Slashdot Mirror
Physicists Figure Out How To Make Cleaner Fuel Cells (eurekalert.org)
Mal-2 writes: An international group of scientists from Russia, France, and Germany have developed ion-exchange synthetic membranes based on amphiphilic compounds that are able to convert the energy of chemical reactions into electrical current. The new development described in the journal Physical Chemistry, Chemical Physics could potentially be used in fuel cells, and in separation and purification processes (abstract).
The molecules in question, with the working names A-Na and Azo-Na, are promising substances that are classified as benzenesulfonates. They are wedge-shaped and can independently assemble themselves into supramolecular structures — complex organized groups of multiple molecules. Depending on the conditions set by the scientists, the molecules form discs, which, in turn, form columns with ion channels inside.
The molecules in question, with the working names A-Na and Azo-Na, are promising substances that are classified as benzenesulfonates. They are wedge-shaped and can independently assemble themselves into supramolecular structures — complex organized groups of multiple molecules. Depending on the conditions set by the scientists, the molecules form discs, which, in turn, form columns with ion channels inside.
I was under the impression that the waste product of a fuel was water.
The waste product of hydrogen is water, in addition to hydrogen, the article describes using methanol and methane which would generate CO2.and water exhaust products.
"and a number of improvements will need to be made to fuel cells themselves."
No mention of the high operating temperatures or precious metals required as catalysts.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Aside from a few boutique USB chargers you can't really get one. They've been promised for some time now as the answer to laptops, a household backup system, small generators, off-grid use, and even powering electric cars.
Real programmers use "copy con program.exe"
The waste from the Space Shuttle fuel cells was water and the astronauts drank it. It's part of the reason some of the last shuttle missions to the station involved putting the water recycling system in. Before the recycling system the shuttle dumped its waste water into the station tanks, dumping the water into space was one of the reentry protocols anyways.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
Petrol and diesel generators are limited by thermodynamic laws (they do not allow an efficiency coefficient of more than 80% for example), but such laws do not apply to fuel cells.
OK, I know what the author was trying to say, but dang, if I had put that on paper in my thermo class, Dr Biritz would have run me through with a sword.
Water is one of the key Greenhouse gasses
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Oh noes! This planet is 70% covered in water. We must contain the oceans!
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
My question is does it increase mpg?
You can have a car that has cleaner exhaust and still only get 5mpg.
Anyone remember catalytic converters? Significantly cleaner exhaust. Slightly lower mpg.
Or more recently Diesel Exhaust Fluid. Significantly cleaner exhaust. Slightly lower mpg. And one more thing to regularly buy for the life of the vehicle.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
humans can't release even a fraction of water vapor the oceans do. Literally a drop in a bucket. Water vapor is routinely lost from the atmosphere as rain.
What water vapor is though is a massive feedback loop. Raise the temps just a small bit via fossil fuels and other human caused sources and more vapor comes off the oceans causing more heating and more vapor, rinse, repeat.
But more importantly if hydrogen fuel cells were to become a serious industry, we'd be getting that hydrogen from....water (and yes I know today it mostly comes from fossil fuels). So water taken out of the system recently and put back in. That's not a serious problem as it's a short term cycle. Fossil fuels are a million+ years of CO2 being put back into the atmosphere in just 150 years and as such the system is adjusting rapidly.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
perhaps we need to not focus on one stat. While increasing mpg is certainly useful, if by losing 10% mpg we reduce emissions by 30% (just making up numbers, don't know the reality) then yes losing mpg is worth it.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Dawn Dish Detergent is the ticket.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Seems counter intuitive to burn more fuel to make less exhaust. I was really meaning to refer to the efficiency of the engine. A lot of manufactuers are just making the vehicles lighter and using the same old inefficient engines to raise mpg.
I have always assumed that a more efficient engine would be cleaner burning. I suppose that could be wrong tho.
My best understanding of the VW cheating scandal is that if the emissions software worked like it was supposed to the engine would have significantly less power.
Not saying I support what they did because many others were able to get the same results without cheating (years later) .
But as ive said before being Eco friendly is nice up to the point where things no longer function as they should.
I can reduce emissions by 100% car if I rip out the engine but pushing it everywhere flinstones style isn't really practical.
Cfls are worthless as lights until they warm up.
LEDs are great all the time just bad cri although im sure that will improve in the future.
The first low flow toilets wouldn't flush.
Now they have better low flow designs that can flush strong with a fraction of the water.
They have started adding ethanol to the gasoline while I am not sure if its for an ecological reason it is really bad for small engines and will ruin the carborators of chainsaws, lawnmowers,atvs,motorcycles,etc especially if it sits for any length of time.
Anyhow what was the subject again? Ive wandered off and lost my spot.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
I have always assumed that a more efficient engine would be cleaner burning. I suppose that could be wrong tho.
For an air breathing ICE, the hotter the fuel burns, the more complete of a burn you get and the better thermodynamic efficiency you get from higher temperatures. But you also create more NOx compounds by increasing the amount of reactions of nitrogen in the air. You can reduce the emissions by running cool, and running fuel rich, both costing efficiency. Although that is too a point, as if you go too far you increase how much unused fuel and CO you exhaust.
It depends on which emissions you are talking about. For CO2 with a fixed fuel source (e.g. gasoline), your fuel economy and emissions are directly related.
I can reduce emissions by 100% car if I rip out the engine but pushing it everywhere flinstones style isn't really practical.
Humans are not zero emissions, and not even particularly efficient. Although it helps most human powered transportation doesn't try to lug around something resembling a mobile living room, and is slow enough not to require a lot of protection.
But as ive said before being Eco friendly is nice up to the point where things no longer function as they should.
Define 'should'. Continuing at cheating levels isn't reasonable. Lowering power by 10% but reducing emissions by 30% isn't counterintuitive, its physics of more efficiency. Whether from lower weightor whatever is irrelevant.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people