Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fuel cells put in the frame with catalysts that need far less platinum
Chemistry World ^ | 28 February 2014 | Tim Wogan

Posted on 03/01/2014 10:05:03 AM PST by neverdem


The platinum nanoframes have 22 times the sepcific catalytic activity of standard electrodes © Science/AAAS

US scientists have created an exceptional fuel cell catalyst that contains far less platinum – conventional catalysts need 36 times more platinum to hit the same levels of activity. The manufacturing process, which was discovered by accident, uses simple techniques that the researchers believe can be easily scaled-up. The work could help to make fuel cells economically viable for applications such as cars as the precious metal makes up much of the cost of the cell.

Fuel cells react hydrogen with oxygen to produce water, using the electricity generated by the redox reaction to power a motor. The most effective catalyst is platinum, which is, unfortunately, extremely expensive and scarce. Chemists are searching for alternatives, such as doped carbon nanotubes, but at present commercial fuel cells usually use platinum.

Current designs usually use platinum nanoparticles in an inert porous carbon matrix, maximising the availability of the platinum to the reactants. In 2007, Vojislav Stamenkovic of Argonne National Laboratory, US, and colleagues demonstrated that alloying platinum with nickel to make Pt3Ni makes the surface much more active by modifying the electronic structure of the platinum. They did not know, however, how to produce Pt3Ni nanoparticles suitable for use in fuel cells.

The latest work came about when Peidong Yang's group at the University of California, Berkeley, was studying solid polyhedral PtNi3 nanoparticles. ‘My postdoc, Chen Chen, after he'd made all these nanoparticles, stored them in an open environment where air could dissolve in the solvent,’ says Yang. Two weeks later, he checked his sample using a transmission electron microscope and was surprised to find that they had turned into hollow nanoframes. Running the reaction at a higher temperature shortened this to 12 hours.

Subsequent analysis showed that the oxygen dissolving in the solvent had selectively etched the nickel, producing Pt3Ni. When thermally annealed the nanoframes' internal and external edges developed a highly active platinum skin. The hollow shape of the nanoparticles allowed reactants to access all edges, increasing activity 36-fold over current platinum–carbon catalysts.

They were also surprisingly robust. In the laboratory, they subjected the nanoframes to the electrical stresses and strains that they would receive if formulated in a fuel cell that was discharged 10,000 times and only saw a negligible loss of activity. In contrast, platinum–carbon catalysts lose around 40% of their activity during such a test as the platinum dissolves in the electrolyte. The simplicity of the manufacturing process should mean that the process could be readily scaled up to produce much more efficient fuel cells requiring far less platinum in the near future.

Radoslav Adzic, a fuel cell expert at Brookhaven National Laboratory in the US, wants to see the nanoframes in a real fuel cell to prove their industrial readiness as, if nickel were to leak out, it could ‘damage the fuel cell irreversibly’. He also believes that the time to produce the nanoframes still needs to be shortened to produce the catalyst industrially. Nevertheless, he says, ‘the catalyst's activity is excellent – probably the highest that has been achieved so far’.


C Chen et al, Science, 2014, DOI: 10.1126/science.1249061

TOPICS: Science
KEYWORDS: chemistry; demagogicparty; fuelcells; globalwarminghoax; janetyellen; platinum; platinumcatalysts

1 posted on 03/01/2014 10:05:03 AM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

It’s only a matter of time before new batteries far beyond current capacity are common. Like computers/cellphones, they will be very expensive at first before the prices drop and everyone can afford them.

If we were smart our nation would be heavily investing in the next generation of nuclear energy to meet our needs and lower costs.

2 posted on 03/01/2014 10:35:23 AM PST by volunbeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: volunbeer
If we were smart our nation would be heavily investing in the next generation of nuclear energy to meet our needs and lower costs.

That should be, if our current administration wasn't corrupt and anti American, we would be heavily investing in the next generation of nuclear energy. But you can't fundamentally change/destroy America with cheap abundant energy.

3 posted on 03/01/2014 11:09:46 AM PST by Mastador1 (I'll take a bad dog over a good politician any day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Outstanding. This looks really promising

I worked in phosphoric acid fuel cell research in the 80s.

No matter how hard we tried to increase platinum surface area, it would quickly recrystalize to a much lower surface area within a few dozen hours of operation. This was a significant factor in the early performance decay

4 posted on 03/01/2014 11:53:58 AM PST by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; ...

This is a biggie! Thanks neverdem.

Of course, it will only slow the inevitable total destruction of the Earth by guilty man. /s

5 posted on 03/01/2014 7:05:15 PM PST by SunkenCiv (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv; Jim Robinson; Admin Moderator
This is a biggie!

I guess that's why one of the admin moderators downgraded the post to chat.

Maybe they thought this promoted AGW, or accepted AGW by reducing carbon emissions?

Cheap energy costs is smart economics. At a time when the conservatives and the GOP is attacked as being antiscience we ought to know that fuel cells waste a lot less energy as heat, i.e. they are more effeicient, than internal combustion engines, so they reduce your fuel bills.

Parden the Wikipedia reference, but they are usually OK if the topic hasn't been politcized.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, fuel cells are generally between 40–60% energy efficient.[49] This is higher than some other systems for energy generation. For example, the typical internal combustion engine of a car is about 25% energy efficient.[50] In combined heat and power (CHP) systems, the heat produced by the fuel cell is captured and put to use, increasing the efficiency of the system to up to 85–90%.[33]

6 posted on 03/01/2014 9:31:57 PM PST by neverdem (Register pressure cookers! /s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: neverdem


7 posted on 03/01/2014 9:37:51 PM PST by Lurkina.n.Learnin (This is not just stupid, we're talking Democrat stupid here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson