Slashdot Mirror
New Catalyst May Be a Boost For Fuel Cells
Roland Piquepaille writes "Researchers at the University of Houston (UH) have developed a new platinum-based catalyst for fuel cells that is at least four times more efficient and cheaper than existing catalysts. This discovery in fuel cell research may ease reliance on gasoline. According to the researchers, the active phase of the catalyst consists of nanoparticles with a platinum-rich shell and a core made of an alloy of copper, cobalt, and platinum. But it's not enough for this new catalyst to be more efficient and cheaper than a pure platinum one. It also needs to work for a long time — say, the life of a car. So far, the preliminary results look promising, but longer-term testing is needed before this kind of fuel cells can be used to power your car."
What the pissing fuck is it about Platinum that makes it such a good universal catalyst?
Wha? No one?
Wonder why.
Oh, yeah, 'cause I can't (yet) go down to my local car dealer and walk out with one. And I can't (yet) go to a 'fuel cell recharging station'. Nor can I (yet) purchase hydrogen fuel cells themselves.
It's called economics people. The biggest problem delaying widespread adoption isn't cost or technology related, it boils down to macroeconomics. And there are too many very powerful people who stand to lose a whole lot of money if reliance on gasoline were to suddenly dissapear tomorrow.
That's why you don't have a fuel cell vehicle.
My blog
This technology has been 15 to 20 years off for the past 10 years. Improvements in battery technology are here, and cost would come down (much more quickly than fuel cells) if more companies jumped on the electric car bandwagon. We need more companies like this: www.teslamotors.com
I extracted 4 key words from TFA : ...may...may...promising...testing.
839*929
"a new platinum-based catalyst for fuel cells that is at least four times more efficient and cheaper than existing catalysts"
Can't we at least have this in libraries of congress please.
It's a good thing that is is made of something pricey like platinum instead of cheap and abundant like getting power from salt water or something silly. otherwise we may have a hard time justifying the high cost we wan to charge our consumers!
Even if this is a proven method, there's also a cost obstacle to overcome here. Platinum is already used in catalytic converters and those of us who, unfortunately, have a ULEV (Ultra Low Emission Vehicle) Honda Accord ought to know that their converter costs an arm and a leg. FYI: A retail catalytic converter for a ULEV car costs ~$1,800! (It has high platinum density) I managed to get an after market part for $650, and even then that's about twice what you would pay for a normal converter. The point is, there will be an even bigger premium for a hybrid with Platinum batteries. In the mean time, let's hope the gas prices get lower.
I personally prefer 24K Gold to the Platinum, gives it a warmer look.
Some researchers at Purdue came up with a technique back in May that's probably better than this. It uses a Gallium/Aluminum alloy. Aluminum, when exposed to water, produces hydrogen and aluminum oxide. Normally aluminum produces an aluminum oxide layer immediately on any exposed surface, preventing further reaction. This alloy doesn't have that problem. It's unclear precisely how much platinum they require for this process from the news release, but Platinum is far more expensive than either Aluminum or Gallium. Another advantage is that the Gallium is unaffected and can be reused, while the aluminum oxide can readily be converted back to pure aluminum through Fused Salt Electrolysis. The cost of aluminum would make the cost of using this more than the equivalent of the current ~$3/gallon of gas. If there were enough demand and, using the recycling method, the cost of aluminum could be brought down to make it cheaper than the current cost of gas, however. Of course, electricity for the electrolysis has its own environmental impact...
Isn't oil the only source of hydrogen? How does one make hydrogen without burning oil. If we can't, aren't back to square one?
I thought they had been using platinum in fuel cells for a while now? amirite?
You can get hydrogen from water, for example. It does require energy to extract that hydrogen, but you can use nuclear, wind, or solar power to perform that extraction. The reality is that oil is very unlikely to factor in to producing hydrogen. Unfortunately, coal is the most likely means for producing the requisite energy. For those whose only goal is to liberate us from dependence on Mid-East oil, it's a win. For those of us who care about the environment, it depends on what the energy source is, and is very likely a loss.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Vlad? That you? Scott Lockwood?
Dog is my co-pilot.
You mean, lithium-ion, right?
Dog is my co-pilot.
What do you want to do with the hydrogen you make from the Ga/Al? Transfer them to electronic power via a fuel cell?
There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
Even if this is a proven method, there's also a cost obstacle to overcome here.
The point of the article is that
- the previous Platinum-based catalyst was about 6 times too expensive to be practical for an automotive application, while
- this one is more than a factor of 6 cheaper, putting it in the running.
In other words they've crossed the affrordability threshold.
If the lifetime testing works out, no roadblocks show up, and something better doesn't come along and obsolete it before it gets deployed, expect this one to actually show up in cars.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The original journal articles for those interested in more than a press release:
Efficient Oxygen Reduction Fuel Cell Electrocatalysis on Voltammetrically Dealloyed Pt-Cu-Co Nanoparticles (Strasser et al., Angewandte Chemie International Edition)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/anie.200703331
Electrocatalysis on Bimetallic Surfaces: Modifying Catalytic Reactivity for Oxygen Reduction by Voltammetric Surface Dealloying (Koh & Strasser)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ja0742784
To fully answer that question would take a whole course on organometallic chemistry to explain, but it has to do with the d-electron configuration of the platinum, (d8), which results in organometallic compounds which can be either square planar or octahedral. The ability to switch between these structures (and related oxidation states) allows for transitions and bonding between the states which allows for the creation of intermediates necessary for catalytic reactions. Bulk platinum (i.e. as a heterogeneous catalyst) also has d-electrons available at the metal surface which can form bonding and anti-bonding ( = bond breaking) bonds with small molecules. Essentially when it is reacting with, say, hydrogen gas, the H2 adsorbs onto the surface and, each atom forming a bond with one Pt atom's d-orbital.
