Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science Technology

Fuel-Cell Power With Methanol 221

Posted by timothy from the what-about-moonshine-power dept.
foaty writes: "It has been reported that Japanese electronics companies have developed prototypes for fuel-cell batteries that can power the smallest of electronic devices for long periods of time, and they only need refueling, not recharging! See the article at FutureEnergies.com." That article links to this piece at ZDNet; what's interesting is that instead of hydrogen, this article talks instead mostly about methanol-based fuel cells.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fuel-Cell Power With Methanol More

Fuel-Cell Power With Methanol

Comments Filter:
  • Fuel cells only use hydrogen. Sources of hydrogen, such as methanol, must be cracked and the hydrogen freed for use.
    • The realities of transporting and delivering hydrogen to the end user make raw hydrogen a more expensive fuel than a liquid fuel source such as methanol, even after taking account the cost and size of the cracking unit.

      At least this is what Daimler Chrysler has found for vehicular fuel cells. When you're talking cell phone sized, however, I don't know if that's still true.

      John

    • 'Fuel' seems pretty general to me. Where did you get this information?

    • Fuel Cells consists of membrans, not of hydrogene. (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The defintion of an fuel cell is a cell generating
      electrical power by using "semi-permable Membranen" (don't know the exact english words).

      There is no need for hydrogene, methanol also works, but it is a quite more difficult. I already saw a methanol fuel cell here in Freiburg, Germany some years ago, so the idea is not that new, only that someone may have indutrial useable products soon.

      On the other hand you are also right. When using gas or other materials, you normaly first split hydrogene out of them. But the idea of an methanol cell is that you have something liquid, not gas-form, and can put it directly in the fuel cell. (What the reseach is searching is the same for ethanol, but that seems not be reached yet)
    • You are only partly correct. Hydrogen is what actually powers a fuel cell, but almost any hydrocarbon will power a fuel cell directly, without being "cracked". The downside is higher temperature operation with decreased efficiency vs. using hydrogen directly. Early fuel cells required a seperate operation to free the hydrogen from the hydrocarbon (ie a hydrogen generator). Most current fuel cell research involves increasing the high temperature stability and efficiency of cells powered directly by more conventional hydrocarbon fuels. The fuel cell devices we are likely to use in the (near) future will be powered by butane for small devices and natural gas or liquid fuels (gasoline, fuel oil) for larger electrical generators.
  • Wow if this were really to happen in the next 2 years or so as the article indicates, what is going to happen to companies like Duracell and Energizer? Now all we need is a reason for such batteries in North America, hmmm... 3G heh ;)

    lnxslak.

  • yawn (Score:2, Informative)

    by jeffy124 ( 453342 )
    old news [slashdot.org]

    • Re:yawn (Score:3, Informative)

      by disc-chord ( 232893 )
      Is it a repost of old news or new news? I can never tell... all this fuel-cell vapor we've been getting for the last several years has me blind.

      They all say the same thing:
      Scientists in [Japan, America, Europe] have developed a portable prototype fuel-cell that will come to market in [2, 5, 10] years.

      Well we've been getting this for 5-10 years now, so we can stop calling it "News".

      I don't want to see another one of these stories unless it says:
      Scientists in [Japan, America, Europe] have developed a portable fuel-cell that you can buy right now.

      If I get any more fuel cell vapor in my eyes I'll begin to suffer the effects of methanol poisoning.
    • Anyone else notice the older news piece you linked to was also posted by timothy?

      Does he not even remember the "cool news" he posts? Or is timothy to fuel cell news as hemos is to nanotech.

      Blah.
      • i wouldnt be surprised that they get a submission, say to themselves "wow!" and post it without giving a second thought to it. hey, the first article was 6 weeks ago, maybe timothy still recovering from new year's?

        beleive it or not, I made a similar post a few days ago [slashdot.org] with regard to the WEP security article.
  • The ZDNet article mentions a fuel cell being developed by NEC using nanotechnology to process the methane, with 10 times the energy density of current lithium batteries - anybody know what that is about? I'd guess it was wild blue-sky stuff that won't be available for decades, except that I used to know somebody who worked at NEC research in the US, and they seemed pretty serious about practical applications of research.
    • The nanotechnology they are referring to is commericial technology that isn't really nanotechnology, unless you count the structure of the solid phase metal oxide catalyst nanotechnology. I'm guessing they're referring to the size of the metal oxide which does all the chemical work of converting the methanol to hydrogen and CO2. If so, then they're using NMOs (Nanoscale Metal Oxides) as catalysts, and this technology has been around for quite awhile and is in use today. Technically, NMOs are "nanotechnology" in that the active structure is nanoscale sized. But its not the type of nanotechnology most people think of.

