New Generation of Hydrogen Fuel Cells Powers Up 191
An anonymous reader writes "A safer and more practical way of storing and releasing hydrogen, discovered by two Arizona State University researchers, could lead to a new type of fuel cell capable of packing 10 times more energy. The key is apparently using the alkaline compound borohydride — 'a 30% solution of borohydride in water actually contains one-third more hydrogen than the same volume of liquid hydrogen.'"
Chemical info on Borohydride (Score:5, Informative)
This is still in the research/development phase as per the article "Dr. Gervasio recognises that there are still many steps between his prototype and a competitively priced, off-the-shelf, battery-sized fuel cell. Nevertheless, he believes they could appear in power-hungry devices such as laptops, camcorders, and radios within five years." So until then, I'll be using CnH2n+2 to mow my lawn. [watching-grass-grow.com]
Re:Chemical info on Borohydride (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Chemical info on Borohydride (Score:5, Informative)
The best, though, is that you can use any mixture of the two in existing vehicles with zero modifications* using the existing fuel storage, distribution and dispensing infrastructure.
(* Rich Biodiesel blends may require additives or fuel preheaters for cold weather climates to prevent clouding.)
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
You're right! Let me throw some of that into my ICE-powered laptop and fire it right up...
Note that the very first sentence of TFA is:
--- S
Re: (Score:2)
But no, it's much too much fun to just fly off the handle isn't it?
Preemptive rebuttal: Don't bitch about temperatures and scalability of the above references. That's what research is for. Point is "hydrogen" is too much of a b
Re: (Score:2)
Biodiesel from fast-growing algae might be a goer. Biodiesel from conventional crops is a stunt.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it might be a pain to get going, and it may require changes to be made, but it's not a stunt...
Proposing cars running on 100% hydrogen is a stunt... Actually, hydrogen power isn't a stunt, it's a scam. It's 20 years out at the least, which is long enough for all of the current oil execs to retire (which is long enough for them).
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6555 [yale.edu]
http://www.worldwatch.org/nod [worldwatch.org]
Re: (Score:2)
This would be true only if foodcrops such as corn or soybean were used for fuel production. Since we can make fuel out of almost anything, many things being better for production than high-oil corn and soybean, the amount of land required is not only less than whatever halfassed math that claim is based on, but includes lots of land that is not really suitable for growing food.
So what do you mean by "many things being better"? Soybean in particular is very efficient. You'd probably have to go to algae
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/
"biodiesel can reduce the carcinogenic properties of diesel fuel by 94%"
Biodiesel exhaust != Diesel exhaust.
Re: (Score:2)
0. Lights go dim in my house; Usage is about 1 Kilo Watt Hour per month.
1. I go to some water source.
2. Get a container of water.
3. Pour the water through some type of Heat based Solar and/or Wind fractionator filter device.
4. The filtered water is piped to some type of catalyst oriented Slitter/Generator device.
5. Slitter/Generator device jo
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Chemical info on Borohydride (Score:4, Informative)
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go use some more electricity that was pushed onto the wires by the local power plant that runs on solar-powered uranium.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
gravity
(ocean tides are one that can be easily used to generate electricity, global tidal forces contribute heat to the earth itself)
Re: (Score:2)
In other news (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are two goals of the hydrogen economy: to divorce ourselves from the *necessity* of oil, and to increase overall system efficiency. There's a long way to go, but things like this are definitely progress.
Carbon (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe I'm just a kook, but some serious work ought to go towards that sort of research, I think.
Re:Carbon (Score:5, Interesting)
Well for one thing, Sodium borohydride the fuel we are discussing has a HIGHER energy capacity then hydrogen-carbon compounds and has a HIGHER stability - less likely to burn).
It is in most cases a far better fuel than hydrogen-carbon compounds like gasoline.
The only reason we use gasoline is that oil is, despite new issues, still very plentiful. As we use it up, that will change.
Re: (Score:2)
We use gasoline because it's habit. Most new cars in Europe are diesel-powered.
And Big Oil makes a lot of diesel oil.
Re: (Score:2)
Diesel engines are more torquey than petrol engines(for example, they idle at a lower speed). The problem is their narrow power band (hence the 100 gear changes behind that semi when you're late). If only we had a way to run the engine at a constant speed whilst delivering as much power as we wanted to the road... perhaps you can think of some contraption with electric motors?
