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.
I enjoy tech news on this kind of stuff. Thanks!
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.
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.
Fuel cells have to be developed! Think of the independence we'll have on foreign oil.
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.
Right on. Oil Shale, anyone?
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
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....
When You oxidize CO you get CO2 or carbon dioxide. A GREEHOUSE GAS - Horrors
Plus every time you convert energy from one form to another you stand to loose about 50%.
I agree. Alternative energy is not a green issue now. It's national defense. Let the middle east rot.
That's not correct. It doesn't convert into electricity at all.
Libs want us to be neutral and independant of Arab fuel (and politics) like the Swedes. Only problem is, the Swedes use Nuke plants.
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
There is no free lunch in physics. Hyrdrogen is, at best, a battery, for energy created elsewhere.
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?
I guess not.
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.