      The fuel cells mentioned are probably based on technology that came out of Los Alamos about 4-5 years ago. It used a ceramic support for the NMOs (cerium oxide I think) to convert the methanol into hydrogen and CO2. The hydrogen then gets "burned" to generate energy and water. Again, this isn't blue sky stuff, it exists now.

      Interestingly, water-based fuel cells can work as well. Some prototypes exist, but they're solar powered and the catalysts which breaks the water down into hydrogen and oxygen don't have a lot of catalytic cycles before they die. Also, they're VERY expensive, which is the big reason why they're not being used, even if they have great potential use.
  • I wonder if the OPEC cartel watches research like this like a hawk. I think it would foolish if they didnt, being as though, they have trillions at stake.
    That being said, would you try to impede such research knowing that said technology could make your residual income dissapear ?
    • called SHIBUMI (don't remember author) about a Mother company regrouping all petroleum producers, specifically spying and killing all people having to do with new power sources...

      And after reading, have a good strong look at US history and day to day practices, and make an educated guess.

      Also, I seem to remember that first Electric car came out in 1954, and Fuel Cell (working) was 1956 (patented)

      Now 50 years just to tel people Hydrogen CAN be used as energy source seems to me quite a long time to divulgate scientific research...

      Hoping to read from you,

      (Hey moderator ! Answer with words, or mod me up 8)
  • My only question How do you refill it if a fuel cell is sposed to get smaller and smaller how do you refill a fuell cell. Or are they thinking that I will through mine away and then I woul buy a new one, "for the same price as a lithuim battery" I don't think so. the nice thing about regular battries is that they recharge and they tell you how they do that.
    • My only question How do you refill it if a fuel cell is sposed to get smaller and smaller how do you refill a fuell cell.

      If I can recall from one of the many, many previous Slashdot stories / urban legends about the Almighty Fuel Cell, you use something like a hypodermic needle or other injector to shoot more "juice" into your cell.

      The other interesting thing is that the cells will "exhale" steam and or other gases. So corrosion of the device would have to be taken into account.

  • This Isn't New And It's Not Japanese... (Score:5, Informative)

    by cybrpnk ( 94636 ) on Wednesday January 02, 2002 @11:48AM (#2773890)
    This isn't some new miracle pulled out of the hat by the Japanese. For example, an MIT Technology Review article on some American work on a methanol fuel cell is here [techreview.com]. A whole bibliography on recent Direct Methanol Fuel Cell (DMFCs) work is here [nrel.gov].
    • If you have studied history, you should know that the Japanese are good at borrowing and making better. It doesn't matter if this was first started by an American, what matters is who will be the first to market, perfect it and bring it to the market.

  • Please explain... (Score:3, Offtopic)

    by Proaxiom ( 544639 ) on Wednesday January 02, 2002 @11:48AM (#2773891)
    and they only need refueling, not recharging!

    Why would refueling be preferable to recharging?

    I kind of like having only to plug into a wall to recharge my laptop, as opposed to having to stop off at a gas station, or buy a big supply of this stuff to keep in my garage.

    • Re:Please explain... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Because you would refule your Laptop maybe every 3-4 days (of full speed running) while it weights MUCH less than no (50% only). The weight is interesting here - 1kg of methanol solution will propably last for a number of weeks. Compare this with what you carry around in your laptop - hell, I would pay 2000 USD for a working system RIGHT NOW, just not to carry all the reserve batteries to keep me going for a day.

      Your Mobile phone runs 6 month with a load :-)

      Oh, and - why going to a gas station? A small bottle of 12 year old whiskey can help you out.

      Thomas
      • A small bottle of 12 year old whiskey can help you out.
        But after a large bottle you shouldn't be messing with fuel cells or electrical equipment.
        In fact I think I might log off and try some more of the Auchentoshan that I got for xmas =o)

      • Oh, and - why going to a gas station? A small bottle of 12 year old whiskey can help you out.

        Whisky contains ethanol which is a different alcohol from methanol. Also the additional chemicals which make whisky a beverage would probably not do the fuel cell much good. It's also a waste of both drink and money.
        A spark ignition engine will run on alcohol the US based "Indy Car" races use methonol as a fuel and ethanol, either on its own or blended with petrochemicals has been used for motor fuel in several parts of the world. (If you are brewing to make fuel the taste of the product dosn't matter...)

    • Re:Please explain... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Monte ( 48723 ) on Wednesday January 02, 2002 @12:27PM (#2774060)
      Why would refueling be preferable to recharging?

