Slashdot Mirror


Enzymes Make Electricity From Jet Fuel Without Ignition

An anonymous reader writes University of Utah engineers say they've developed the first room-temperature fuel cell that uses enzymes to help jet fuel produce electricity without needing to ignite the fuel. These new fuel cells can be used to power portable electronics, off-grid power and sensors. A study of the new cells appears online today in the American Chemical Society journal ACS Catalysis. "The major advance in this research is the ability to use Jet Propellant-8 directly in a fuel cell without having to remove sulfur impurities or operate at very high temperature," says the study's senior author. "This work shows that JP-8 and probably others can be used as fuels for low-temperature fuel cells with the right catalysts."

15 of 78 comments (clear)

  1. Efficiency by Argos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Important question: efficiency?

    1. Re:Efficiency by camperdave · · Score: 2

      Any efficiency is too efficient. Expect these idealist clowns to be sued into oblivion by the petroleum industry.

      Why? You still need the jet fuel. The Petroleum Industry still gets their cut. They may actually sell more jet fuel if this works out. Imagine every battery replaced by a canister of jet fuel. It would be the Petroleum Industry's dream.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    2. Re:Efficiency by tulcod · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That is not how fundamental engineering works.

      What do you think the first solid-state transistor looked like? A neat P-N junction on a silicon wafer, produced by one of those fancy ASML fab machines in Korea? Do you think the first solid-state transistor was capable of speeds anything like what we expect today? Do you think it was "efficient" for any meaning of that word?

      The first solid-state transistor was a piece of plastic jammed into a block of germanium. It was dirty, crooked, difficult to make, and generally a pain in the ass.

      But it was a proof of concept. It took a lot of additional engineering to make it usable in actual electronics. And then a lot more to make it smaller. And then a lot more to make it scalable. And then years and years and years and years of research brought us to what we know today as a transistor.

      But the first transistor was just an impractical oversized proof of concept.

      The research in this article is important. It shows that what was always theoretically an option is actually possible in practice. Scalability, efficiency, effort to produce - none of that matters at this stage. Obviously that would all be interesting next steps, but this shows that the principle works. And that is damn interesting.

    3. Re:Efficiency by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

      Imagine every battery replaced by a canister of jet fuel. It would be the Petroleum Industry's dream.

      Imagine every battery replaced by a canister of jet fuel. It would be the Terrorist Industry's dream.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    4. Re:Efficiency by RabidReindeer · · Score: 2

      Imagine every battery replaced by a canister of jet fuel. It would be the Petroleum Industry's dream.

      Imagine every battery replaced by a canister of jet fuel. It would be the Terrorist Industry's dream.

      Forget Lethal Weapon. Jet fuel is basically kerosene. You can't just touch a match to it and it explodes.

      Actually, some batteries are more explosive than an equivalent (shall we say 3oz.?) sized canister of jet fuel.

    5. Re:Efficiency by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

      Wow so negative. Imagine this as a generator replacement. They already burn hydrocarbons. I would love one for Hurricane season here in South FL. No fire hazard or less of one than a gas generator. No CO issue. No noise.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    6. Re:Efficiency by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 2

      Imagine every battery replaced by a canister of jet fuel. It would be the Petroleum Industry's dream.

      Imagine every battery replaced by a canister of jet fuel. It would be the Terrorist Industry's dream.

      Forget Lethal Weapon. Jet fuel is basically kerosene. You can't just touch a match to it and it explodes.

      Actually, some batteries are more explosive than an equivalent (shall we say 3oz.?) sized canister of jet fuel.

      Kerosene needs the right conditions to explode, unlike gasoline. It does burn, however. Kerosene, jet fuel and diesel fuel are all basically the same thing, just different purity levels.

    7. Re:Efficiency by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

      H2O and CO2. Which is the same output as a perfect combustion engine. Of course in practice such a thing as a perfect combustion engine does not exist. You use air instead of O2 in the oxidizer and you get NOx. Even if you used only pure O2 as the oxidizer you would probably still get CO, benzene and crap like that in the exhaust. So you remove the CO, benzene and other crap with a platinum catalyst to turn that crap into CO2 and H2O. Which is what we use right now.

    8. Re:Efficiency by mlts · · Score: 4, Interesting

      When RV-ing, fuel cells (EFOY, VeGA [1]) are already on the market. They may not be powerful enough to run an A/C, but good enough to a few months from a liter or two of fuuel.. This keeps the batteries topped off and allows one to use 12 volt items and 120/240 volt items (with an inverter) without the noise of a generator when dry camping.

      A fuel cell running on diesel would be very useful. It would have more energy per volume than methanol or propane, and would go far in supplementing solar.

      For non-RV uses, having a diesel fuel cell to supplement a battery bank if the solar charging system isn't cutting it would be useful. A good set of batteries, and one can have a circuit in their house just for small electrical items that are always on, such as battery chargers. It also makes for a decent UPS.

