrated biology and technology stuff pretty well....remember "bio-neural gel packs"?
What I wonder about is what sort of power these things produce. Can they directly drive an electric car, or would they need a battery to handle surges during acceleration?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
I seemed to be more interested in the interview with the homestarrunner.com people. It was linked off the page.
A fuel cell is :
*showing with hands*, This big.
It costs:
*writting on the blackboard*, Not more than the sum you see right here.
And the energy it produces for its ~2,3 years life is ....certainly more than enough...;o))))
1. No sig. 2. ???? 3. Profit!!!
Once hydrides take off. Storage shouldn't be as big an issue.
Well, my membranes have been delicate for years, but that hasn't stopped me from taking them on the road. I just remind to protect them the same way I protect my floppies from viruses: wrap them in plastic.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
make uber cheep cars and using those fuel cells with 2+yrs of life. but have a clock in them that expires them after 2 yrs, then sell replacement fuel cells at jacked up prices :) just like printer cartrages and razer refills.
$5000 tree hugger car, $3000 ever 2 years for the power for it.
then we can hear people bitch and moan about how they are little old ladies that only drive on sunday to and from church and that they can't understand why their over 1/2 full fuel cell registers as empty unless they set the clock back on their car radio.
But George said we'd all be flying Hydrogen Fueled cars in no time! *Shucks* I guess we'll have to fall back on the President's other equally realistic transportation policy; Unicorns.
I'm all for fuel cells, and I'd love to see them put in every car, but they're just way to expensive for them to catch on soon. It's common knowledge that hydrogen is four times more expensive to make as opposed to gasoline. In addition, the fuel cells themselves are 10 times more expensive to build than a conventional automobile engine. Hopefully we'll see some healthy competition that will drive the cost down, but I predict it will be a while before it's as affordable as conventionally powered vehicles.
And not to mention those oil companies...
A Cooler, Cheaper Way to Power Fuel Cells
Big commercial fuel cells are already turning hydrogen into electricity in factories, office buildings, and power plants around the country. Most are fed by so-called reformers -- mini chemical plants that convert natural gas into hydrogen at around 2,000F. Such infernal temperatures are O.K. in industrial settings, but it's hard to imagine those reformers in homes.
Scientists at Georgia Institute of Technology have found a way to cool things down to as low as 600F -- "closer to the heat in your kitchen oven," says Zhong Lin Wang, a professor of materials science. It's done with certain oxides of rare-earth elements such as cerium. When doped with iron, the oxides efficiently transform methane into hydrogen, Wang's team reports in the March issue of Advanced Materials.
What's more, the Georgia Tech materials are self-renewing and work continuously. The oxides are recharged by exposing them to water vapor, from which they absorb the oxygen that was used in the conversion process. And despite their name, Wang's rare-earth oxides are plentiful, so they should be cheaper than the catalysts used in high-temperature units. In time, he hopes to slash the heat needed to levels so low that solar power could drive the reformer. Meanwhile, fuel-cell makers are lining up to fund the project.
By Adam Aston
Oh, the humanity!
diesel is cheap and available everywhere. it is less flammable than gasoline, diesel engines cannot stall as easily, diesel engines have more load/power efficiency. everything the military wants. but outside of SUV's own country, nobody needs military equipment on the way from suburb to work and back.
I've got a freshly uncorked pint of ice-cold home-made Irish Red sitting on top of my system case. Now that's homebrew cooling.
However, if fuel cells were used to recharge the batteries, there would be significant reductions in emissions from the power-generation and transport industries.
Also, that appears to be a five year old letter to the magazine. A more recent article sums up all the alternatives for 'green' motoring. As another article from the same issue states, there are some countries where these alternatives make more sense - e.g. Iceland, rich in geothermal and hydroelectric energy, and with no fossil fuel reserves whatsoever.
One other thing to remember - you have a much higher concentration of voters in cities than in the countryside. Spreading that pollution thinly over a large area may look as bad to you as having it concentrated on busy roads, but to many of the people along the busy roads, not in their backyard is nearly as good as not at all.
transporting large amounts of electric energy is inefficient over long distances. electric production of hydrogen is too slow for a decent sized gas station. you don't want hydrogen, excess oxygen and fossil fuels all available at one station. believe me :) - and of course: nothing beats solar cells in the desert when it comes to produce hydrogen :)
most important: hydrogen will probably not be used in pure form, as it evaporates slowly even through solid steel. some research is going into a more storable form, methanol (or whatever this stuff is called in english, methane+water) - co2+water+electricity --> methanol --> co2+water+electricity. very simple to store while being clean like the original hydrogen-only type.