A good book might be Heterogeneous Catalysts for the Synthetic Chemist (Google Book Search)
Am I the only one that saw the title and wondered what video card drivers had to do with fuel cell technology?
I think I need to get out more =/
Aikon-
Right now, you can drill a hole in a pipeline anywhere in the wild and steal millions of Euros worth of gasoline. Now, if only gasoline had a price high enough to compensate the risk of getting caught...
They suck for cars. Period. More efficient than gas, sure. But:
1. Requires a complete infrastructure rework, just like electric would.
2. Still lower efficiency.
3. Harder to implement in a vehicle, requiring much more exotic material for efficient energy storage vs. battery tech we already have.
I just want an electric car. Ok, actually, I want an affordable (sub-40k) Tesla Roadster-style car, but with four seats and a trunk.
The breakthrough in fuel cells will come when they can deliver 50% or better efficiency from gasoline. Then the dinosaur egg will finally have hatched a chicken, which can then lay a chicken egg: other fuels that fuel cells, and their dependent motors/transmissions/etc, can use. That is a much more likely transition scenario than getting the fuels first, or switching to fuel cells and their fuels simultaneously.
--
make install -not war
what a catalyst is. The aluminum in that reaction is oxidized. The platinum in this reaction is unchanged by it.
Dog is my co-pilot.
That's not a bad way to look at it. I appreciate your optimism. I'm afraid I'm a little more cynical, in that I believe that the coal industry has their hands in far too many legislator's pockets (of both parties).
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I don't see how this will do anything to ease the reliance on gasoline. A fuel cell isn't a power source per se - the power still comes from whatever you're feeding it. Whatever you're using as a fuel still requires a power input. This won't do a damn thing for energy independence unless it's coupled with a massive nuclear power plant construction program. And don't go on about wind and solar - even maxed out they barely make a dent.
When that nuclear program finally starts, it's gonna be another decade, at least, before we see any benefit. So assuming they get whatever kinks they have out of the process today, and assuming auto manufacturers rush headlong into production (five year delay), and assuming ignorant opposition ot nuclear power can be overcome in those five years, the earliest this will have any displacement effect on oil is fifteen years from now.
Which, in all practicality, means we'll all be dead before any of this happens.
into a Stirling or steam engine, and make present day tech much more efficient.
What?
How about HTSC ring for enery storage?
http://www.imagesco.com/articles/superconductors/superconductor-energy-storage-ring.html
Years ago there was some interest in small strong fly wheels for energy storage.
What we need is a web site that tracks all the "announcements" of impending magical technical solutions that never transpire and why they never transpired.
I'm jaded yes, we hear announcements all the time about stuff but I never see anything I can buy. It would REALLY interest me.
Basically the web site (and research team) should do something like go back to 1993, read up on the announcements and discoveries predicted to change our lives and then find out what happened to them. I'd buy that info for a dollar!
The cheapest way to extract hydrogen from water, imho, will be to use John Kanzius radio wave machine which--judging by related patents-- immitates the resonance of platinum so as to act as an artificial catalyst.
Cobalt is very toxic. It is most toxic when in particulate form in the lungs. A catalyst works only in direct contact with the reaction compounds. What will keep the cobalt powder from eroding under heat stress and getting air born?
Fast machines, powerfull AI, impulsive invention,... All I lack is a good espresso machine!
Documenting, as the invevitable next step, every impractical wish list available (i.e. Flying Car, Regional Heliocopter Airports, internet connected toasters, space elevators, and hydrogen fuel cell cars): Popular Mechanics and Popular Science.
I'm really not that cynical, and I like the magazines, but reporting on likely, sensical new technology is not their forte (or mission).
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. - Geek's corollary to Clarke's law
This is all very interesting, but there are many problems to overcome before the average citizen can see a hydrogen fueled vehicle in their driveway. The reality of the situation is that we need a replacement for gasoline NOW, not forty or fifty years from now. We need a replacement that requires little or no change to the current infrastructure. That replacement is Butanol (look it up if you don't believe it), and could be available wide scale in very short order if the powers-that-be would get their heads out of their asses.
Heard any good sigs lately?
Isn't all this moot? I read somewhere about a 75kW fuel cell using 3 ounces of platinum. There are in the US, each year, between 10 and 20 million (I think it's around 16 or 17MM) new cars sold.
Even if they banned all gasoline use and driving except for fuel cell cars, and even if each such car only used one fuel cell each, that means we would need say 17 million fuel cells.
17 million x 3 oz = 51 million ounces. Even if they get it down to one ounce each, the world makes about 6 million ounces of platinum, and that's it.
Am I missing something? Is my admittedly un -/.- worthy math wrong?