Energy density (Score:5, Interesting)
In the article, they state the energy density of this new fuel is 600 watt hours / litre, with the goal of eventually getting it up to 2200.
According to wikipedia, gasoline has an energy density of 32 megajoules per litre, which if I did the conversion right, comes out to about 8890 watt hours / litre. This sounds like a big difference until you consider that gas engines are typically somewhere around %20-30 efficient. It appears they may some day make a fuel that's roughly equivalent to gasoline.
Re:Energy density (Score:4, Interesting)
Instead of going 100% hydrogen or 100% [fossil fuel], you get more power & lower emission by running a combination.
Right now there is at least one company that sells a kit for large diesels which electrolyzes hydrogen (from water) on the spot & injects it along with the diesel fuel.
That system provides relatively small amounts of hydrogen, but this researcher [abc.net.au] claims 60:40 hydrogen:diesel hits the sweet spot..
Re: (Score:2)
apples to apples please (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The idea is not that sodium borohydride
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One would expect a fuel cell to be a lot lighter than a cast-iron engine block, but then electric motors are not exactly light weight. The best things about the prospect of using this in an automotive context is that
1) It deals very nicely with the carbon emissions issue (although to properly deal with greenhouse gas emissions, one would have to capture the wate
Huh? Help out an under educated ignorant, please (Score:3, Insightful)
How does a mixture of Borohydride(not pure hydrogen) and Water(which is already only 2/3 hy
drogen) end up being more hydrogen than Liquid Hydrogen? Isn't Liquid Hydrogen pure hydrogen?
If I am ignorant, educate me....but this sorta reminds me of the line from Anchorman:
"60% of the time it works 100% of the time"
Help me understand.
dimes
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know the math behind it, but by starting from something that's naturally denser it seems at least possible to have more hydrogen in it. It'll probably weigh more.
Can anyone spot-check this for sanity?
Re:Huh? Help out an under educated ignorant, pleas (Score:5, Funny)
Can anyone spot-check this for sanity?
I dont know about you, but room temperature around here is a bit more then 0C, so 'round here our water is in it's liquid form at room temperature.
Re: (Score:2)
Pyromage lives in Siberia, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Water is actually more dense in liquid form than solid form.
Re: (Score:2)
Oops (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ignoring the solid-water gaffe (assuming your air-conditioning simply isn't turned down too low...)
Liquid hydrogen has to be cold. It's not like, say, propane or butane which will liquefy under pressure even at room temperature - liquid hydrogen's boiling point is sufficiently low that if you pressurise the gas at room temperature, all you get is a pressurised gas.
Useful for storing smaller quantities of h
Re:Huh? Help out an under educated ignorant, pleas (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Huh? Help out an under educated ignorant, pleas (Score:2)
drogen) end up being more hydrogen than Liquid Hydrogen? Isn't Liquid Hydrogen pure hydrogen?
They're saying there's more Hydrogen in the mixture per unit volume then pure hydrogen. So I'm guessing (most likely incorrectly) that their substance has a higher density then liquid hydrogen. Higher density => More 'Stuff' per volume => More Hydrogen.
Course I could be wrong.
Re:Huh? Help out an under educated ignorant, pleas (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Huh? Help out an under educated ignorant, pleas (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Huh? Help out an under educated ignorant, pleas (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
This is actually a very interesting question. Let's see if I can get this right:
Each atom has positively charged nucleus and a bunch of electrons, so the whole thing is neutral. The more electrons we have the bigger the attraction force. Thus, while the diameter of the atom grows with element number it does so only slowl
Re: (Score:2)
1. The density of a liquid is dependent not only on the size of the molecules in it, but on their mass, and on the space between them (that's why hot water is less dense than cold water - on average there is more space between hot water molecules than cold).
2. Atomic size is not constant. It does change (not monotonically) with atomic number. You can see how here: Atom radii [webelements.com].
3. ALL molecules have "overlapping" electronic orbitals if you mean that the atoms are sharing some
Re: (Score:2)
1. The density of a liquid is dependent not only on the size of the molecules in it, but on their mass, and on the space between them (that's why hot water is less dense than cold water - on average there is more space between hot water molecules than cold).
Yes - I was assuming that temperature is fixed and very low (as needed to liquify hydrogen.
2. Atomic size is not constant. It does change (not monotonically) with atomic number. You can see how here: Atom rad
Not Cars, But Laptops (Score:2)
I assumed from the title that this article was about cars, but it turns out to be even more interesting because it's talking about laptops and portable devices instead.
