Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Kitchen Waste to Power Fuel Cells... Eventually 44

Posted by michael from the science-fiction dept.
Max Romantschuk writes "Nikkei Electronics Asia reports that "The Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth (RITE) and Sharp Corp have developed basic technology for making effective bio-fuel cells". Apparently these fuel cells can be powered by regular kitchen waste. The future for technology like this should be rosy, taking into account the increased pressure put on all areas of power generation for more ecologically friendly alternatives."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Kitchen Waste to Power Fuel Cells... Eventually More

Kitchen Waste to Power Fuel Cells... Eventually

Comments Filter:

  • What will they call it? (Score:3, Funny)

    by adamjaskie ( 310474 ) on Thursday February 13, 2003 @09:50AM (#5294211) Homepage
    Mr. Fuel Cell?

  • Sounds familiar (Score:3, Funny)

    by michaelggreer ( 612022 ) on Thursday February 13, 2003 @10:05AM (#5294338)
    Now all they need is a Flux Capacitor

  • How much 'Kitchen Waste'? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SN74S181 ( 581549 ) on Thursday February 13, 2003 @10:05AM (#5294339)
    I think it's important to ask how much Kitchen Waste is needed to operate one of these things. As food becomes more and more industrialized, i.e. pre-prepared there is less and less viable kitchen waste. So maybe technology like this will work well in less advanced kitchens, but those are the kitchens where it is least likely to be implemented. Also, does this mean people who are members of the 'clean plate club' don't get any energy from their fuel cell?
    • But, pre-prepared food tastes horrid. Its overpriced, and has too many chemicals in it. Much better to just make your own food.

    • Re:How much 'Kitchen Waste'? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Quill_28 ( 553921 ) on Thursday February 13, 2003 @10:16AM (#5294413) Journal
      > I think it's important to ask how much Kitchen Waste is needed to operate one of these things.

      Good question.

      >So maybe technology like this will work well in less advanced kitchens, but those are the kitchens where it is least likely to be implemented.

      I wouldn't agree. I assume that you assume that the poorer eat more food from scratch. And while I believe that was true at one time, I don't believe it is true anymore.

      More and more people are coming back to well-prepared food. And realizing that it isn't that much work. For instance I ate a banana yesterday and my wife's homemade broccoli soup. Banana peel and parts of the broccoli are not eaten. Instant energy! Of course it matters what the answer to your first question was.

    • You've missed an important part of the article:
      Glucose made by liquefying and refining kitchen refuse is fed to the microbes, which then produce enormous amounts of hydrogen. The hydrogen is fed into the device to generate power.

      Sharp and RITE , located in Kyoto, are considering the possibility that such garbage glucose can be sold at retailers, much the way kerosene is sold today.

      In other words, the idea isn't that you'll buy a special fuel cell/garbage disposal and dump your kitchen waste in it to power your laptop, the idea is that you'll buy this glucose that's produced from kitchen waste, that then powers your laptop (or whatever). I'd imagine the kitchen waste would come from large commercial sources, not joe average selling his garbage.
      • Oh, w00t. Now we won't have to suck up electricity (produced by burning COAL, mind you) to make our ultra-clean-supar-nifty-wow-I-can't-believe-it's-n ot-gas cars. Which will produce more net pollution per mile than gas powered cars.

        Just a tidbit.
      • Glucose made by liquefying and refining kitchen refuse

        Aha! So kitchen waste is turned into Food.

  • 1.21 gigawatts! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Neck_of_the_Woods ( 305788 ) on Thursday February 13, 2003 @10:06AM (#5294340) Journal

    Mr. Fusion in the house. Someone find me a flux capacitor!
  • We need beer cans and bananas to generate the necessary 1.21 gigawatts of electricity!

  • Kitchen Waste? (Score:3, Funny)

    by trentfoley ( 226635 ) on Thursday February 13, 2003 @10:26AM (#5294464) Homepage Journal
    If I use my kitchen waste for energy fuel, what will I put in my compost heap?

    What I really want is a fuel cell powered by AOL coasters. If I can't have that, I'd like one that is powered by Euro Trash.