I'm sure eventually we will get there, but the thing is, since we have workable prime movers with over 100 years of development, we won't tolerate unreliable or fragile fuel cells. I suspect that, just like fusion, fuel cells will take longer and cost more than the industry cares to admit. And, much as I dislike some of Bush's policies, I suspect that his attitude to protecting oil supplies is extremely pragmatic.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
So, it runs for 20,000 hours.
Let's see... that's 20,000 / 24 = ~833 days
833 / 365 = 2.28 years
So, they've had one up and running uniterrupted since early 2001, huh? I call bullshit.
truthfully said mr. guerilla marketer. even if i distrust your numbers, that appear to be pulled out of the nose to me, i suggest *waiting* is the best way to get fuel cells competitive.
:)
oil and natural gas sources are limited. no matter how long they'll last, they will eventually fail. and as they gradually become scarcer resources, prices will rise. all this, while fuel cells are decreasing in price. at some point, oil and natural gas are scarce enough that their price will be at the same level as hydrogen. of course, this will not make individual transportation as cheap as it was in the 1950s, but it will beat oil prices sometime. some sources say, oil is exhausted in less than 50 years, so i think we will see that happening. or we know they lied to us
Why don't they combine Hydrogen with Carbon to make fuel, like nature does?
Hydrogen would come from water and the Carbon from the CO2 of the air, which would be reversed in the car, resulting in a net zero emission, again like nature does.
Dealing with fuel instead of the elemental hydrogen would solve so many problems, including the transport, storage, motors, ozone layer, etc.
... they put hydrogen on hold for now and just went to methanol/ethanol instead. Those are just liquid fuels that work, very little in the way of changing around anything to use it as a fuel, and the same fuel from the same existing pumps and tanks at the fuel station would work both on ICE engines and on the new fuel cell electrics. Hydrogen as it's proposed is going to take manufacturing thousands of baby nukes all over, then coming up with good storage tanks, building new gas stations or add ons, and other assorted huge expense, whereas the alcohols burn "pretty" clean, and you don't have to do anything special at the station, just take like the 89 octane pumps and tanks and re label them alcohol, use them.
Wtf, are you an idiot, or what?
Dangerous, explosive hydrogen? No! Zinc fuel cells!
http://einstein.unh.edu/~msbriggs/biodiesel/biodie sel_versus_hydrogen.htm
http://einstein.unh.edu/~msbriggs/biodiesel/cars_o n_different_fuels.htm
And not least, biodiesel cars throttle the competition! Biodiesel Fuels Tour de Sol Winners This is a fuel that I run in my 2001 VW today, is close to carbon-neutral, is truly renewable, and the diesel engine will likely last 300,000 mi or more with a timing belt change every 60,000 (2003 models last 100K between changes). The environmental impact (lack of) from these cars' low maintenance, simplicity and long life alone totally outclasses H2 cars along with their required monster-infrastructure.
I can easily get 700 mi on a tank while the best H2 designs can barely manage 180. What's more, I can use this TDI/biodisel combo for the next 20 years and probably still embarrass the 2023 H2 wondercar. The car that won the Tour de Sol was an unmodified midsize Passat with over 250,000 mi. on the odometer.
No, it's not a futuristic-sounding fuel cell, or a novel Stirling engine, has no Star Trek tie-in, uses green not blue solar panels (leaves), and may never get a Slashdot article for these reasons. But diesels and biodiesel fuel are exceptionally efficient, increasingly high-tech and getting moreso. Looking at the physical extremes in this new generation of 'clean diesels' I'd say the technology aspect is surpassing gas engines. Less complex, but higher-tech.
I wonder how H2 cars will look compared to a 99MPG Volkswagen Lupo (on sale in Europe)? VW did a round the world in 80 days promo tour with this vehicle, running on 100% biodiesel, and it wasn't even news when it came through the US. So maybe it won't be compared here at all. But that is not stopping a growing number of individuals, bus and truck fleets from running biodiesel.
To state the obvious, I beleive whoever comes up with a reformation type fuel cell that can reliably run off of gasoline wins the game.
Lets break down the numbers...
Liquid hydrogen at 20ÂK is about 265grams/gallon
Gasoline is roughly 2727grams/gallon.
Gasoline is a blend of n=5-12 hydrocarbons, so figure about n=8 for approximation purposes. That would be C8H18 hydrocarbons which would be about 15.8% Hydrogen by weight.
So in a gallon of gas that would be 2727g*15.8%=430grams of hydrogen, versus 265grams for a gallon of (very cold) hydrogen. Thus a gallon of gas has about 62.5% more hydrogen per unit volume over liquid hydrogen.
Diesel is even better.
Another reference point...
