Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fuel cells get a boost
ISA ^ | 9-17-04

Posted on 09/17/2004 3:43:53 PM PDT by Indy Pendance

To efficiently operate a fuel cell, carbon monoxide has always been a major technical barrier. But now, chemical and biological engineers at the University of Wisconsin–Madison have not only cleared that barrier—they also found a method to capture carbon monoxide's energy.

To be useful in a power-generating fuel cell, hydrocarbons such as gasoline, natural gas, or ethanol must reform into a hydrogen-rich gas. A large, costly, and critical step to this process requires generating steam and forcing a reaction with carbon monoxide (CO). This process, called water-gas shift, produces hydrogen and carbon dioxide (CO2). Additional steps then must reduce the CO levels further before the hydrogen enters a fuel cell.

Researchers eliminated the water-gas shift reaction from the process, removing the need to transport and vaporize liquid water in the production of energy for portable applications.

The team, led by James Dumesic, professor of chemical and biological engineering, uses an environmentally benign polyoxometalate (POM) compound to oxidize CO in liquid water at room temperature. The compound not only removes CO from gas streams for fuel cells, but also converts the energy content of CO into a liquid that subsequently can power a fuel cell.

"CO has essentially as much energy as hydrogen," Dumesic said. "It has a lot of energy in it. If you take a hydrocarbon and partially oxidize it at high temperature, it primarily makes CO and hydrogen. Conventional systems follow that with a series of these 'water-gas shift' steps. Our discovery has the potential of eliminating those steps. Instead, you can send the CO through our process, which works efficiently at room temperature and takes the CO out of the gas to make energy."

The research team says the process is especially promising for producing electrical energy from renewable biomass-derived oxygenated hydrocarbons—such as ethylene glycol derived from corn—because these fuels generate H2 and CO in nearly equal amounts during catalytic decomposition. The hydrogen could directly go into a proton–exchange–membrane fuel cell operating at 50% efficiency, and the remaining CO could convert to electricity via the new process.

For related information, go to www.isa.org/manufacturing_automation.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: coldfusion; energy; environment; fission; fuelcell; fusion; hydrocarbons; hydrogen; napalminthemorning
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

1 posted on 09/17/2004 3:43:54 PM PDT by Indy Pendance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Indy Pendance

I enjoy tech news on this kind of stuff. Thanks!


2 posted on 09/17/2004 3:48:30 PM PDT by BipolarBob (Yes I backed over the vampire, but I swear I didn't see it in my rearview mirror.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Indy Pendance
It still is going to take more energy to create the hydrogen, even with the CO component, than you'll ever get out of it. Burning the fuel at the tailpipe of the plant instead of the tailpipe of the car somehow is appealing to the greenies, but it's neither economically nor environmentally sound.

Perhaps if you created the hydrogen from nuclear power it might make sense, but this nation has been traumitized by a Hollywood movie and has quit building them.

3 posted on 09/17/2004 3:53:33 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

Well I haven't been traumitized.

I don't care where the fuel get's burnt.

I don't want to be dependent on Muslim oil.
I don't want to be dependent on fuel that might have a fixed supply and therefore is going to get ever more expensive over time.
I think having alternatives is smart.
And somewhere along the way, we might just find some ways to make and/or capture cheap energy.


4 posted on 09/17/2004 4:02:31 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BipolarBob

Fuel cells have to be developed! Think of the independence we'll have on foreign oil.


5 posted on 09/17/2004 4:03:08 PM PDT by Indy Pendance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

We have to start developing alternative fuel sources. We have enough oil in the US (gulf of mexico, alaska) to make a dent in foreign resouces, but the envirnomentalists have a cow everytime it's brought up.


6 posted on 09/17/2004 4:05:33 PM PDT by Indy Pendance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

Right on. Oil Shale, anyone?


7 posted on 09/17/2004 4:06:34 PM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them, or they like us?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
It still is going to take more energy to create the hydrogen, even with the CO component, than you'll ever get out of it.