      [1]: Ironic that Truma, named after a US president, doesn't sell anything other than a propane gauge on this side of the pond, when they have the absolute best RV furnaces, water heaters (water heaters that will auto-dump their tanks rather than allow the water to burst if the tank is about to freeze), fuel cells, and many other niceties.

    9. Re:Efficiency by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      Don't be naive. Of course the efficiency matters at this stage. If this is just as efficient, or more efficient than burning the fuel in a turbine, then it's ready for use now. If it is not, then we know that more research is required. The GP was asking "Is this ready for use, or is this one of those technologies they say we will be using 20 years from now?" He framed that in the question of efficiency because that is how you would measure whether this is a viable method of generation or just a technological marvel.

      Well, it's low temperature for starters. It means energy isn't wasted converting the fuel to heat as in a regular turbine. That already gives you a huge efficiency boost since you're not heating a bunch of stuff to thousands of degrees.

      Of course, a reason for the low temperature could be it's a slow reaction, but even slow reactions can be useful if you only need a little power at a time. It means a reasonably sized tank could last far longer than a battery.

    10. Re:Efficiency by mlts · · Score: 2

      EFOY does. It uses methanol, but a liter of the stuff will last months. Truma has a product, but they refuse to sell anything but their propane meter in the US.

      You will be paying top dollar for the fuel cell. From the prices on US Marine products, the 40, 75, and 105 watt cells run $3499, $4999, and $6999, respectively. The fuel runs $67 for a 10 liter bottle, $193 for a 28 liter bottle.

      If car camping, I'd probably consider a portable solar charger. Even if one builds their own with a MPPT controller, it will be still cheaper than a fuel cell.

  2. Not subject to Carnot efficiency limit by stoploss · · Score: 4, Informative

    This isn't a heat engine; therefore, it isn't subject to the Carnot efficiency limit that is a key reason that internal combustion engines have such a low maximum theoretical efficiency in terms of extracting energy from the fuel.

    Hydrocarbons are actually a great energy store for a vehicle: they are thermally stable/don't discharge over time, it's fast & trivial to "recharge" the energy store, and hydrocarbons have orders of magnitude more energy per mass than any form of battery, which improves vehicle efficiency by reducing the mass that has to be lugged around. However, the internal combustion engine is a wastefully inefficient, complicated machine. Ideally, we could get the best of both worlds with a hydrocarbon fuel cell that efficiently produces electricity to drive electric motors for a vehicle. There are other technologies that could potentially accomplish this, such as the solid oxide fuel cell.

    Don't conflate the energy store (hydrocarbons) with the stored energy (e.g. fossil fuels). There is no reason we cannot create hydrocarbons at will using various approaches. Biodiesel from algae is one example as well as "reverse combustion" via more industrial processes (e.g. the Fischer-Tropsch process). Some catalytic processes have been created that use solar power to create hydrocarbons.

    Personally, I prefer the idea of large nuclear plants creating hydrocarbons from atmospheric CO2. As a bonus, we would get to keep our existing petroleum distribution infrastructure while our vehicle fleet becomes carbon neutral. Backwards-compatible carbon neutrality FTW?

  3. Re:Oh goody goody by Required+Snark · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Are you whining just to whine, or is your brain actually the size of a walnut?

    The sponsor is the US military. They have standardized on JP-8

    Apart from powering aircraft, JP-8 is used as a fuel for heaters, stoves, tanks, by the U.S. military and its NATO allies as a replacement for diesel fuel in the engines of nearly all tactical ground vehicles and electrical generators, and as a coolant in engines and some other aircraft components. The use of a single fuel greatly simplifies logistics.

    By the way, the original post was wrong when it said JP-7. That's a specialty fuel used by the SR-71 and hypersonic X-51 Waverider. The research was done using JP-8.

    From a logistics point of view, having a fuel cell that uses the same stuff you use in aircraft, tanks, and trucks is a big win. A fuel cell that is a drop in replacement for existing generators that use JP-8 would be a big deal. That;s why the military is interested.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
  4. Re:Sounds great but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    It is a bacterial enzyme. The purification methods in the article are easily scalable to an industrial scale. The only thing that is not clear are what are the yields. However, there is a significant room for optimization of the yield and this is something that is not hard to do. They have also not done any work on optimizing the stability of the enzymes. So I guess there is a lot of room for improvement. Enzymes are used quite a lot on industrial scale in things like laundry detergents for example.

  5. Re:No Smoking or Open Flame Near Fuel Cell! by fruity_pebbles · · Score: 2

    JP-8 is nearly identical to Jet A-1, which is the fuel used in commercial jet airplanes and is mostly kerosene. It's not very aromatic and is harder to ignite than gasoline. You may be thinking of JP-4, which is similar to commercial Jet B. JP-4 and Jet B have naptha in addition to the kerosene.