Assume it takes about 3minutes to fill the 12gallon tank in my GTI. Gasoline is roughly 45.8MegaJoules/kg=125MJ/gallon. Twelve gallons would be 1500MegaJoules in a 3 minute period of time. This is an average power output of 8.3 MegaWatts coming out of the gas pump!!
For everyone that wants electrolysis at the gas pump, that method has it's own ineffeciency problem which would up the refueling power budget. Water is an ash...not a fuel.
Thank you for your thorough response; it was very informative.
First off, sales of clean autos like the Toyota
Prius prove you r first point wrong. They are doing just fine in the marketplace.
Secondly, as far as getting the hydrogen to the
"pump", hydrogen is not the only substance that fuel
cells can run off of -- other hydrocarbons in both
liquid and gas form can be used. But personally I
think metal fuel cells will eventually take the
market (see www.metallicpower.com) though they
are currently behind on the tech front.
It sounds like this might be a good application for a co-generation setup. Simply put, you use not only the electricity created by the generator, but also the waste heat for heating the structure, or domestic hot water, or other uses. In a liquid-cooled engine / generator setup, you can blow air through the radiator of the engine, within a duct, and use the heat from that to help heat the house, for instance.
Getting a bit more exotic (and silly? I dunno...), one could use a Stirling engine to power (something?); needs a hot side and a cold side. Put the "cold" side outside the enclosure, and presto, you have a temperature differential to work with.
Initially, I can see fuel cells as stationary power generation units - get some installed base & learning time in, as they work on making it more portable and physically robust. I'd buy one today if it was anywhere near cost-effective.
Of course, along with this problem is the one of how such an infrastructure upgrade will be financed in the first place without a demonstration of existing demand. The only way I can really see this chicken-and-egg problem being overcome is massive government investment in infrastructure upgrades. Sorry, libertarians, but the free market is going to fail here.
Nobody will build hydrogen refuelling stations until there are hydrogen vehicles to be refuelled. Nobody will buy hydrogen vehicles until there are hydrogen refuelling stations to refuel the vehicles. Nobody would build gasoline stations before there were gasoline-powered vehicles to be refuelled. Nobody would buy gasoline-powerd vehicles until there were gasoline stations stations to refuel the vehicles. Nobody would build a power grid until consumers owned electrical appliances. Consumers would not buy electrical appliances until there was a power grid. Nobody would sell software until there were computers to run the software. Nobody would buy computers until there was software available for the computers.
The industries which arose around those products and services succeeded without government investement. Markets solve the chicken-and-egg problem because investors are risk takers; They do not require that a market does exist, but instead invest on the chance that a market will exist in the future. Indeed, "capitalism" takes its name from "capital", the investement risked to solve chicken-and-egg problems.
The issue of private vs. government investment is not, as you portray it, a matter of government usefully solving problems which the market can not. Instead, it is an issue of how risks and benefits are distributed among private investors, tax payers and consumers.With private investment, the private investor bears the risk of investement but also stands to receive profits. If the business is unprofitiable, the investor loses some or all of his investement. However, if the enteprise succeeds, he earns back his investment or more.
With government investment, so-called "industrial policy" (or as labelled by its detractors "corporate welfare") the tax-payer bears the risk of investement and private parties (the corporation or industry wich lobbied government) collects the profits. If the business is unprofitable the tax payer loses all of his investement. If the business is profitable, the tax payer also loses all of his investement. The private parties which lobbied to be assigned the profits benefit only when the business is profitable, but stand no loss if the business is unprofitable.
Socialism is another form of government investment. Taxpayers bear the risk of investment and a monopoly controlled by special interestes (usually employees of the monopoly) collects the profits (e.g. Amtrak, the U.S. Postal Service). If the business is unprofitable, the tax payer loses all of his investement. If the business is profitable the tax payer also loses all of his investement. Beneficiaries of the monopoly benefit regardless of whether the business is profitable because government will perpetually fund unprofitible enterprises (The U.S. Postal Service, Amtrak).
In all cases consumers stand to benefit from the availability of a product or service. Hower, individuals rarely fall into one class alone. For example consumers are often both consumers and tax payers. For any particular individual who benifits in his role as a consumer from the availability of of a product or service, that benefit can be more than offset by the cost paid by him in his role as tax payer.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Here is another metal fuel cell company this is very interesting:
Evionyx fuel cells
(Note: The highest-scoring vehicle was entered as a prototype, because it is a 1996 Passat which is no longer in production. The Passat was unmodified.)
Largest Sustainable Transportation Event Showcases Successes of Alternative Fuel Vehicles
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. â" Two winners of the Tour De Sol, a contest billed as the largest sustainable transportation event in the world, were fueled by American-made biodiesel â" a cleaner burning fuel made from renewable fats or vegetable oils such as soybean oil.