WHat the fuel cell they're talking about does, is convert hydrocarbons like gasoline/propane/whatever directly into electricity, instead of burning it in an engine's pistons.

Fuel cells promise to be be less polluting, and may turn out to be more fuel efficient

8 posted on 09/17/2004 4:07:23 PM PDT by SauronOfMordor (That which does not kill me had better be able to run away damn fast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor

My hubby is extremely interested in this. He has tons of knowledge regarding this, but, he doesn't post. He finally got an account after 6 years of lurking tho. So, if he posts on this thread, be gentle....


9 posted on 09/17/2004 4:08:49 PM PDT by Indy Pendance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Indy Pendance

When You oxidize CO you get CO2 or carbon dioxide. A GREEHOUSE GAS - Horrors


10 posted on 09/17/2004 4:11:29 PM PDT by preacher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

Plus every time you convert energy from one form to another you stand to loose about 50%.


11 posted on 09/17/2004 4:12:48 PM PDT by Falcon4.0
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
I don't want to be dependent on Muslim oil.

I agree. Alternative energy is not a green issue now. It's national defense. Let the middle east rot.

12 posted on 09/17/2004 4:15:27 PM PDT by js1138 (Speedy architect of perfect labyrinths.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
WHat the fuel cell they're talking about does, is convert hydrocarbons like gasoline/propane/whatever directly into electricity, instead of burning it in an engine's pistons.

That's not correct. It doesn't convert into electricity at all.

13 posted on 09/17/2004 4:21:21 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Indy Pendance

Libs want us to be neutral and independant of Arab fuel (and politics) like the Swedes. Only problem is, the Swedes use Nuke plants.


14 posted on 09/17/2004 4:24:43 PM PDT by pollwatcher ("Dan Rather...The Norma Desmond of Big Journalism" - Jonah Goldberg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
I don't want to be dependent on Muslim oil.

Ditto. Let them go back to fighting over their goat herds and stoning each other to death, the primative f%#ks.
15 posted on 09/17/2004 5:24:25 PM PDT by Arnold Zephel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
That's not correct. It doesn't convert into electricity at all.

See Fuel cell definition: A fuel cell is an electrochemical device similar to a battery, but differing from the latter in that it is designed for continuous replenishment of the reactants consumed; i.e. it produces electricity from an external fuel supply as opposed to the limited internal energy storage capacity of a battery.

What they are talking about is a process that allows efficient use of hydrocarbon compounds, rather than pure hydrogen, by making use of the carbon monoxide product of the reaction where hydrocarbon plus oxygen turns into carbon dioxide and water. More info at the link

16 posted on 09/17/2004 7:53:46 PM PDT by SauronOfMordor (That which does not kill me had better be able to run away damn fast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
It doesn't matter. Sure, you can use hydrogen to produce eletricty, but at a net loss of electricty in the process. You cannot dispute this with any scientific facts.

There is no free lunch in physics. Hyrdrogen is, at best, a battery, for energy created elsewhere.

17 posted on 09/17/2004 9:18:30 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
"It still is going to take more energy to create the hydrogen, even with the CO component, than you'll ever get out of it. Burning the fuel at the tailpipe of the plant instead of the tailpipe of the car somehow is appealing to the greenies, but it's neither economically nor environmentally sound."

Making ethanol does require a large amount of energy - this must be the inefficiency to which you speak - but the recapturing of CO energy should certainly push the "total power required" equation over the edge.

Energy must be made portable and usable. Fuel cells generate electricity from the chemical reactions within them rather as opposed to conventional engines that burn chemicals (such as gas) at a loss of up to 80% of the energy left in its final processed form.

