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."
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"
For one, Hinderberg didn't blow up, it caught fire and slowly sank to the ground. This is why most people survived it. Second, produce your own hydrogen at home as there are now kits sold on the Net for under $3500.
Dammy
The Hindenburg disaster was caused by the highly combustible material coating the outer skin of the airship. The material used to seal the cellulose shell was very similar to what is used today as solid rocket fuel.
While hydrogen is inflammable, gasoline, the current fuel of choice is hardly fireproof. There is a good reason why military vehicles are diesel.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Your link discusses recharging electric-powered cars, which would (obviously) lead to an increased electricity output from various power stations, which would boost carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide emissions from the power stations.
"However, if fuel cells were used to recharge the batteries, there would be significant reductions in emissions from the power-generation and transport industries."
Either way, it doesn't talk about using fuel cells to drive the engine, which is what the real article talks about.
Ballard roxx0rs. And the fact that that 25% of my pension's in green funds, including Ballard, and that to my surprise they've significantly outperformed all my 'investment' stocks, hardly influences my judgement at all ;)
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
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
Isn't that what they did with electric cars? They'll give you the car reasonably cheap, but you're on the hook for the battery replacements 2 years down the road at anywhere between $700 and $4000.
Of course, that's one of the main reasons why GM (Saturn) were only leasing the EV1.
--D
Diesel requires high compression to combust. There has been instances where a spill of fuel oil or diesel has extinguished a household fire.
Gas-turbine powered vehicles (like the M1 Abrams) can burn gasoline, kerosene or diesel. All other combat vehicles use diesel. During WW2, when there were shortages of just about everything, gasoline engines were placed in halftracks and tanks, with disaterous results.
With regard to the Hindenburg, it is generally accepted that the initial fire was not a hydrogen burn, since spectators reported extemely bright and colorful flame. (Hydrogen flame is not very colorful) The outer shell of the Hindenburg caught fire, probally due to static discharge, which eventually led to a hydrogen leak and bigger fire.
You'll find that many fire disasters are causes by various sealants. That big circus fire in the 50's killed hundreds of people because a mixture of kerosene and paraffin wax was used to waterproof the tent.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
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.
SOME military vehicles use diesel. Others use gasoline. Still others use Kerosene.
The ONLY piece of (US) military equipment to still use gasoline (this is as of 1991, and US Army at that) is the M2 Burner Unit, used in Mobile Kitchen Trailers (MKTs). No vehicles use gasoline, unless you count civilian US government cars and vans from the TMP motor pool. But those aren't tactical vehicles. When I was in the S&T Troop (Supply and Transport) of the 11th ACR, our basic load to supply the Regiment was 110,000 gallons of JP-8, and 600 gallons of gasoline (we called it "MOGAS") in a wee little pod for the cooks.
EVERYTHING else these days, and I do mean everything, burns JP-8, which is a kerosene-based jet fuel. Humvees use it, 5 ton trucks use it, M1A2 tanks use it, helicopters use it - and all the jet aircraft in the Air Force and Navy/USMC use it.
Still, Mr. Duffbeer is not wrong with his comments as most tactical ground vehicles were originally designed to use diesel. You can use JP-8 in lieu of diesel anywhere. And JP-8 is burned in tactical vehicles for the same reasons diesel was - it is a MUCH safer fuel to handle than gasoline (and JP-8 is many times safer than older jet fuels like the dread JP-4).
JP-8 is a remarkable fuel. IIRC, the Bundeswehr was switching to it too when I was stationed over there (91-95).
I know this because Tyler knows this.