Sponsored by the Northeast Sustainable Energy Association since it began 1989, the Tour de Sol is designed to highlight environmentally friendly vehicles that decrease petroleum use and therefore reduce pollution and improve public health. This year, the Tour De Solâ(TM)s three festivals, open house, and road-rally competition were held in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Washington, DC during National Transportation Week, May 10-14.
For the first time, this yearâ(TM)s Tour de Sol road-rally competition was open to all "green" vehicles â" including alternative fuel vehicles. There were 21 categories for production and prototype vehicles including battery-electric, hybrid-electric, solar electric and conventional internal combustion engine vehicles or fuel cells using alternative fuels. The winners were honored for the greenest vehicles with good practical applications.
(more...)
"We already have had a stationary lab stack run up to 20,000 hours continuously."
Wow! They had fuel cells that good when they started testing it 20,000 hours (2 years!) ago!
Sindri Traustason.
The US would have a more robust power structure if on-site generation were cost effective. A lot of homes and businesses already heat/cook with natural gas and the distribution network has already been worked out. Any excessive electricity would flow back into the grid (power company would pay you for it, naturally) for the benifit of those who are strictly consumers (as the idea grows, these will be less and less). Benifits are a more close matching of generation capacity to load (will scale better). A network that's harder for subversive elements to disrupt (Blow up one plant vs many tiny ones). More tolerant of bad weather, and other "acts of God". Pollution (if any) is more distributed, and will not overwhelm the local environment. NIMBY issues will be easier to deal with. Combine this with intelligent housing design and we have a win-win situation.
The Insight essentially hacks the mph tests, to get better "on paper" mileage than the Prius.
The Insight's engine runs ALL THE TIME. This is crucial to understanding the difference. The Prius engine only runs if it needs to, it has "instant on" technology that kicks butt.
If you're doing long freeway drives in rolling terrain, and nothing else, you will get substantially better mileage in the Insight than you would in the Prius.
If you are driving to work and back in stop/go traffic you will get better mileage in the Prius.
How do I know? I drive a Prius daily, and my buddy drives an Insight. The Prius gets better mileage in our daily commute. It's because the gas engine never runs at all for the worst two miles of the trip, when we cross over I95.
Plus it fits two kids, the spouse and a middle-size dog....
Speaking as a former rocket scientist, I wish people would stop repeating that urban legend. Yes, the Hindenburg's outer skin was doped with a highly flammable compound containing aluminum. But it was NOT particularly similar to solid rocket fuel!
I've handled a LOT of solid propellant. I used to light my charcoal grille with MX/HGG fuel, no lie. But the dopant used on the Hindenburg was as much like solid rocket fuel as fish are like birds.
Has anyone noticed that so far, all the non-gas vehicles out have been really UGLY? Hasn't it occurred to any manufacturer to take an EXISTING body type and make an alternative fuel sorce version? For example, I had a gasoline Jetta, I liked it, in fact I liked it so much I got the Diesel version becuase of the mileage, if I could get an alternative (i.e. Hybrid, Fuel Cell) jetta to save money I would. I wont go buy some ugly Honda Insight looking piece of crap.
....move along....nothing to see here....
WTF, can you READ or what? We already covered this on slasherdot, and it's been all over the news. YES, bush and cheneys "hydrogen economy" is based on constructing 1 to 2 thousand small nuclear plants to make the hydrogen. You can google for yourself. That's their plan, or where exactly did you think this ocean of hydrogen was going to come from?
The govt is in bed with the oil coâ(TM)s. The oil coâ(TM)s wonâ(TM)t support an economy that only supports the utils. So inefficient, expensive, impractical, unrealizable fuel cells are the future!
Autonomous everything!
Not being a fuel cell expert, I have to ask.
Where does the water go?
In a car, you can just have it pissing in the road, but not many server rooms have a drain.
...designed a fairly efficient hydrogen electrolysis system which could be scaled up to meet the needs of a fuel cell industry. Assuming the hydrogen engines are efficient and temperature regulated so as not to produce toxic nitrides, hydrogen fuel cells may be extremely enviro-friendly alternative to gasoline powered vehicles. This is particularly true if the storage/transport medium is a relatively light one like the numerous metal hydrides which have been developed over the last 40 odd years for this purpose. Exon has funded studies of this technology since the early 70's, and has found that the only significant impediment is building the delivery infrastructure. The only major concern after this point is the environmental impact of the mining industry, since the fuel itself can easily be generated from any clean source of water available.
-Guanno
I'm interested. Do you have URL(s) supporting that claim?