      Speed. Which is faster: filling your car's empty tank, or recharging you laptop's empty batteries?
      • yes but I can use my computer and recharge it I can't, with what is currently availble, refuel my car and drive I have to stop turn it off and not smoke.
      • Which is safer? Refueling or recharging? Some US states (NJ, Oregon) don't even let people fill up their own tanks with gas, you need to have a gas station attendant do it for you. . .

        Suddenly it's less convienient!
        • Which is safer? Some laptops have been known to sspontaneously combust [slashdot.org] once plugged in.

          That said, alcohol which has been slightly diluted with water is very transportable and safe to handle. Common department store rubbing alcohol will burn easily but very slowly, and is typically at 90% concentration. Jack D
          aniels, according to an experiment performed moments ago here at my desk, does not burn at all in its standard 43% concentration from the heat of a black Bic lighter. OTOH, Bicardi 151 will ignite readily even when reduced in potency to a flaming Dr. Pepper, as evidenced by hair I've been missing from my drinking hand since 12/31/01.

          Of course, the extra water would need to be dealt with in some way, but that seems fairly easy once the device's other problems are overcome. Since the whole point of a fuel cell is to combine hydrogen and oxygen to produce heat and H20, there must be some facility to deal with waste water (or, more likely, steam), or the whole idea is doomed to failure anyway. ;)

          -
    • The discharge/charge cycle in a battery changes the molecular structure of the battery. The process is not entirely reversible, eventually, over enough cycles the battery material deterioates, and the battery performance degrades.

      The process by which a fuel cell works is all 'one way', and unlikely to be degraded in the above way.

      • Re:Please explain... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by rew ( 6140 )
        The process by which a fuel cell works is all 'one way', and unlikely to be degraded in the above way.

        Ehmm. Wrong. Fuel cells work on Hydrogen and Oxygen. Oxygen comes from the air. The hyrdogen is extracted from the methanol. The system that is used for that is slowly clogged by any and all impurities that end up in your methanol.

        Roger.
    • Why would refueling be preferable to recharging?

      Power density. Which weighs more and consumes more space: A 12-15 gallon gasoline tank or enough lead-acid batteries to provide the same amount of propulsion?

      Just think about how much weight and size of the average cell phone or PDA is taken up with batteries. Now imagine replacing that with a fountain-pen-cartridge-sized fuel ampule.

  • This is old news... (Score:3, Informative)

    by eples ( 239989 ) on Wednesday January 02, 2002 @11:49AM (#2773895)
    Hemos posted methanol portable fuel-cells [slashdot.org] almost a year ago to the week - made by Motorola.

  • Fuel Cell's on planes? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bdoliver ( 221092 ) on Wednesday January 02, 2002 @11:56AM (#2773925) Homepage
    As this idea seems to be more and more common, I wonder what would happen if I try and take my fuel cell powered laptop on a plane. The only place I really like to use my laptop is when I travel. I don't know that I see the airlines allowing me onboard with a flammable liquid powered laptop.
    • Do they let you on with a cigarette lighter?

      And also, doesn't your point illustrate how silly our paranoia has become?
    • I wonder what would happen if I try and take my fuel cell powered laptop on a plane. The only place I really like to use my laptop is when I travel. I don't know that I see the airlines allowing me onboard with a flammable liquid powered laptop.

      Right now they'd probably me more concerned about it's potential to conceal sharp and pointy objects or even if it could be used as a club.
      Do airlines yet ban butane lighters or drinks containing more than 40% alcohol?

  • Alright (Score:3, Funny)

    by NiftyNews ( 537829 ) on Wednesday January 02, 2002 @12:03PM (#2773963) Homepage
    One can imagine the confused look on the Gas Station Attendant's face when you hand him a nickel and tell him "3 cents on Pump #7."

  • Safety? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by north.coaster ( 136450 )
    The big question is whether a device such as this is safe. In particular, is there any risk of an explosion? Would the world aviation regulatory agencies such as the FAA approve these for use on commercial airplanes?

    With all of the current concern about bombs and the like, this seems like it might be a big hurdle.

    /Don

    • Would the world aviation regulatory agencies such as the FAA approve these for use on commercial airplanes?

      The FAA has problems with nail clippers, and you think that they are going to approve something that has the remote possibility of exploding? Next thing you know they are going to start banning the shipment of cows via air shipment due to the possibility of spontaneous combustion (OK, this is not a feasible thing in the first place, but still.)
    • I don't suppose this could be any more dangerous than, say, your standard canister of buthane driven aerosol deodorant. And I've never seen anybody getting particularly concerned about those.
      • I don't suppose this could be any more dangerous than, say, your standard canister of buthane driven aerosol deodorant. And I've never seen anybody getting particularly
        concerned about those.