Steps that make a renewable energy source truly cost-effective are a boon for all.
18 posted on 09/17/2004 10:40:19 PM PDT by ScottM1968
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Folks, I posted this years ago and will do so again now:
Make shore generators and install them on beaches not used by the public. They're used in Scotland right now and generate electricity using flotation devices on arms that rise and fall with the surf, turning turbines.
THEN, use that electricity generated to power electrolysis banks that takes in the seawater and seperates the hydrogen from the oxygen.
THEN, package the oxygen into easily-transportable cannisters to be sold at refueling depots nationwide. Much like propane bottles are now.

It NEVER ends and will NEVER be exhausted.

Whaddya think?


19 posted on 09/17/2004 10:47:13 PM PDT by RandallFlagg (<a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com" target="_blank">Hatriotism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RandallFlagg

I guess not.


20 posted on 09/17/2004 10:58:18 PM PDT by RandallFlagg (<a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com" target="_blank">Hatriotism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RandallFlagg

Well the first part sounds reasonable for a renewable source of electricity. I'm not so sure about seperating water into hydrogen and oxygen. (BTW, I think you meant to say "package the hydrogen into easily-transportable cannisters...") It would be difficult to ship the hydrogen gas from the coastal production facilities to all the places where it would be used. That would probably require a costly new pipeline system because I don't think you could mix it in with natural gas. Shipping the hydrogen in canisters would also be expensive and not enough could be shipped to contribute much to our energy supplies. But it sounds like this idea has a lot of potential for power generation in coastal areas and perhaps the hydrogen could be used in fuel cells produced near the coast.


21 posted on 09/18/2004 2:12:35 AM PDT by carl in alaska (Throw deep........you're already in the fourth quarter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RandallFlagg

Just one last comment...I believe we need a much more flexible system for electricty production that doesn't rely entirely on huge power plants run by utility companies. There's a role for solar panels during sunny weather, a role for wind power during windy weather, and probably a role for this kind of wave power generation in coastal areas. It seems to me the electric power industry has a strangle-hold on power production and distribution and much more could be done at a local distributed level in coordination with the power companies. It looks like the whole system is driven by the generation costs of electric power companies and nothing much else factors into the design of our power generation system. Meanwhile we grow ever more dependent on oil and natural gas.


22 posted on 09/18/2004 2:19:06 AM PDT by carl in alaska (Throw deep........you're already in the fourth quarter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: carl in alaska
WHEW! I thought no one read that! Thanks.

I'm not so sure about seperating water into hydrogen and oxygen.

I learned that this could be done with placing electrodes into sealed (with water) areas. Bubbles form on the electrodes (Even with little voltage applied) that consist of hydrogen, and oxygen. I remember that from my 8th grade science class and thought, "It's explosive? Why not run cars on it, then?

It would be difficult to ship the hydrogen gas from the coastal production facilities to all the places where it would be used. That would probably require a costly new pipeline system

The company that jumps on this first will have a substancial niche in the market of transportable hydrogen, if done correctly.

because I don't think you could mix it in with natural gas.

I doubt that they mix well; some petroleum products explode on contact with hydrogen.

Shipping the hydrogen in canisters would also be expensive and not enough could be shipped to contribute much to our energy supplies.

Like I addressed above, the company that does it first will be the "Experts" on the matter. Once a marketable product that successfully replaces gasoline is perfected, money will be no problem whatsoever. Investors like sure things.

But it sounds like this idea has a lot of potential for power generation in coastal areas and perhaps the hydrogen could be used in fuel cells produced near the coast.

I believe hydrogen would be the fastest way of energy independance.
23 posted on 09/18/2004 2:25:06 AM PDT by RandallFlagg (<a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com" target="_blank">Hatriotism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: carl in alaska

Agreed.


24 posted on 09/18/2004 2:27:11 AM PDT by RandallFlagg (<a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com" target="_blank">Hatriotism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: js1138; DannyTN

The battle-cry today is, "NO DEPENDANCY ON FORIEGN OIL!"

Uh, better catch-phrase is, "Keep my pension fund out of companies linked to state sponsors of terrorism!"

