Slashdot Mirror
New Fuel Cell Twice As Efficient As Generators
Hank Green writes "A new kind of Solid Oxide Fuel Cell has been developed that can consume any kind of fuel, from hydrogen to bio-diesel; it is over two times more efficient than traditional generators. Acumentrics is attempting to market the technology to off-grid applications (like National Parks) and also for home use as personal Combined Heat and Power plants that are extremely efficient (half as carbon-intensive as grid power.)"
Here's a direct link to the fuel cells: http://www.acumentrics.com/products-power-generato rs.htm
The common used UPS systems are provided with batteries that last for about 4 years.
These days the batteries are also measured while nog being used. When their are nearly discharged, they are charged automatically. This happens in a way so the life expectancy will be maximized.
Of course there's still Murphy's law, and batteries can fail a whole lot earlier!
For what it's worth:
- Research & engineering has reduced startup time from 8 hours to more like a few minutes
- There are several automotive companies (Delphi, BMW, Rolls-Royce) looking into the use of SOFCs
- Hydrogen fuel-cells are a false economy on their own - they are for energy STORAGE, not generation. SOFCs however are very, very efficient generators, and portable to boot. They're just also incredibly expensive ATM.
Okay, that last one wasn't from wikipedia, but it needed saying.Meta will eat itself
5k diesel is $1500 around here.
I am planing a hybrid system for the house when we get one.
will consist of Outback inverters, batteries, little solar wind/panels and last but not least is a generator.
The idea is during a short power outage run off batteries - if it is a long one the generator will start up and
charge the batteries. the solar and wind will be added in stages starting with the pannels
Using CFL's for lighting and auto transfer of vital circuts to the back up system. ie Beer fridge
The idea is that the generator will run at 80-90% load instead of wide fluctuations of 10-90 % the difference is is 2 - 4 hours of run time to a tank so i will use less fuel during a longer outage.
Also being conservative on power consumtion during that time i can even extend my fuel supply
Can also get exaust to water exchanger and use it to help heat the house in winter if needed.
The big advantage is that i can handle larger surge loads then just useing a generator which would have to be 2 to 3 time as large for start up of motors and short peak loads. Ie well pump and sump pump were rural.
Will cost more then just the generator but is way less the $175,000
+800C tends to burn away any soot :)
I've worked once as a consultant in a factory with several blast furnaces - the furnaces themselves never needed cleaning.
Yep. That's also how they keep diesel particulate filters working. Every couple of hundred miles, raise the exhaust temperature for a few minutes, and you're good again.
Actually, it can, but you need to gasify the coal first to create syngas (steam + coal --> CO + H2). Both CO and H2 can be oxidized in a solid-oxide fuel cell. There is a lot of research being done in these areas by the USDOE. I've worked on both SOFC (wrote a CFD model for SOFCs) and gasification (writing a CFD model model for fluidized bed gasification reactors). The "Next-Gen" power plant designs basically take in coal, gasify it, run it through a fuel cell, burn the effluent gas, run it through a turbine topping cycle, and finally separate out the CO2 and sequester it. The overall system efficiencies are quite good and can produce industrial CO2. There is more information here:
s /vision21/
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystem
There aren't any hybrid vehicles on the market using a fuel cell. If you were referring to the extra energy required to produce the batteries and electric motors required in current-generation hybrid cars, there is indeed a penalty compared to normal cars. The payback time is short, however, generally just a few months. After the payback period, the car saves energy over a comparable car for the rest of its lifetime. And while the batteries are full of not-so-healthy stuff you wouldn't want to drink, they are recycled in their entirety at the end of their useful lives.
As to whether you should wait for the next generation or not... that's always a tough call. At some point, you just have to stop and buy a car. Otherwise, you'll *always* be waiting for the Next Great Thing. It's a lot like buying a computer. You could make the argument that you should wait, since you know that things will be much, much faster at the same price in two years-- but in two years, the same thing will still be true.
The lack of moving parts and high efficiency sounds like it would be ideal for a backup generator since you could get twice the duration for the same fuel tank.
except from the website it can only be started up 100 times before damage occurs. That is a major show stopper right there.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Of the world's maybe. Of the US's maybe. Of Canada, Japan, New Zealand, France, and Iceland not likely.
Wow, cherry-pick much? How long did you Google to find countries that have the lowest possible fossil fuel consumption? Except for Japan, anyway. Percentage wise, Japan's use of fossil fuels (~65%) is almost as bad as the US (~71%).
Just for shits & giggles, let's include China - a rapidly industrializing country whose electrical conspution is and will continue to expand rapidly - with ~82% of their power coming from "conventional thermal" generation. Or the UK with ~74%. Or Australia (~92%), Netherlands (~90%), Greece (~89%), India (~83%), Mexico (~83%), Denmark (~82%), or Italy (~82%). (source)
Hey look, I can be highly selective with my data too!
Here's an idea - maybe, just maybe, it is understood that the phrase "half as carbon intensive as grid power" only applies if the power comes from fossil fuel sources. Call me a radical thinker, but sometimes it's easier to consider the subtext than to throw yourself into a fit of self-righteous rage.
=Smidge=
You are the fool. There is no combustion in a hydrogen fuel cell and there is no CO2 byproduct either (pretty sure that's true for ALL types fuel cells). See here.
Have you ever considered piracy? You'd make a wonderful Dread Pirate Roberts.
Some Googling found me at least one company that seems to have progressed to the production stage. I searched for "micro-wkk" (wkk = 'warmtekrachtkoppeling', Dutch for combined heat-and-power boiler)
Asking price is 10k Euro for the smallest model (1 kW electrical, 14 kW heat), that's incl installation. Most of their info in Dutch, though.
Twenty-five years ago that trick may have worked. Today, that structure is little more than a means of generating extra tax forms and accounting books while offering essentially zilch in terms of shielding liability. Besides, closely-held corps are themselves tenuous at best, certainly in their infancy. In reality, the corporate veil can be pierced simply if you're a sloppy excuse for a company or if it appears you are simply using it as a personal ATM...which is pretty common in such scenarios. When that happens, even the most absurdly complicated Rube Golberg paper conglomerates can quickly vanish into the glorified sole-proprietorships they really are to the sound of uproarious laughter from tax collectors, judges and creditors.
Solid oxide fuel cells are not new. They've been on the market since at least the 1990's, and SOFC research goes back to the 1930's. They're less expensive than PEM fuel cells, but also heavier. They have higher operating temperatures and must be warmed up to achieve peak output. The high temperature has both advantages and disadvantages.
If I understand right, the flexible fuel use is one of the advantages of the high temperatures (along with non-catalytic electrodes that aren't adversely affected by carbon exposure), which allow the fuel to be broken down into hydrogen and other elements within the fuel cell, instead of in a separate reformer.
Most types of fuel cells being actively researched have comparable electrical efficiencies, some better, some worse. They're also all very big. The news is this company released a new model, an alternative energy blogger thought it was cool and wrote a few non-technical notes on it, and now half of Slashdot seems to think it is something revolutionary. It looks like a good product, but it's far from as significant as the summary implies.
By the way, I looked up the company's page on this product, which is much more informative. Also on the page are links to a spec sheet, suggested applications, and a couple pictures so you can get a sense of scale. These things are clearly a lot bigger than a typical 5 kW internal combustion generator.
The DOE has a decent overview of solid oxide fuel cell technology.