Title confused me (Score:2)
I read that first as a new ___ that generages Hydrogen Fuel Cells, and they are about to power it up for the first time! I guess I ought to try that coffee stuff, or maybe drink more of what comes out of fuel cells.
For the non-fuel cell people. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Give in to our nuclear overlords. (Score:5, Insightful)
Is nuclear that bad? We have known the properties of the splitting atom for decades now... we should have a good understanding of how to utilize this abundant resource. The waste is manageable. Is the waste of a coal plant manageable? Once you spew all that C0_2 and other by-products into the atmosphere there is no (sane) way to recapture it.
Nuclear is our future. Give in to our nuclear overlords.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear sounds nice until one remembers the real nuclear waste problems: uranium mine tailings [ccnr.org] and depleted uranium. Don't ever forget that depleted uranium makes up over 98% of the mass of refined uranium ore. Nuclear plants themselves are pretty clean, and
Re: (Score:2)
And BTW, chill. I didn't say anything about terrorists. Seriously, chill. Unhinged response, anyone?
Re: (Score:2)
> fortune
How many nuclear engineers does it take to change a light bulb ?
Seven: One to install the new bulb, and six to determine what to do
with the old one for the next 10,000 years.
As long as the problem isn't solved the waste is NOT managable. We know how to split the nucleat atom for decades now, and we have decades of nuclear storage problems as well, first dumping it in the ocean, and - as I understand - now there a
Re: (Score:2)
I blame Chernobyl for a lot of this; it's always what people bring up when you mention nuclear power.
As for the w
Re:For the non-fuel cell people. (Score:5, Funny)
The act of storing, transporting or using energy in any way involves waste (heat).
Oil & coal happen to be pretty decent storage mechanisms--relatively little waste while in storage, but somewhat difficult to recharge and creating it is quite wasteful.
So, if you are just talking about "Consuming" the energy, hydrogen is much more efficient and clean than oil. If you take into account the production of the energy as well, that's a different story. We'll have to set up some bogs and find some dinasours and wait a while before we can compare.
Re:For the non-fuel cell people. (Score:4, Funny)
Might I suggest looking in our various legislative bodies?
KFG
Re: (Score:2)
Wasteful compared to what? With a variety of thermal chemical conversion processes, it is quite possible to convert biomass into crude oil quickly (hours) and efficiently - 85% or more of the potential energy in the biomass comes out as useful fuel, with the remainder going to sustain the process and to losses.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
There is currently one pilot plant that I know of (which is also mentioned in the article). It converts turkey offal into oil.
The two biggest reasons why this has not become more popular are 1) Until recently the cost of the biomass (which has other uses and must be purchased at a market price) was too high to produce a fuel that was competitive with petrolium, and 2) Until recently (~10 years or so) the process wasn't very efficient anyway, and not viab
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That may be one of the major things, but I'd say the biggest is that with existing fuel cells, you're required to have pure hydrogen as a fuel. I don't know about you, but I'd rather not have something that is likely to explode around me. This will really help out in that respect.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Explosions are more about rate of reaction than the amount of energy stored.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you stored a tank of the liquid stuff, you could get a real nice boom if that thing had a catastrophic rupture. However, most tanks are pressurized gas, not liquid, and they're just going to puncture, not explode. Check this out [evworld.com] for some video of what happens when a hydrogen tank ruptures. I'd sure hate to be in the way of that flame jet, sure, but it's otherwise less than impressive.
You want to talk about rolling bombs, how about LNG or propane powered cars?
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, I remember. Those pumping rigs grow on pumping rig trees, and the great oil-hungry bore-worm provides us with pre-drilled holes in only the right places.
If we could only train enough pelicans, the distribution network would be free too.
(I know you're not actually claiming the above, but it bears observing that the same can be said for oil if the environmental costs are included.)
Justin.
Re: (Score:2)
All of the parts of a fuel cell naturally start out pricey, and drop as technology advances and production increases. It's not a major constraint. Hydrogen storage dense enough and, a
Energy density (Score:3, Funny)
Not New (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not sure that's right (Score:2)
http://tinyurl.com/fa3oj [tinyurl.com] (Science Direct)
The original research paper states "The proposed fuel-cell system offers applications longevity owing to its more concentrated (up to 10 wt% H2) hydrogen storage than found with H2 stored under common tank pressures or in typical metal hydrides."