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040917-120817-9571r.htm


25 posted on 09/18/2004 3:25:38 AM PDT by endthematrix (Where is that number for FReeper addiction?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BipolarBob

we will be growing more corn and creating enegry in Iowa to be shipped via a grid pipeline - could happen.


26 posted on 09/18/2004 5:06:17 AM PDT by q_an_a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
It doesn't matter. Sure, you can use hydrogen to produce eletricty, but at a net loss of electricty in the process. You cannot dispute this with any scientific facts.

You are entirely correct. Using electricity to break down water into hydrogen and oxygen, then using the hydrogen in a fuel cell, represents a net loss of electricity

But that's not what's being talked about here

They're talking about more efficiently using carbon based fuel (methane, propane, methanol, whatever) to directly produce electricity.

So it's not power-plant->electricity->hydrogen->fuel-cell->electricity

It's fuel->fuel-cell->electricity instead of fuel->internal-combustion-engine->generator->electricity

27 posted on 09/18/2004 6:56:42 AM PDT by SauronOfMordor (That which does not kill me had better be able to run away damn fast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

H2 is a energy carrier, not a source....they are doomed to failure. Never go to a gun fight armed with a knife......


28 posted on 09/18/2004 7:04:39 AM PDT by OregonRancher (illigitimus non carborundum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RandallFlagg
THEN, package the hydrogen [edit] into easily-transportable cannisters to be sold at refueling depots nationwide. Much like propane bottles are now.

Why don't you just dump any power from the shore generators that is in excess of current customer demands into hydrogen production. H2 produced then could be stored in underground sealed caverns (think the the salt domes used by the Strategic Oil Reserve) and use a "Strategic H2 Reserve" in conjunction with industrial-scale heat recovery fuel cells to generate power at a later time.

In this system, any irregularities between shore power supply and customer demands would be buffered by H2 production / generation. Most power plants cannot put "lightning in a bottle" but under this plan you could. Also, you could then use the exisiting electrical grid to get the power where it's most needed faster than by new pipeline, truck, rail or barge.

29 posted on 09/18/2004 7:22:47 AM PDT by jriemer (We are a Republic not a Democracy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
They're talking about more efficiently using carbon based fuel (methane, propane, methanol, whatever) to directly produce electricity.

There's a lot of farm acerage that we pay farmers not to grow stuff. If can use this approach with any carbon based fuel, there's a lot of fuel stock that America can grow each year and who cares about using herbicide.

BTW - There are a few companies who have figured out how to use plasma to convert garbage into "energy"

Trash Zappers - New Technologies Turn Garbage Into Energy, But at a Price - 29MAR04

30 posted on 09/18/2004 7:31:37 AM PDT by jriemer (We are a Republic not a Democracy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jriemer

THAT'S THE SPIRIT!

If it would ever get off the ground, it would become massive and make the creators TONS of $$$$$$$$$$$!

IF they could get the damn treehuggers outta the way. They'd probably say something lame like, "The surf generators are causing shorelines to not be eroded naturally and the fish are being pounded TO DEATH!! YAAAGGGHHH! DAMN CAPITALIST BAAAAASTARDS!!!"


31 posted on 09/18/2004 7:32:51 AM PDT by RandallFlagg (<a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com" target="_blank">Hatriotism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: RandallFlagg
The surf generators are causing shorelines to not be eroded naturally and the fish are being pounded TO DEATH

Check out what the French have been doing with tidal generations without a peep from the envirno-nuts:

"Tidal energy traditionally involves erecting a dam across the opening to a tidal basin. The dam includes a sluice that is opened to allow the tide to flow into the basin; the sluice is then closed, and as the sea level drops, traditional hydropower technologies can be used to generate electricity from the elevated water in the basin. Some researchers are also trying to extract energy directly from tidal flow streams.

