Building Longer-Lived Fuel-Cell Stacks 205
An anonymous reader writes "Ballard Power Systems tells Wired that they have built a hydrogen fuel-cell stack that runs uninterrupted for 20,000 hours straight. But DuPont's Nafion membranes are very delicate, which makes the roadworthiness of fuel cells an issue."
UPS (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:UPS (Score:2)
I was thinking the same thing. The delicate membranes wouldn't be a problem either, since there'd be nothing to... hey, Junior, get off of the UPS... I said get off! NO, DON'T JUMP UP AND--
NO CARRIER
It's still progress (Score:5, Insightful)
But DuPont's Nafion membranes are very delicate, which makes the roadworthiness of fuel cells an issue."
Delicate now. Future membranes may not be so fragile. It's still a step forward.
Solution probably not nafion (Score:5, Insightful)
Fair point, but for what it's worth Nafion isn't an immature technology - it's been the proton-transfer membrane of choice in the fuel cell crowd for some time now. Point is, I wouldn't expect any sort of massive improvement from it alone.
Only possibility I can think of directly is some sort of support matrix, which would lessen the amount of membrane which is Nafion, tanking the current of hte cell.
As it happens, the transfer-membrane is generally the weak point of the cell, both from a chemistry as well as mechanical standpoint, so I don't find this incredibly surprising. ;)
Re:It's still progress (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It's still progress (Score:3, Interesting)
Hopefully this fuel cell tech in the rugged sense will make it to the affordable civvie market, I am interested in them. I like the no noise no moving parts of electrical generation schemes. Well, I like ALL alternative energy, I just like stuff t
Re:It's still progress (Score:2)
Re:It's still progress (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's still progress (Score:3, Insightful)
Using it at home is pointless; just plug your car into an outlet and charge it that way.
Electric cars don't have a long enough charge to be roadworthy yet (mileage between recharges can't compare with a gas tank). So, they're trying to "build a better battery", and right now their latest battery (hydrogen fuel cell) is too fragile for the road.
Fuel Cells (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Fuel Cells (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a new field and this is just one announcement about a big jump from their last models. They are also more stable and manufacturing costs are coming down. Also, advertising something is more stable makes people think the last model was unstable and there's enough FUD about hydrogen that they don't want to suggest anything like that.
Re:Fuel Cells (Score:3, Informative)
Fuel cells are most certainly NOT a new field.
The technology meets the definition of an antique (over 100 years old) IIRC.
Re:Fuel Cells (Score:4, Interesting)
"And consumers of natural gas -- already the primary source of hydrogen for everything from hydrogenated foods to NASA rockets -- learned this week that natural-gas supplies are at their lowest levels in 25 years."
Hmmm...I'd think that researchers would be looking for economically viable and environmentally friendly ways of getting hydrogen from a very abundant source [enchantedlearning.com] on this planet. Or maybe I'm just crazy.
Re:Fuel Cells (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Fuel Cells (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Fuel Cells (Score:2)
A: wave action on suitably designed plates, you have to flush the bath at some point anyway. Fill the ballast, sink the tub, let the waves clean it, after a while refill the ballast tanks with compressed air (from your offshore wind gens of course) and off you go.
Re:Fuel Cells (Score:4, Insightful)
Water is the easy part -- to make hydrogen from water, you also need to add large amounts of energy. That's the hard part.
Re:Fuel Cells (Score:2)
Precisely why I said 'economically viable'.
Re:Fuel Cells (Score:2)
As a nonrenuable resource, isn't this always true? That's a fairly alarmist statement, but it doesn't seem to amount to anything.
Re:Fuel Cells (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fuel Cells (Score:5, Insightful)
First the EV1 was sold as the GM EV1, the first and only car to carry the GM name. The program was a huge failure. GM spent 1 billion dollars on it. They built 1 thousand cars. So think about how much each car cost them, then that they were leasing them for almost normal lease prices. GM lost a crap load of money on it just to come to the same conclusion everyone knew before hand, EV's are a waste.There was never a market for them, the range was only acceptable to a few people.
