Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Physicists Figure Out How To Make Cleaner Fuel Cells (eurekalert.org)

Posted by Soulskill on from the just-add-a-bit-of-bleach dept.

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.

32 comments

  1. Cleaner fuel cells? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Cleaner fuel cells? Were the old ones dirty? Did they try Mr Clean Magic Eraser?

    1. Re:Cleaner fuel cells? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was under the impression that the waste product of a fuel was water.

    2. Re:Cleaner fuel cells? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      More to the point, why is anyone surprised that the French invented something using Amphibian technology?

    3. Re:Cleaner fuel cells? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    4. Re:Cleaner fuel cells? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      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.
    5. Re:Cleaner fuel cells? by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      Oh noes! This planet is 70% covered in water. We must contain the oceans!

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    6. Re:Cleaner fuel cells? by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      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!
    7. Re:Cleaner fuel cells? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      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 :-D
    8. Re:Cleaner fuel cells? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      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 :-D
    9. Re:Cleaner fuel cells? by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      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!
    10. Re:Cleaner fuel cells? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    11. Re: Cleaner fuel cells? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      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 :-D
  2. Scientific understatement of the decade by Nutria · · Score: 1

    "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
    1. Re:Scientific understatement of the decade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So....did this solve global warming or not?

    2. Re: Scientific understatement of the decade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never mind that -- can they be 3D printed??

    3. Re:Scientific understatement of the decade by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      you mean the platinum that's in every car currently? Advances are being made that will be able to use non-exotic materials in fuel cells.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    4. Re:Scientific understatement of the decade by Nutria · · Score: 1

      you mean the platinum that's in every First World car currently

      FTFY.

      How expensive would platinum be if it were in every Chinese, Indian, Mexican, car.

      Advances are being made that will be able to use non-exotic materials in fuel cells.

      Like there are advances in battery tech. Get back to us when they're actually in mass production.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  3. How about just making fuel cells, period? by Darth+Muffin · · Score: 2

    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"
    1. Re:How about just making fuel cells, period? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This would be a step towards that. Fuel cells aren't common because they require expensive catalysts like platinum. If you look carefully, there's no expensive molecules in this catalyst. It's all just organic chemistry, no expensive exotic molecules. If you can produce this stuff cheaply, it'd go a long way to producing inexpensive fuel cells.

    2. Re:How about just making fuel cells, period? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they're available, but generally not at the consumer level. They currently have to be purchased through manufacturers directly who make them on a specialized basis (Big $$$). I've heard that those commercially available USB fuel cells are basically worthless, the last review on one that I saw noted that their phone wouldn't even accept it as a charging source because its voltage was too low.

      http://www.ballard.com/fuel-cell-applications/power-generators.aspx

    3. Re:How about just making fuel cells, period? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sure, here you go:

      http://www.efoy-comfort.com/

      Warning: They're largely disappointing and ridiculously expensive, and the price of the fuel will make you blush. The largest consumer unit generates a whopping 105 watts of power, weighs 19 lbs (just a few pounds lighter than an 800 watt ICE generator, I can't find an ICE generator that produces less power, sorry) and costs $6995. Fuel is consumed at just under 100 ml per hour (which sounds like very little, but consider how little power the unit has to offer). The largest fuel cartridge for it is 10 litres in size, for just over 4 days of constant operation and retails for $67, or $6.70 per litre.

      In comparison, an 800 watt ICE generator consumes fuel at about 1 litre per hour, or, compared to the fuel cell's consumption rate, for every 100 ml of fuel the fuel cell consumes, the ICE generator consumed 125 ml (not much different). In terms of cost of operation, we'll assume a very high gasoline prices of $2 per litre. Per kilowatt, the ICE generator will cost $2.50 to generate one kilowatt. The fuel cell will cost $6.38 to generate one kilowatt.

      The small ICE generator will cost 1/10th the price (and you'll get a high end quiet unit for that money, they can be had for $80 for small inefficient quickly broken units), consume 25% more fuel, yet due to the cost of the fuel, will save you $3.88 cents per kilowatt it generates. And it can power things like big work lamps, power tools, multiple laptops, small immersion heaters, etc, etc. The largest fuel cell unit will power... one laptop. Usually. Or a dozen LED light bulbs. But not both.

      Basically, you can sum it up as fuel cells just ain't there yet.