The energy potential of tidal basins is large — the largest facility, the La Rance station in France, generates 240 megawatts of power. France is the only country that successfully uses this power source. French engineers have noted that if the use of tidal power on a global level was brought to high enough levels, the Earth would slow its rotation by 24 hours every 2,000 years."

Taken from: How Tidal Power Plants Work

32 posted on 09/18/2004 7:53:55 AM PDT by jriemer (We are a Republic not a Democracy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: RandallFlagg
Most power plants cannot put "lightning in a bottle" but under this plan you could.

I need to clarify myself. Hydroelectric plants do put "lightning in a bottle" in a sense as they have all that stored potential energy behind the dam and can have instanteous power output by opening the tap. Dams can quickly meet the needs of customers without producing greenhouse gases but greenies don't like them either. There's a concerted effort to remove dams and "return rivers to their natural course". That means more carbon-based power plants.

33 posted on 09/18/2004 8:03:23 AM PDT by jriemer (We are a Republic not a Democracy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor; Dog Gone
Scuse, I hate to break into a perfectly good argument but I think you guys are missing the point.

This is an article about the fuel cells intended to be used in biomass digestion and it is being studied in Wisconsin...

This article should be subtitled "How cowpies will save the US". The entire energy requirement for the process is contained in the manure fuel, there is no added energy.

The plan is to put these digesters on farms not necessarily a big single processing facility. This has a number of important effects.

We are able to recover energy from a fuel that is normally wasted, making us less dependent on foreign oil.

Each farmer now has another product to sell, electricity, making them less dependent on subsidies and other programs.

The fact that millions of farms are tougher to knock out than a couple of nuke plants makes our energy supply more stable from a strategic perspective.

The environmental regulations and the pressures they cause to domestic agriculture production become a moot point as the solid waste is sterile and the liquid discharge exceeds drinking water standards. There are minimal greenhouse gasses escaping from a farm with this technology. This adds up to a major blow to the power of greenies and their ilk.

Since the entirety of the solid waste can now be used as fertilizer, which farmers in many areas cannot due to environmental regs, some farmers will not need to use petroleum based fertilizers making our foreign dependence less and increasing the economic viability of farms which also lessens their dependence on agri-welfare.

These are just a few reasons off of the top of my head. There are a number of other reasons to support this kind of technology and it needs to be pursued vigorously and immediately.

34 posted on 09/18/2004 8:05:29 AM PDT by gnarledmaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: gnarledmaw
Fuel cells are NOT a source of energy. It doesn't get any more basic than that.

It takes more energy to run a fuel cell than you can get out of it. It is impossible to defy the laws of physics.

They could play a role in reducing the need to burn hydrocarbons for transportation. But that's only if you don't burn hydrocarbons in order to create the hydrogen. If you use hydrocarbons to create the hydrogen to replace the gasoline, you'll actually use more hydrocarbons than if you used gasoline in the first place. That's a fact. It's not opinion.

If you use something else as the initial fuel source to create the hydrogen, then you'll obviously conserve hydrocarbons. You suggest cow poop. Another Freeper suggested wave action. Another mentioned solar power.

All that is fine. Combined, they might be able to deliver the energy equivalent to a few dozen gas stations. Let's even imagine hundreds. There is no way on God's Green Earth that they could create enough hydrogen to power even a small fraction of our automobiles in this country. Pound for pound, there is nothing that releases as much energy as oil. Except one.

Uranium.

Something the USA has tons of.

Mark my words. I'll probably be dead before this happens, but by the middle of this century, this nation will have gone through the gut-wrenching debate on whether to shift to a primarily nuclear-powered source of national energy. This nation will have to choose whether it wishes to increase the supply of energy in order to continue to grow, or whether to plunge into a never-ending depression because of the imagined fears of nuclear power. The era of hydrocarbons isn't over, and probably won't be for at least another 100 years, but it simply can't keep up with the rise in global population and the emergence of economies in places like China and India.

Cow poop isn't going to fill the gap.