" Simply making them available would be a good start."
No it would not. When fuel cells come to market if they do which i don't see for the forseeable future (IE a decade) they have to come out and work perfect and be there for everyone. If 1 company comes out before everyone else with them and their cars have proplems or are simply not something people want the whole market is shot. It would be like GM's half ass attempts at bring Diesel cars out in the 70's the cars sucked so bad the market in the US was destroyed from there after. When hybrids started coming everyone new they had to suceed. Thats why their developement took so long. The prius is said to be way over built cause they couldn't chance it breaking. Ford is spending years upon years tuning the Hybrid escape to ensure no problems. Imaging if the Honda insight made it to market first, the image of hybrids would have been ruined. People would think a small impractical ugly car every time someone said hybrid and wouldn't like the idea of hybrids. Worse yet imagine if the insight had problems and needed repair all the time, the market would be destroyed. Thats why automakers when it comes to a big switch make such switches on cars people want, and make sure as heck it aint going to fail. You don't ever see to much new tech introduced on econbox/cheap cars do you. If they did people wouldn't want it becuase it would be seen as crap.
The fuel cell industry can't handle someone trying to just get fuel celled cars to market and hoping to work the bugs out later. If someone does that they will probably fail. As is the fuel cell car industry is seeing their odds for happening twindle, hybrids using IC engines, and or Hyrdrogen powered IC engine cars are looking better and better as the realities of the fuel cell cars come more aparent
Re:Fuel Cells (Score:2)
Diesel is marginally better than gasoline vehicles and only in some respects, which is why the market never took off here.
LS
Re:Fuel Cells (Score:2)
"So think about how much each car cost them, then that they were leasing them for almost normal lease prices. GM lost a crap load of money on it just to come to the same conclusion everyone knew before hand, EV's are a waste."
read what you quoted in your own post. With R&D, IP is what you get for your money, not instant profits. This IP leads to speed of design and profits on future production models.
Re:Fuel Cells (Score:2)
In the US but the prius was out first by years in japan. Also the insight is a very mild hybrid, so its not the best thing to use for this example, but since it is a ugly little car that few people would want it makes a good example for t
Re:Prius is better. (Score:2)
Re:Fuel Cells (Score:2)
Yeh, that "Hybrid" tag on the back on the new Honda Civic really detracts from the overall ensemble..
Re:Fuel Cells (Score:2, Insightful)
you can make the cars extreamly cheap to put together, say the materials and process costs 10 grand total, so your fuel cell cars cost 25 grand MSRP.
GM thought that one up and tehy even have a design that will get a fuel cell car to be available at around 18 grand.
attack the traditional design
You're forgetting the major problem (Score:5, Interesting)
First of all, there's the huge problem of how you're supposed to store hydrogen onboard your car. I've seen several proposals, but they all have their drawbacks (fuel too heavy, tank required too heavy, too explosive, too dangerous in a crash, etc.). It seems that nobody's come up with a reasonable solution to this problem.
Secondly, there's the problem of fuel distribution. Unless and until there's some way to hook up a fair number of gas stations with a hydrogen fuel supply that these cars can use, nobody's going to buy into fuel cells being used for transportation. Of course, along with this problem is the one of how such an infrastructure upgrade will be financed in the first place without a demonstration of existing demand. The only way I can really see this chicken-and-egg problem being overcome is massive government investment in infrastructure upgrades. Sorry, libertarians, but the free market is going to fail here.
So, basically, we have a long way to go (if we ever even get there at all) before we see cars powered by fuel cells in general use. Until then, they're mostly a curiosity (and a very expensive one, at that.)