  • No, thank you. One of the small amounts of enjoyment that I get out of my sad, sad life is feeding Mr. Hungry (my pet name for the in-sink-erator) his daily ration of onion peels, bell pepper cores, and garlic paper. If I don't get to do this, then cooking just isn't worth it, and neither is living.
    • My only hope is that one day my necktie will get caught in Mr Hungry like it did to Arsenio Hall in the opening scene of Amazon Women on the Moon.

      Bullshit, or not?
  • Yes, but when will kitchen waste be able to power my Flux Capacitor?
  • In response to new developments in energy generation using home waste, the state of CA will begin taxing residents on any waste they don't throw away.

  • What a great concept! (Score:5, Informative)

    by n1ywb ( 555767 ) on Thursday February 13, 2003 @11:04AM (#5294708) Homepage Journal
    I was going to say something about Mr. Fusion, but everybody else alredy has.

    Seriously, this is a great advance in fuel cell technology. A lot of people think fuel cells are gods gift and don't realize that most fuel cells run on hydrocarbons (IE fossile fuel) or hydrogen. A fuel cell is probably the cleanest and most efficient way to burn hydrocarbons, but YOU'RE STILL BURNING HYDROCARBONS. You're still sucking dead dinosaurs out of the ground and pumping TONS of CO2 into the air that has been trapped under the ground for millions of years for a damn good reason. And hydrogen as a fuel has been stupid because it's costly to produce and has a super low energy density in a gasious form and is hard to store in a liquid form. The hydrogen fuel cell cars in the Tour de Sol a few years back didn't have back seats, instead they had giant carbon fiber hydrogen tanks.

    So these guys found a way to produce the hydrogen IN the fuel cell, thus effectively eliminating the problems in producing, storing and transporting the hydrogen. Ingenious. I hope this is the direction society moves in, becoming more self sufficient and reducing waste. This device is a double whammy, it cuts back on household waste AND produces clean electricity.

    • Re:What a great concept! (Score:3, Informative)

      by KDan ( 90353 )
      Actually, as far as I know the energy density (per weight of material) of hydrogen is greater than that of hydrocarbons.

      Check this link [hydrogen.org] for more information.

      Daniel
      • I agree. While fuel cells for organic materials such as gasoline or alcohol are interesting, it's the hydrogen ones that everyone is focused in on. Contrary to what many think, such systems aren't completely clean. But they are a damn site better than anything we have now.

        Fuel cells that work on organic "junk" are useful - but because of pollution concerns probably will need a lot of work. I have my doubts that they'd be efficient enough so as to be a practical energy source. But who knows. Perhaps eventually they'll become an effective way of recycling organic material. I don't expect such things as a practical technology for several decades though. In contrast hydrogen fuel cells will be mainstream in less than a decade.

      • Re:What a great concept! (Score:3, Informative)

        by n1ywb ( 555767 )
        Liquid hydrogen does, but that is an extraordinarily difficult material to handle, considering that it is only a liquid near absolute zero. Hence it's not used in any mainstream applications that I am aware of.
    • > So these guys found a way to produce the hydrogen
      > IN the fuel cell,

      They are not the first to do that.

      > thus effectively eliminating the problems in
      > producing, storing and transporting the hydrogen.

      Except that it appears that the garbage must first be processed into glucose and purified.
  • We only have 12 years to perfect this and get it into every vehicle in the air. How do I know this? They did a product demonstration in Back To The Future (1985)... plus 30 years is 2015...
  • Did anyone else just have a flash from the end of 'Back to the Future'... Doc brown pouring a beer into 'Mr. Fusion'.
  • But what about the compost! Think about the compost!!

    Seriosuly, though, I compost quite a bit - and use it. I'd bet that most people don't and that this would be a good invention for them.

    -shpoffo

  • Requires Recycling of Kitchen Waste (Score:5, Informative)

    by tyen ( 17399 ) on Thursday February 13, 2003 @02:43PM (#5296505) Journal

    In case anyone else is interested, this is not quite a "dump your kitchen waste into the food processor-like chute" device, a la Mr. Fusion. The article specifically states that the organic material has to be liquified and refined to extract a glucose mixture that the bugs (which are the heart of the device) eat. Thus, if we want to use kitchen waste, it has to be recycled, in much the same manner that people who compost their kitchen waste save it.