35 posted on 09/18/2004 8:38:54 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
Perhaps if you created the hydrogen from nuclear power it might make sense, but this nation has been traumitized by a Hollywood movie and has quit building them.

I was a grad student in uranium geochemistry when the Three Mile Island incident happened. (Actually, I had hired on with a company in the oil industry two weeks before.) I have been in the oil industry since.

"The China Syndrome" wasn't the nail in the nuclear coffin.

IMHO, the industry will eventually make a comeback.

36 posted on 09/18/2004 8:58:49 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (Actually, more of it comes from cows and steers than Bulls)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: endthematrix

The pension fund is a good observation.

Inherent in the idea of "No dependancy on foriegn oil" is the concept that if we have to buy foriegn oil now, in order to avoid using up our own, that's ok.


37 posted on 09/18/2004 11:46:14 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Yeah, I say suck the Mideast dry while looking for alternatives while the well runs dry. That means marching up to the Caspian Basin...


38 posted on 09/18/2004 9:50:00 PM PDT by endthematrix (Where is that number for FReeper addiction?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Indy Pendance

BTTT


39 posted on 09/18/2004 9:51:18 PM PDT by Fiddlstix (This Tagline for sale. (Presented by TagLines R US))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
It still is going to take more energy to create the hydrogen...than you'll ever get out of it.

That isn't true... I saw a CBS/60 Minutes report that you can now get more energy out of something than you put in....they have a memo that did just that. 8-)

40 posted on 09/18/2004 9:58:20 PM PDT by Optimist (I think I'm beginning to see a pattern here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: gnarledmaw; SauronOfMordor
A possible alternate energy source that we haven't discussed on this thread as a mode to generate H2 is the thermal gradient in the ocean. By using the hot upper level waters to expand a working fluid through a turbine and the cooler lower level waters to contract / condense the working fluid, there is a near-limitless source of "free energy" for oil drilling spars in deep waters.

One paper published online proposes that the thermal gradient could be used for energy generation, H2 producton and liquefaction for storage. see link

Ongoing Kalina Cycle Developments

41 posted on 09/19/2004 10:56:25 AM PDT by jriemer (We are a Republic not a Democracy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Researchers Succeed In Fueling Up
by Jane Brooks
The principle behind fuel cells is not new-it was discovered in 1839... Basically, a fuel cell is a device-think of it as a high-tech battery-that converts the energy of a fuel (hydrogen, natural gas, etc.) and an oxidant (air or oxygen) into useable electricity... There are no moving parts and it produces little noise. Unlike traditional combustion engines that currently dominate the energy market, fuel cells do not produce any particulate matter, nitrogen or sulfur oxides; when fueled by pure hydrogen, they have only heat and water as by-products... To date, hydrogen has been the conventional fuel for a fuel cell. But practical generation and storage of hydrogen has been a problem-it's expensive and inefficient. The model developed by Gorte's team aims to get around this dilemma... Previous attempts to use hydrocarbon fuels to run a solid-oxide fuel cell failed because the electrochemical process that generates electricity caused a buildup of carbon, which ruined the cell. In a solid-oxide fuel cell, oxygen anions are transported through an oxide membrane and react with the fuel at the anode... The Penn researchers were looking for an anode material that did not result in fouling... Eventually, they settled on a composite of copper and ceria. Ceria is an important catalytic component of automotive catalysis, which is why the researchers focused on its properties... Says Gorte, "Running a car is a transient process and you've got to have a pretty big fuel cell to power it, something on the order of 50kw as opposed to a 5kw cell to power a house, for instance." ...At least one major automotive manufacturer is seriously studying this technology... Their work has generated a great deal of excitement and was touted in Nature magazine (3/16/00). Professor Gorte has been interviewed by MSNBC.
Fuel-cell future for gasoline?
by Miguel Llanos
March 15, 2000
"We've demonstrated that we can run a fuel cell directly on hydrocarbons like gasoline and diesel," researcher Ray Gorte told MSNBC. "In the past, everyone assumed you had to use hydrogen." ...The new process not only gets around the problem of delivering and storing hydrogen, Gorte says, it means a fuel cell that produces "less carbon dioxide for a given amount of energy" than other fuel cells because higher efficiency can be achieved... [I]t could provide a valuable interim technology that's easier to deploy and still provide much cleaner and higher mileage than internal combustion engines... Gorte, head of chemical engineering at the University of Pennsylvania, sees the research as a "breakthrough," saying an earlier attempt to use gasoline essentially required putting "a refinery in your trunk" to get the hydrogen... Gorte's team used a "solid oxide fuel cell," while others have tended to focus on "proton-exchange membranes." ...One hitch is that the cell is sensitive to sulfur, so that gasoline would have to be cleaned further to make it a viable fuel... Gorte is optimistic about its potential, saying his team hopes to work with a major car company that has created a solid oxide fuel cell division. He would not identify the company, saying he wasn't sure if it was willing to go public yet... Kevin Kendall, a chemical engineer at Britain's University of Birmingham, writes in a Nature article accompanying the study that while hydrogen is "the ultimate clean power source of the future" it is still expensive to extract it, difficult to store and prone to explosion.
Coal-to-liquid solution for energy woes
by David Dapice
StraitsTimes
July 19, 2004