Re:You're forgetting the major problem (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:You're forgetting the major problem (Score:2)
Maybe the problem was phrased incorrectly, but the way I see "infrastructure" is pre-existing tanks. Replacing the present pumps & tanks is just about an entire rebuild of a gas station; a very expensive proposition, especially for "Mom & Pop" (I dislike that phrase) stations that don't necessarily have the necessary income to convert to Hydrogen. That means, excluding lots of loans to pa
Re:You're forgetting the major problem (Score:2)
Yes, the Democrat's answer to everything: let the Government throw money at it. Where does the money for this grant come from? Do we put the last nail in the coffin of Social Security so that we can move to a "Hydrogen economy?" Maybe a few hundred thousand out of work citizens would be kind enough to forego food for their families so we can give their welfare money to gas stations. I know that's a bad argument, as our government would not take money from those just to
Re:You're forgetting the major problem (Score:2)
> but more a grant in the form of a tax break for early adoption
Ah, well that's a big difference. I'm all for tax breaks as incentives, that IS a good idea. I wonder, though, how much of a break can really be given. Enough to make overhauling a station seem more financially realistic? I don't know enough about the economics & taxation of Service Stations to answer that.
Re:You're forgetting the major problem (Score:2)
That's like saying that a shopping mall is "almost built" at the old Pittsburgh airport, since they already have tons of pavement to use as a parking lot. All they have to do is replace the airport with a mall.
Mostly deployed, my ass. To convert a single gas station would cost tons.
You'd need a cheap source of hydrogen. You'd need a cheap
Re:You're forgetting the major problem (Score:2)
Even if you did you have to figure out how to supply the hydrogen. Mo
Re:You're forgetting the major problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course ultimately you want a hybrid fuel cell electric vehicle; battery and electric motor for regenerative braking and to maintain optimal efficiency during operation, fuel cell for optimum extraction of energy from fuel source and to provide energy to the motor, and gasoline for it's high storage density; yes, yes, gas *is* a limited resource, but until technology finds a better solution, this combination will help maximize our existing stock; we could possibly use biodesiel, corn-ethanol, and other similar fuels in this system.
Re:You're forgetting the major problem (Score:5, Funny)
Re:You're forgetting the major problem (Score:2, Funny)
"Dear, your Daddy wants a burst of acceleration. All together now, 1..2..3.. FART!"
Re:You're forgetting the major problem (Score:2)
Re:You're forgetting the major problem (Score:2)
Re:You're forgetting the major problem (Score:2)
Re:You're forgetting the major problem (Score:2)
Re:You're forgetting the major problem (Score:2, Insightful)
If government steps in and props it up for a bit, it would happen a lot quicker, and I see that as a good thing. This is just one of those cases where government subsidiaries would cause things to happen faster, like building the telephone system (all areas connected, even bf idaho).
Re:You're forgetting the major problem (Score:2)
while government intervention is like conjugate
gradient, with bribery.
Re:You're forgetting the major problem (Score:2, Interesting)
As for transportation, why transport hyrdrogen all over the country when you can make it on site [honda.com]. Honda has already designed and built a solar powered hydrogen refueling station.
Re:You're forgetting the major problem (Score:2)
I think hydrogen could be re-fueled in our cars much like oil for our f
Re:You're forgetting the major problem (Score:2)
... there's the huge problem of how you're supposed to store hydrogen onboard your car. I've seen several proposals, but they all have their drawbacks (fuel too heavy, tank required too heavy, too explosive, too dangerous in a crash, etc.)
Explosiveness of hydrogen gas is highly overrated; gasoline is arguably more dangerous in this regard. It is true that H2 gas's sheer bulk is a bear to overcome
Re:You're forgetting the major problem (Score:2)
Ah, that seems like a very reasonable argument until you realise that an H2 car can go a lot farther before needing a refill. Therefore you don't need as many stations around.
only 20,000 hours? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why, because there might me a greater risk of something blowing up? Hello-Hindenburg in the 21st century.