    The article goes on to mention that Sharp and Kyoto University hope that "such garbage glucose can be sold at retailers, much the way kerosene is sold today." I'm specifically interested in the refining process, its required energy inputs and its resultant waste stream, but couldn't Google up anything useful because I'm not familiar with organic chemistry.

    Presuming that it doesn't take more energy to refine raw organic material into the glucose stockfeed than the device emits (in which case the utility of the device is its energy storage properties), and the waste stream from the refining process is benign in quantity and in its toxicity properties, this would be a very cool way to generate/store energy. They don't say how long a matchbox-sized device could power an LCD TV, but if the power density is anywhere near pure hydrogen cell-based units, this would be way handy for laptops and other portable devices. However, I'm a little skeptical that it could eventually even partially displace fossil fuels because the sheer quantity of glucose needed is probably impractical to produce.

    • Re:Requires Recycling of Kitchen Waste (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Sgt York ( 591446 ) <jvolm@NospaM.earthlink.net> on Thursday February 13, 2003 @03:19PM (#5296790)
      A good portion of food waste is (by weight) cellulose. Cellulose is simply a polymer of glucose, put together in such a way that we (and all other animals) can't break it up into its monomers. Bacteria can do this; if you have a bug that leaves the glucose alone once it is made (these engineered bugs exsist), this would be highly efficient. All it would take is homogenization (i.e., big blender) and perhaps some purification.

      There are ways you could do this that would use very little energy. Imagine a biomembrane seperated tank; in the membrane are facilitated transporters for glucose. On one side is pure water, on the other is water with bugs in it. Add your homogenized crap to the side with the bugs, and the glucose will flow into the other side with no further energy input. Just change the tanks every now and then, and concentrate the side with the glucose (ultra cheap method would be to set it in the sun to evaporate the water).

      • I think efficiency ($$ and %power to input) is the big question. In the preceding, the homogenization, purification, and addition of water for evaporation all require non-trivial amounts of energy. As well, you need sun for evaporation and that isn't practical except in certain latitudes.

        Face it, energy solutions evolve out of a combination of practicality and necessity. The economy doesn't drive the choice of fuel, the most effective evolved solution drives the economy. And the best solutions for the forseeable future are fosssil fuel and nuclear.
  • by kitchen waste they mean my useless toaster? or the burnt toast it spits out?
  • ... ok somebody had to say it
  • Well, now that we have the 'Mr. Fusion'-like device, we only need the flux capacitora and then we're all set... oh wait, I'm in L.A! Douh! Too much traffic on the 405!... can't hit 88 mph! I guess we need the levitating cars then as well.
  • ...(bright merciful heavens, great minds really do run along similar tracks), my concern is the length of time that this technology will take to trickle-down. Much as I'd like to see alternative energy sources get the R&D funding that they deserve, the fact remains that the world still largely runs on fossil fuels. It will take any new fuel technology a long time to be implemented; and the first people to jump on the bandwagon will be a) well-heeled 'green' types and b) geeks who can afford to shell out for something that's just so darn kewwwl. Full use and acceptance, even in the US, will take decades after the release, simply because Joe Sixpack isn't going to be willing or able to replace all of his electro-and-petrol-powered stuff.

    Now, if they come up with an adaptor - count me in, baby!

  • Now that we have the technology to make kitchen waste-powered Deloreans, we only have to wait until they develop flying cars...
  • Like so many other techniques, this is impractical in so many ways: efficiency, amount of power generated, etc. And if it were adopted on a grand scale it would wreak havoc with the environment as land is cleared for the growing of more effective sources of glucose because there isn't enough garbage to sustain world demand.

    We seem to be spending so much time looking for solutions that are environmentally benign. Let's just suck it up and go nuclear. In the history of the nuclear power industry fewer people have been negatively impacted than have been from the coal industry (black lung, acid rain), the hydro-electric industry (3 Gorges Dam in China), oil industry(too many to name). Shoot, I'm off-topic ...

Slashdot Top Deals

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein

Close