Prototype Propane Fuel Cell Passes Muster In Alaska

www.sciencedaily.com ^ | 11/14/2006 | Staff

[Red Badger]

The Alaska Energy Technology Development Laboratory at the University of Alaska Fairbanks recently announced a successful field test of a prototype propane fuel cell.

The cell, manufactured by Massachusetts-based Acumentrics and installed at the Kenai Fjords National Park’s Exit Glacier Nature Center near Seward, ran for more than 1,100 hours straight and did so with no measurable degradation in its efficiency.

“From a technical point of view, it is an important milestone we have achieved here,” said Dennis Witmer, director of AETDL. “It is one step closer to these kinds of fuel cells becoming devices that can be useful in remote locations.”

The fuel cell was part of the original design for the nature center. It was first installed and used in the summer of 2004. Since then, a team of researchers and technicians has been fine-tuning the cell’s performance. In August, Park Service officials fired it up again and it ran until the end of the season.

“It’s not going back to the factory this winter. It has been mothballed for the winter and we plan on starting it up (next) summer,” said Tim Hudson, associate regional director for operations and resources for the National Park Service’s Alaska region. “We like the promise of this technology as a way to replace diesel generators, decrease the possibility of fuel spills and provide a cleaner and quieter source of power.”

The Exit Glacier fuel cell is notable for several reasons. It uses a fuel source--propane--that is more portable and usable in remote areas than the hydrogen or natural gas that usually powers fuel cells. It was also able to adjust its output to deal with fluctuations in power demand at the center, a phenomenon known as load following. And its most recent test run happened in real-world conditions, rather than in a laboratory with controlled power demands and constant monitoring and adjustment by technicians.

In addition, Witmer said, the Exit Glacier cell is able to efficiently generate relatively small amounts of power. A typical diesel generator is most efficient when it is generating 100 kilowatts of electricity, which is about 100 times more than a small building or cell phone tower would use.

“At one kilowatt, there is no convenient, efficient technology … and that is where fuel cells really have a hope of finding some market,” he said.

The reason for the efficiency is the way fuel cells generate electricity. Like a diesel generator, they use a hydrocarbon fuel source. But while the electricity in a traditional generator results from fuel burning and driving a mechanical generation device, the energy in a fuel cell comes from an electrochemical reaction.

“A fuel cell is a device that converts the energy from fuel directly into DC electricity,” Witmer said. “The idea is that the efficiencies are better with the direct electrochemical conversion, especially at lower power levels.”

In addition to generating electricity, the fuel cell provided heat to the nature center during its test run from mid-August to late September.

Witmer said that propane fuel cells are still a long way from being practical for the average consumer. However the successful test at Exit Glacier shows that the technology is meeting technical milestones. If the cells are eventually available to the public, it’s hard to predict all of their potential applications, he said, noting the number of devices that have come about as the internal combustion engine became smaller and more economical.

“Because we don’t have anything really good smaller than a diesel generator, we really don’t know what the demand would be for a one-kilowatt generator,” Witmer said. “That to me is the really exciting thing.”

The Exit Glacier Nature Center fuel cell test is the result of a cooperative agreement between the National Park Service and the Arctic Energy Technology Development Laboratory at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Other funding partners include the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory, fuel cell manufacturer Acumentrics, the Propane Education and Research Council, fuel cell contractor Energy Alternatives, the Denali Commission and the Alaska Energy Authority.

[Red Badger]

Sounds good to me..............

[Red Badger]

Rest In Peace, old friend, your work is finished.......

If you want on or off the DIESEL "KNOCK" LIST just FReepmail me........

This is a fairly HIGH VOLUME ping list on some days......

[fireforeffect]

WOW. 45 days. I am underwhelmed.

As a back-up generator, not bad. Reciprocal propane generators last that long.

[chaos_5]

Bottom line, the propane is still reacted with oxygen resulting in water and carbon dioxide. Thats right "evil" carbon dioxide. good luck selling this one to the global warming crowd. + O2 = H2O + CO2

[Red Badger]

But HOW MUCH CO2? More than Gasoline or diesel combustion?.........

[chaos_5]

"But HOW MUCH CO2? More than Gasoline or diesel combustion?........."

Three molecules of CO2 for each molecule of propane, assuming a complete reaction.

As for more CO2 emissions when using gas or diesel, the would boil down to the efficiency of energy use. One of the problems with combustion is wasted heat. Heat which reacquired a thermochemical reaction resulting in the same byproducts, H20, CO2 and typically NOx.

It seems like the energy cells use the reactants more efficiantly, therefor result in less emissions per unit of energy.

[ASOC]

"“At one kilowatt, there is no convenient, efficient technology … and that is where fuel cells really have a hope of finding some market,” he said."

Well, thermoelectic generators (TEG) have no moving parts and produce that much power, with no moving parts. (see http://www.globalte.com)


There are Sterling cycle (micro CHP) units that do much the same, see MicroGen site for more.

Fuel cells are cool tech, but not magic and certainly not alone in small power generation systems.

[NVDave]

It might produce less for the same amount of output power than an internal combustion engine. Some fuel cells are reaching over 60% total efficiency, and the only way you reach that level of efficiency with a diesel is to capture the heat in the exhaust (ie, "co-generation"). Diesels are about 33 to 34% efficient, gasoline engines abotu 29% efficient, before heat capture.

[RightWhale]

University of Alaska Fairbanks recently announced a successful field test . . . at the Kenai Fjords National Park’s Exit Glacier Nature Center near Seward

So it works in the temperate zone. Next, try it in Fairbanks in January at 50 below.

[Kevmo]

BFLR = bump for later reading

[Red Badger]

A retired engineer oce told me that if you heat the fuel to the vaporisation point or beyond before injecting it into the cylinder, then you get a much more efficient combustion process. Is this true? He said that because it was dangerous was why it wasn't used in ordinary engines.........