Re:Why? (Score:2, Informative)
Dammy
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Curious, I looked around for such a kit and couldn't find anything. The net is awash in fuel cell articles. Link?
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hydrogen fuel has its dangers, but they are not necessarily greater than gasoline, just different. For example, gasoline spills and runs al
Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why, indeed!
* There doesn't seem to be a problem with distributing natural gas supplies to nearly every suburban home in my city of 1,000,000 people.
* There isn't a problem transporting liquid propane from the refinement ceneter to the distribution points. From there, the fuel-trucks deliver LP to folks in the countryside, who use it to fuel thei
Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Because hydrogen molecules are really small, much smaller than any of the other gasses you mentioned (methane, butane, propane and acetylene are all hydrocarbons, which means they are fairly large: at leat one carbon and four hydrogens. Even the noble gasses are pretty big, with the exception of helium) and have a tendancy to leak through solid
Re:Why? (Score:2)
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Of the listed only liquid helium is colder
http://www.ch-iv.com/lng/cc9408.htm
Peace,
Ex-MislTech
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
While hydrogen is inflammable, gasoline, the current fuel of choice is hardly fireproof. There is a good reason why military vehicles are diesel.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, the Hindenburg disaster was caused by the fact that Hydrogen and Oxygen undergo an extremely hot chemical reaction when combined in the presence of either a spark, or a nifty catalyst like Platinum.
Gasoline is non-flammable in its liquid state. It's the vapor that burn. You can thrust a lit match into a pool of gasoline and it will go out, providing you can get it through the vapor layer quickly enough. (Note: This is a STUPID teenager trick. I survived. You may no
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
Gas-turbine powered vehicles (like the M1 Abrams) can burn gasoline, kerosene or diesel. All other combat vehicles use diesel. During WW2, when there were shortages of just about everything, gasoline engines were placed in halftracks and tanks, with disaterous results.
With regard to the Hindenburg, it is generally accepted that the initial fire was not a hydrogen burn, since spectators reported extemely bright and colorful flame. (Hydrogen flame is not very colorful) The outer shell of the Hindenburg caught fire, probally due to static discharge, which eventually led to a hydrogen leak and bigger fire.
You'll find that many fire disasters are causes by various sealants. That big circus fire in the 50's killed hundreds of people because a mixture of kerosene and paraffin wax was used to waterproof the tent.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
is flammable in a sufficiently oxygen-rich
atmosphere at sufficiently high temperature.
In air, pretty much everything you are wearing
is considerably more flammable than diesel.
You are simply wrong about the Hindenburg.
Hydrogen-oxygen flames are essentially invisible.
Look at photos of the Hindenberg disaster. Those
blinding yellow-orange flames are aluminum oxide
in the paint covering the canvas burning like,
well, an incindiary -- since that's what it is.
Hell
Re:Why? (Score:3, Informative)
The ONLY piece of (US) military equipment to still use gasoline (this is as of 1991, and US Army at that) is the M2 Burner Unit, used in Mobile Kitchen Trailers (MKTs). No vehicles use gasoline, unless you count civilian US government cars and vans from the TMP motor pool. But those aren't tactical vehicles. When I was in the S&T Troop (Supply and Transport) of the 11th ACR, our basic load to supply the Regiment was 110
Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Had the report by the Zeppelin company been made public in 1938 it would have been possible to have resumed airship servic
NOT particularly like solid rocket fuel. (Score:2)
Speaking as a former rocket scientist, I wish people would stop repeating that urban legend. Yes, the Hindenburg's outer skin was doped with a highly flammable compound containing aluminum. But it was NOT particularly similar to solid rocket fuel!
I've handled a LOT of solid propellant. I used to light my charcoal grille with MX/HGG fuel, no lie. But the dopant used on the Hindenburg was as much like solid rocket fuel as fish are like birds.
