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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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....