    4. Re:How about just making fuel cells, period? by castionsosa · · Score: 1

      Truma had a propane based fuel cell, the VeGA, which was pitched for RV and marine use. Because most RVs had propane, it would help supplement the solar install and keep the batteries topped off without a generator. However, because the technology was so expensive, Truma killed the product a few years ago.

      EFOY is still around, but their niche tends to be being able to have power for low consumption equipment in a remote area where solar panels would be too obvious, such as a weather station in a remote area.

      The biggest competitor to a fuel cell, barring the few edge cases where a fuel cell is a must, are solar installs. I can pay $7000 for an EFOY unit, or I can add a good number of solar panels, a MPPT charger, an inverter, and some very nice LiFePO4 batteries. To boot, once set up, the solar install would need very little upkeep.

      It would be nice to see cheaper fuel cells. If one can be made that uses propane, and can power a three amp refrigerator, the days of fussy, expensive absorption fridges in RVs would be over.

    5. Re:How about just making fuel cells, period? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      The largest consumer unit generates a whopping 105 watts of power, weighs 19 lbs

      So like a cell phone from the 80s. tech improves and gets better. Things have to start somewhere.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    6. Re:How about just making fuel cells, period? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >If one can be made that uses propane, and can power a three amp refrigerator, the days of fussy, expensive absorption fridges in RVs would be over.

      You can have that now! Many have simply given up on absorption fridges and instead installed a couple of solar panels on top of their RV (Any RV big enough to fit a bed can fit at least one panel, even the tiny trailers that can be pulled by a motorcycle).

      Add a couple of deep cycle batteries and you've got enough power to keep a fridge going all day without charging at all. From my experience, a mini-fridge averages 50 watts/h after accounting for inefficiencies. A decent solar panel will produce enough power to keep the fridge going over the course of a day, though without much to spare. Two panels makes sure you can weather duller days and have enough reserve left to keep the lights on and use the water pump. I like to bring a generator with me anyways, just in case. Very small generators are quite luggable for any sort of camping you'd be willing to bring a fridge to.

      In fact, some RVs come from the factory with residential fridges. It's a crapshoot if the manufacturer bothered giving you an inverter or not. Sadly, even fewer companies make 12 volt compressor fridges than companies that make fuel cells. Fortunately, today's inverters are 85-90% efficient. Just make sure to use pure sine wave with a fridge. Your batteries and your compressor will thank you.

  4. Cleaner? by pecosdave · · Score: 1

    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.
    1. Re:Cleaner? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      I couldn't see anything in the article about how these are any "cleaner" than any other kind of fuel cell.

      I'm guessing that the new compounds used are "cleaner" to produce than the old ones, but that is just a guess.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  5. Doesn't obey the laws of thermodyamics by clovis · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Doesn't obey the laws of thermodyamics by wbr1 · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

      And, entropy would have increased thereby.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    2. Re:Doesn't obey the laws of thermodyamics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your Dr. Biiritz would have been right, and the article is wrong. Thermodynamic efficiencies apply to more than just heat engines. Systems driven by chemical potential (or voltage...) are limited by the same thermodynamic laws. Heat is a convenient example for undergraduate classes, and leaving out chemical potential makes the equations easier to understand, but the physics is much broader than just looking at temperature differences.

    3. Re:Doesn't obey the laws of thermodyamics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re-read what you quoted. They didn't say the laws of thermodynamics don't apply, only that the specific laws that limit the efficiency of ICEs don't apply to fuel cells. This is true, as the fuel cells are not limited by the the maximum efficiency of the Carnot cycle that uses only temperature differences.

    4. Re:Doesn't obey the laws of thermodyamics by clovis · · Score: 1

      Re-read what you quoted. They didn't say the laws of thermodynamics don't apply, only that the specific laws that limit the efficiency of ICEs don't apply to fuel cells. This is true, as the fuel cells are not limited by the the maximum efficiency of the Carnot cycle that uses only temperature differences.

      No. Just no.
      All thermodynamic laws always apply.
      If the author had said that fuel cells have a higher efficiency than internal combustion engines, I would have bought that simplification.
      The author made no mention of any heat engine cycle, he just said that such thermodynamic laws don't apply. The laws do apply, the cycles are different.
      All thermodynamic laws always apply.

  6. Works on Ducks! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    Dawn Dish Detergent is the ticket.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.