        IIRC there is actually a regulation (possibly from IATA) something along the lines of "no more than one per passenger".

    • Re:Safety? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Jobe_br ( 27348 ) <bdruth.gmail@com> on Wednesday January 02, 2002 @12:56PM (#2774155)

      From what I was able to gather from the article, it seems that only very, very small amounts of methanol will actually be used in cells. As such, I don't think you'll actually have enough fuel there to cause much of a safety/security hazard. There are quite a few different materials in common use that are quite unsafe and/or explosive in much larger quantities.

      Keep in mind that 'safety' and 'security' concerns should deal primarily with 'accidental' hazards, not purposeful exploits which the technologies themselves cannot prevent. Take for example a standard Dell laptop with a front loadable battery and modular drive that can have a second battery inserted. What if a extension battery were purchased then had the Li core removed, replaced with an explosive of some sort and inserted into the expansion slot. The cursory examinations that laptops are subject to in most security conscious situations (airports, court rooms, etc.) involve simply turning it on - well, if a standard battery is installed next to the explosive, this test will pass. Voila, you've breached security purposefully. Not only that, but an X-ray of the laptop will likely show only the same thing as if an actual extension battery were installed. The image (as seen by an X-ray) of an explosive and Li battery is likely very similar.

      Don't forget: the companies that are developing these technologies don't have morons working for them (by-and-large). If Sony, NEC and Toshiba are all pursuing this technology, I'm sure a few intelligent people have already brought up the possible security/safety hazards in the device's most typical usage venues. Additionally, the article mentions a targeted consumer release date of this technology as 2005 which makes this:

      ...all of the current concern about bombs...
      somewhat irrelevant. Who knows what conditions will dictate in 2005? I certainly do not!
      • Take for example a standard Dell laptop with a front loadable battery ... then had the Li core removed, replaced with an explosive of some sort and inserted into the expansion slot. ... Voila, you've breached security purposefully.

        I'm sure that today you will be visited by members of the FBI and Secret Service, who wish to know of your al-Qaeda links. Please post your experience in a follow-up.

    • The big question is whether a device such as this is safe. In particular, is there any risk of an explosion?

      Methanol is used in Indy cars. The sport isn't notorious for exploding fuel tanks...
      • No, but it's noted for all the safety precautions that have to be taken by the fuel handler.

        Does this mean I will have to wear a Nomex® headsock to use my cell phone? :-)

        John

  • I've seen so many companies/labs/etc... with prototype portable personal fuel cells for running electronics over the past 5 years, but none of them have made it to production. I'll believe it when i can get one off the shelf and use it for my wearable, but until such a time, it's just pie in the sky.

    • One parameter to look for (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      >>>
      I've seen so many companies/labs/etc... with prototype portable personal fuel cells for running electronics over the past 5 years
      >>>

      Hydrogen gas 3x the energy of gasoline but takes too much space. Methanol has slightly less energy than gasoline but has comparable space requirement and able to use in fuel cell. What you want to look for is ROOM TEMPERATURE fuel cell which hydrogen can readily do (although is optimum at 60-70'C. Methanol with platinum catalyst need to be heated up above boiling point. For laptop this probably not a problem because we can finally put that heat from the microprocessor to good use. :-P

  • Honestly, officer, that's just extra fuel for my laptop. It's a shame, but I think this technology is not going to make it for security reasons. Essentially, you are carrying a little Molotov cocktail on board.

    • Re:Security? (Score:3, Informative)

      by caesar-auf-nihil ( 513828 )
      Emphasis on the word little. It has about as much flammable liquid, and heat output, as a full zippo lighter.
      Unless you can make a molotov cocktail out of a zipplo lighter, you're not going to be able to do much with these fuel cells either.
      Now 20+ fuel cells all taped together, that's a bit different. However, the units would be sealed, so you'd have to put fuses into each, which breaks the integretity of the system, and the methanol evaporates before it gets a chance to ignite.

      The other thing here is that methanol burns much cooler than the kerosene/sterno/whatever you're putting into a molotov cocktail. Therefore, its destructive power and fire hazard level is much less than the before mentioned Zippo full of butane, which burns much hotter.

  • dangerous! (Score:5, Funny)

    by fcatanza ( 320120 ) on Wednesday January 02, 2002 @12:42PM (#2774110)
    Oh, sounds so dangerous. It would never be possible. I mean, carrying a small amount of a highly flammable liquid in a small container so close to your body. The technological hurdles to make that safe are huge.
    Hang on, let me light a cigarette...
    oh wait...nevermind.
  • I don't give a damn how dangerous this is, I NEED THIS!