Posted on 07/20/2004 9:27:15 AM PDT by Baby Bear
Amid continuing violence in the Middle East, the issue of energy security is again on the front burner. With oil prices rising to a peak of US$40 (S$68) a barrel, countries have been looking at alternative energy with a greater urgency. This heightened sense of urgency, fortunately, has come at a time when there is evidence that a new approach using existing resources and technology can provide alternative energy to many countries.

A glimmer of good news recently appeared: China signed an agreement with Sasol, a South African energy and chemicals firm, to build two coal-to-liquid fuel plants in China. These plants, costing US$3 billion each, are reported by the Financial Times to jointly produce 60 million tonnes of liquid fuel (440 million barrels) a year. Since China imported 100 million tonnes of oil last year, these plants would give China much control over its domestic energy situation, though its demand is growing fast.
Toyota Shines at Tokyo Show With Gasoline-Fuel Cell SUV
"The company, fuel cell r&d development partner with General Motors, unveiled its new FCHV-5 at the 35th Tokyo Motor Show Oct. 27-Nov.9, the fifth-generation experimental vehicle in its fuel cell hybrid series. The new vehicle employs a reformer to extract hydrogen from a still to be developed 'clean hydrocarbon' fuel... 'Clean' hydrocarbon fuel is a euphemism for gasoline from which sulfur has been removed."

42 posted on 09/19/2004 8:18:52 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=napalminthemorning)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jriemer

http://www.desline.com/articoli/3797.pdf


43 posted on 09/19/2004 8:26:19 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=napalminthemorning)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Indy Pendance; All

IMPORTANT

There is no mention AT ALL in this article about automotive fuel cells. The type of fuel cell that is being developed for automotive uses is a PEM type fuel cell.

BUT THIS ARTICLE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PEM FUEL CELLS

The PEM fuel cell uses a membrane as an electrolyte. This membrane is highly sensitive to impurities - the impurities accumulate within the membrane and degrade its performance accordingly. PEM fuel cells CANNOT use reformed fuel because very minor amounts of sulfur and chloride will quickly degrade the cell.

The article is still important though - for PAFC type fuel cells. PAFC fuel cells have found good use as a power supply for large buildings (factories, apartment complexes, etc). These devices are about the size of a small one car garage. Such PAFC fuel cell units have built in reformers, and yes, CO removal is a significant part of the reformer.

This is good news for fuel cells, BUT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CARS


44 posted on 09/19/2004 8:45:11 PM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
The last time a country put a very large investment into coal-to-liquid fuel was Hitler's Germany. They knew that military aggession would interrupt imports of natural oil.