Is the storage of liquid hydrogen considered a "common tank pressure"? I wouldn't think so. The big deal about this technology is that it stores the hydrog
Nuts and Volts for Nerds (Score:2)
"The researchers can now run the hydrogen generator on a 15% solution of borohydride, half-way to their goal of a truly power-packed 30% solution."
Half a solution? Not 10X but would disrupt LiOn market at the promising 10X potential.
Anyone want to explain the difference between this apparent wet technology and LiOn dry storage technology?
NaBO2 - Is it dangerous? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How difficult is NaBO2 to deal with, and can it be dangerous/toxic?
From Batteries Digest [batteriesdigest.com]:
The only other reaction product, sodium metaborate (analogous to borax), is water-soluble and environmentally benign.
Cool (Score:2)
Greenpeace? (Score:2)
They have a born-given right to protest for everything that is ever sold!
However, I think they will find something here to bitch about, too.
Re: (Score:2)
As it's a reaction product, it is likely to be depleted of energy, so it won't bang. As it is oxidised, it should not react with air again. As it is ionic (Na+ and BO2^-) it is a solid salt. Not sure about solubility in water, but may precipitate at relatively low concentrations since ions are of similar hardness (though not perfectly matching). Would not eat it as anything I know only by a chemical formula, and boron is not especially friendly to life. In short, not more dangerous than things you can prob
Bad math? (Score:2)
So, it contains 33% more hydrogen but it ends up being 1000% more energy?
I don't get it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Quantity of hydrogen != quantity of energy, it's the strength/weakness of chemical bonds and how much energy they liberate when they react (usually with oxygen) that counts. Otherwise water would be a great power source.
Aside from that, the 33% is relative to liquid hydrogen, the other one (too lazy to RTFA) likely to gaseous.
Sounds good, but (Score:2, Funny)
New generation? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmmm ... (Score:5, Interesting)
There is also the question of lifespan and cycling. While the liter of fluid requirement can be worked around, long term issues such as cleanliness of the proces with regards to catalyst maintenance. I'd be cautios about using the phrase "halfway there" just becuase they are using half the percentage of solution they are looking for. While they are at 15% vs 30%, they are also at 600Wh versus the 2200 claimed in the article. Granted, that's theortical maximum, but the effective use of 30% solution is also theoretical.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't the same logic have ruled out the usage of catalytic converters in cars? It didn't say how much ruthenium was required. Per ounce,
Re: (Score:2)
Lets talk about catalytic converters, which are in just about every vehicle with 4 wheels and a combustion motor.
It uses platinum. Platinum runs about 1192 USD/ounce. Platinum is a member the category called "precious metals". It's a rather limited supply item.
P.S. Cat converters also use rhodium (4900 USD/ounce) and/or palladium (322 USD/ounce)
How to hydrogenate borax? (Score:2)
"Borax can be hydrogenated back into borohydride fuel by several different techniques, some of which require nothing more than water and electricity or heat. These techniques are still in active development."
It seems that when the Borohydride fuel is used up, you are left with Borax, which you can buy at the grocery store.
So how exactly does one hyrdogenate Borax to turn it back into Borohydride fuel? Because it would be way cool if my c
No, that doesn't tell how... (Score:2)
I did find an article that is somewhat useful here:
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/progress04/iii b1_wu.pdf#search=%22how%20to%20make%20Sodium%20bor ohydride%22 [energy.gov]
But it is a bit over my head technically. It sounds like you do some kind of electrolysis to convert back to Borohydride.
Steve
Another good article on Sodium Borohydride (Score:2)
Steve
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they will. Where do you think the electricity is going to come from to make the borohydride?
Maybe not so new?? (Score:2)
theoretically e = mc2 (Score:2)
What's the energy density of gasoline? (Score:2)
> compared to 200 watt-hours per litre for a lithium polymer battery.
Quick, anyone --what's the energy density of gasoline, for comparison?
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like fuel cells still have a long way to go. Gasoline has an energy density of 32 MJ/l.
Hydrogen fuel cells are a red herring (Score:2)
Hydrogen fuel cells, filling stations simply don't make sense in comparison.
Re:yawn..... (Score:4, Funny)
For that matter.... (Score:2)
{...shhh!, not everybody got that....}
Re: (Score:2)