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.
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?
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Wow, Diesel isn't flammable at all?
Um, the Hindenburg disaster was caused by the fact that Hydrogen and Oxygen undergo an extremely hot chemical reaction when combined in the presence of either a spark, or a nifty catalyst like Platinum.
Gasoline is non-flammable in its liquid state. It's the vapor that burn. You can thrust a lit match into a pool of gasoline and it will go out, providing you can get it through the vapor layer quickly enough. (Note: This is a STUPID teenager trick. I survived. You may not.)
SOME military vehicles use diesel. Others use gasoline. Still others use Kerosene.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
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