Perhaps, someone has learned from history and / or has something on the drawing boards?

45 posted on 09/20/2004 4:52:48 AM PDT by jriemer (We are a Republic not a Democracy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: jriemer
I think the Chinese gov't does intend to launch attacks (to Taiwan, among other places) but mostly this move is due to worries about the increased fuel prices and its reliance on the oh-so-stable Middle East.

The Chinese gov't will fall apart when it tries to move on Taiwan. It has a huge propaganda investment in so-called reunification, and its invasion will fail.

The US should be (and probably is) building a sub-killer fleet (also of subs) to keep up a war of attrition against all Chinese subs. Trail 'em all the time, and randomly send them to the bottom. We must not let them acquire a sub fleet capable of nuclear attacks on the US.
George W. Bush will be reelected by a margin of at least ten per cent

46 posted on 09/20/2004 10:49:08 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=napalminthemorning)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: kidd
Sulfur content can be removed at the refinery, so if it were made a priority, fuel cell vehicles using gasoline directly (a sensible approach, given the existing infrastructure, the cost of replacing it, and the cost savings from the elimination of all but one formulation of gasoline) would not have that hurdle.

Clinton wanted hybrids and reformer-equipped fuel cell vehicles, as well as straight electric. GWB wants hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles. There are no hydrogen wells, so hydrogen will have to be made from other fuels. In the distant future (25-30 years) there may be a hydrogen distribution infrastructure. I don't think it's a worthwhile idea. A single liquid fuel refining and distribution infrastructure makes the most sense. And it already exists. And I don't need special gloves to fuel my vehicle.

I do agree wholeheartedly with you -- regarding the use of fuel cells to generate electric power. Natural gas can be and is used for fixed-location fuel cells. There is plenty of natural gas. It's got the advantage of being a "green" fuel (from a political standpoint). Also, the ocean floor is lousy with natural gas stored as gas hydrates.

Save the coal to make liquid petroleum fuel for vehicles. :'D And drill the ANWR!
George W. Bush will be reelected by a margin of at least ten per cent

47 posted on 09/20/2004 10:57:07 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=napalminthemorning)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; xsysmgr; ValerieUSA; blam; FairOpinion; Ernest_at_the_Beach

How Long Will the Oil Age Last?
Popular Science ^ | August 2004 | Kevin Kelleher
Posted on 07/31/2004 1:48:26 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1182542/posts

Kerry's Energy Agenda: Higher prices, more foreign dependency.
National Review Online ^ | August 12, 2004 | Cesar Conda
Posted on 08/14/2004 6:06:35 AM PDT by xsysmgr
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1191456/posts

Report Questions Bush Plan for Hydrogen-Fueled Cars
NY Times ^ | February 6, 2004 | MATTHEW L. WALD
Posted on 02/07/2004 6:00:36 PM PST by neverdem
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1073676/posts


48 posted on 09/20/2004 11:07:39 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=napalminthemorning)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
The US should be (and probably is) building a sub-killer fleet (also of subs) to keep up a war of attrition against all Chinese subs. Trail 'em all the time, and randomly send them to the bottom. We must not let them acquire a sub fleet capable of nuclear attacks on the US.

The Chinese Navy is doing a pretty good job of putting their own subs on the bottom all by themselves.

Dozens die on Chinese sub - 02MAY03

49 posted on 09/20/2004 11:25:55 AM PDT by jriemer (We are a Republic not a Democracy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Indy Pendance
Why aren't we using coal? We've got the most of it and it can be burned cleanly.

For example, here's a study on just exactly that.

Back to Coal, Why Utilities Must Reconsider This Cheap, Plentiful Fuel

We could ween off of the oil import, put lots of miners and truckers back to work and then work on the longer term solutions of Fuel Cells.

50 posted on 09/20/2004 11:31:16 AM PDT by Malsua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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