Re:NOT particularly like solid rocket fuel. (Score:2)
Re:NOT particularly like solid rocket fuel. (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
> from fossil fuel plants to automobile filling
> stations will be more difficult than anyone has
> anticipated.
Even more difficult than the "Scientists" who
said this anticipated?! Wow, that's really
difficult.
No biggie... (Score:5, Funny)
Granted cell phone users still add a bit of excitement to driving.
Getting hydrogen to the stations is a problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Getting hydrogen to the stations is a problem? (Score:2)
Take that a couple steps further:
1 - have a 'filling station' in the garage at home. Now you only need the fuel station when you're on the road.
2 - add the device to the car itself. On a road trip? Pour in a few litres of water and run an extension cord to it. This would be great at the cottage, because there's no way they'll get hydrogen up
Need more info (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The missing information.... (Score:1, Funny)
A fuel cell is :
*showing with hands*, This big.
It costs:
*writting on the blackboard*, Not more than the sum you see right here.
And the energy it produces for its ~2,3 years life is ....certainly more than enough...;o))))
"Dirty" Fuel Cells (Score:2, Interesting)
I love this stuff. Fuel cells are going to save the planet!
Or maybe not
Transport systems currently produce more pollution than power stations, and alternative solutions were mentioned in the letters by Ian Hurley (April) and Cedric Lynch (May). If battery-powered electric vehicles were adopted, the need to r
Re:"Dirty" Fuel Cells (Score:3, Informative)
"However, if fuel cells were used to recharge the batteries, there would be significant reductions in emissions from the power-generation and transport industries."
Either way, it doesn't talk about using fuel cells to drive the engine, which is what the real article talks a
Re:"Dirty" Fuel Cells (Score:3, Informative)
Dirt, but where does it go? (Score:4, Interesting)
However, if fuel cells were used to recharge the batteries, there would be significant reductions in emissions from the power-generation and transport industries.
Also, that appears to be a five year old letter to the magazine. A more recent article [physicsweb.org] sums up all the alternatives for 'green' motoring. As another article [physicsweb.org] from the same issue states, there are some countries where these alternatives make more sense - e.g. Iceland, rich in geothermal and hydroelectric energy, and with no fossil fuel reserves whatsoever.
One other thing to remember - you have a much higher concentration of voters in cities than in the countryside. Spreading that pollution thinly over a large area may look as bad to you as having it concentrated on busy roads, but to many of the people along the busy roads, not in their backyard is nearly as good as not at all.
Re:"Dirty" Fuel Cells (Score:2)
Preach it. Fossil fuels are a one off bonanza. It is astonishingly hard to conceive of a world without them, or to consider the possibility that alternatives (other than nuclear) are net energy losers. Sure, a solar plant can now power itself. It can even power the extraction of the raw materials. Can it power the homes of its workers? Can it power their vehicles on the way to work? Can it power their leisure activities? Simply, can it power the level of infrastructure required to maintain it (and t
Power produced? (Score:4, Interesting)
What I wonder about is what sort of power these things produce. Can they directly drive an electric car, or would they need a battery to handle surges during acceleration?
Not too picky about what they eat? (Score:2)
I'm sure eventually we will get there, but the thing is, since we have workable prime movers with over 100 years of development, we won
Re:Power produced? (Score:2)
From what I've read, yes. Very few things can compete with the internal combustion engine for supporting rapid large spikes in power demand.
Toyota may have designed the Prius with the idea of eventually replacing the gas engine by a fuel cell, while keeping the load-leveling electric drive system.
Huh (Score:2)
Membranes (Score:2)
But GWB said... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:But GWB said... (Score:2, Funny)
Unicorns won't work for a transportation policy because it would depend on a large supply of mythical virgins. Then again, this is Slashdot.
Re:But GWB said... (Score:2)
by the swarthy scent of Iraqi weapons of mass
decept^H^H^H^Hstruction.
Fuel cells are great, but expensive (Score:3, Insightful)
And not to mention those oil companies...