    I mean I'm getting sick of recharging the batteries for my Mp3 player, just fill it up with fuel cells and it might even run for more than 4 hours, maybe even more than 5!

    The chance of some added pyrotechnics when listening to Rammstein's debut seems more like a bonus than a danger, in my opinion. But then again, unlike most other people, I tend to like stuff that blows up.

    Anyway: Bring 'em on!

  • This is nothing new (Score:5, Informative)

    by pclminion ( 145572 ) on Wednesday January 02, 2002 @01:01PM (#2774166)
    The city of Portland, Oregon has had a large methanol fuel cell for a few years now. It produces about 150 kilowatts and runs off methanol converted from methane released from landfill gas. In the past the excess gas was flared off but it is now collected and used to power the cell.

    The interesting thing about this device is its incredibly small size.

    • The city of Portland, Oregon has had a large methanol fuel cell for a few years now. It produces about 150 kilowatts and runs off methanol converted from methane released from landfill gas. In the past the excess gas was flared off but it is now collected and used to power the cell.

      The implication here is that using a fuel cell (even with the additional complication of converting methane to methanol) is a more efficent way of generating electricity than using the gas to power an internal combustion engine.
      • I doubt that efficiency is the biggest concern here. If it's actually 150KW (not 150MW), then as someone else pointed out it's only making $10 worth of electricity an hour, so it won't even pay for one man to stay on site.

        However, fuel cells are quiet and relatively pollution free. They turn on and off instantly. They shouldn't _need_ anyone on site to keep them running. So a fuel cell can be in a residential neighborhood or right on site for industry and office buildings, providing an instant-on assist to the grid when peak power is needed, backup power the rest of the time, and also heating the building(s).

  • "gas stations" for batteries? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Quixote ( 154172 ) on Wednesday January 02, 2002 @01:07PM (#2774183) Homepage Journal

    How long before we'll have vending machines dishing out fully-charged batteries (and accepting your discharged ones in return, only to charge them and put them back in circulation) ? Just an idea...

  • Dangerous!? (Score:2, Funny)

    by billatq ( 544019 )
    Haven't we been using stuff like lead-acid batteries for years...What's so dangerous about having to use another highly toxic product for our energy needs?

  • Everybody is too paranoid (Score:4, Informative)

    by spike hay ( 534165 ) <{blu_ice} {at} {violate.me.uk}> on Wednesday January 02, 2002 @01:18PM (#2774212) Homepage
    Methanol is only poisonous if you chug a few ounces of it. That's why they put it in denatured rubbing alcohol. You can't suffer any harm from inhaling a few milliliters of the stuff.
    Also, its not explosive. Alcohol WILL NOT EXPLODE. It just burns. It's not as volatile as gasoline. The fire danger is much less than if you carry a lighter in your pocket.

  • Old news (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Wednesday January 02, 2002 @01:35PM (#2774272) Homepage
    Didn't we cover small fuel cells about twice in the last three months?

    There are too many preannouncements in the fuel cell business, and very few products shipping. Ballard Power Systems [ballard.com] maintains the illusion of having a product line, but when you look closely, you can't actually order units and get delivery. Everything is a prototype.

  • Industrial use of Fuel Cells... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Zenjive ( 247697 ) on Wednesday January 02, 2002 @02:07PM (#2774396) Homepage
    Does anyone know if it would be possible to use fuel cells in place of large diesel enigines?

    For example: Locomotive engines use a giant diesel engine to power a generator, the generator in turn powers electric motors that turn the wheels. If you replaced the diesel engine with a shit-load of fuel cells, you lose the weight of the engine and generator and have no emissions, but would there be sufficient torque to pull several thousand tons of rail cars?

    Another use would be for industrial UPS's or maybe even larger fuel cell plants to supply residential electricity.

    Would any of this be practical?
    • Fuel cells are already sold for giant UPS's. Mostly they are used in office buildings where the noise of a gas turbine or piston-engine generator would be difficult to muffle. So far they cost considerably more, so if you needed backup power for a factory where noise and a little smoke was OK, you'd probably get a turbo- or motor-generator.

      But if I had the money, I'd certainly like to put a fuel cell in my basement. The waste heat could heat the house. Now if I could wangle a connection to the gas well in my neighbor's back yard... (One of the really strange things about living in the country in Michigan is that we've got pipelines for raw, unfiltered, high pressure methane crossing our land, but have to buy propane for our gas appliances.)

Slashdot Top Deals

BLISS is ignorance.

Close