More on fuel cells (Score:5, Informative)
A Cooler, Cheaper Way to Power Fuel Cells
Big commercial fuel cells are already turning hydrogen into electricity in factories, office buildings, and power plants around the country. Most are fed by so-called reformers -- mini chemical plants that convert natural gas into hydrogen at around 2,000F. Such infernal temperatures are O.K. in industrial settings, but it's hard to imagine those reformers in homes.
Scientists at Georgia Institute of Technology have found a way to cool things down to as low as 600F -- "closer to the heat in your kitchen oven," says Zhong Lin Wang, a professor of materials science. It's done with certain oxides of rare-earth elements such as cerium. When doped with iron, the oxides efficiently transform methane into hydrogen, Wang's team reports in the March issue of Advanced Materials.
What's more, the Georgia Tech materials are self-renewing and work continuously. The oxides are recharged by exposing them to water vapor, from which they absorb the oxygen that was used in the conversion process. And despite their name, Wang's rare-earth oxides are plentiful, so they should be cheaper than the catalysts used in high-temperature units. In time, he hopes to slash the heat needed to levels so low that solar power could drive the reformer. Meanwhile, fuel-cell makers are lining up to fund the project.
By Adam Aston
A real homebrew (Score:2)
Runs 20,000 hours, eh? (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's see... that's 20,000 / 24 = ~833 days
833 / 365 = 2.28 years
So, they've had one up and running uniterrupted since early 2001, huh? I call bullshit.
Re:Runs 20,000 hours, eh? (Score:2)
Or, maybe it's just a projected 20,000 hours. Measure the fuel tank today. Measure it tomorrow. That's dF/dt. Integrate.
Re:Runs 20,000 hours, eh? (Score:2)
Why do you think so? It's not like Ballard is a new company - they've been working on fuel cells for years (when I graduated university in 1995, some of my classmates went to work there). I can easily believe that they've kept a lab unit running since 2001. According to their corporate website:
Ballard Power Systems Inc. was founded in 1979 under the name Ballard Research Inc. to conduct research and development in hig
Why keep Hydrogen in its basic form? (Score:2, Insightful)
Hydrogen would come from water and the Carbon from the CO2 of the air, which would be reversed in the car, resulting in a net zero emission, again like nature does.
Dealing with fuel instead of the elemental hydrogen would solve so many problems, including the transport, storage, motors, ozone layer, etc.
Re:Why keep Hydrogen in its basic form? (Score:2)
converting hydrogen into electricity (so to
speak), namely the proton-exchange membrane,
requires a "reformer" to liberate the
hydrogen before it can be used. These reformers
tend to run hot (think "Reform School Girls"),
and nobody likes to drive a hydrogen-powered
pocket rocket that includes a blast-furnace.
Re:Why keep Hydrogen in its basic form? (Score:2)
Re:Why keep Hydrogen in its basic form? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's called methane. Using it does not involve zero emissions, since it is pumped out of the ground, and all other ways of creating it are just too expensive.
Gasoline is the way to go... (Score:2, Informative)
Lets break down the numbers...
Liquid hydrogen at 20ÂK is about 265grams/gallon
Gasoline is roughly 2727grams/gallon.
Gasoline is a blend of n=5-12 hydrocarbons, so figure about n=8 for approximation purposes. That would be C8H18 hydrocarbons which would be about 15.8% Hydrogen by weight.
So in a gallon of gas that would be 2727g*15.8%=430grams of hydrogen, versus 265
My opinion... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:do it like hp! (Score:2, Informative)
Of course, that's one of the main reasons why GM (Saturn) were only leasing the EV1.
--D
Good opportunity for co-generation (Score:3, Insightful)
Getting a bit more exotic (and silly? I dunno...), one could use a Stirling engine to power (som
Li-ion cars (Score:2)
I'm interested. Do you have URL(s) supporting that claim?