Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList
Thread
'[EE] Fuel Cell progress'
2005\04\21@003915
by
Russell McMahon
|
Latest news from fuel cell store.
Still a way to go.
http://fuelcellstore.com/cgi-bin/fuelweb/view=SearchResults/command=LogSearch?searchfor=ve100
Metal hydride storage of Hydrogen
http://www.fuelcellstore.com/cgi-bin/fuelweb/view=Item/cat=/product=382
At 1.65 kg full and 320 Watt-hour capacity that's 194 Wh/kg
That's poor compared to secondary battery technology such as
Li-Ion at now over 150 Wh/kg
Li-Sulfur at 250 Wh/kg
or even NimH at 100 ish Wh/kg
Compared to the eg thermal 14 kWh in LPG it's pathetic.
Diesel oil gives over 50% more!
A major problem is the hydrogen fuel and mass-inefficient hydride
storage.
A Stirling engine with say 50% thermal efficiency and 25% of Carnot
efficiency operating at 600C would give around 0.5 x 0.25 x
(600-300)/600 =~ 6% or 1200 Wh/kg from diesel with minimal extra mass
for fuel containment. That's 6 times better at VERY conservative
ratings. Double that would not be unreasonable. A Stirling engine with
100 watts maximum capacity would also be size and mass competitive
with the fuel cell.
I await sensible direct-Methanol fuel cells. Better still
direct-Diesel ! :-)
RM
2005\04\21@012723
by
Dave VanHorn
2005\04\21@040140
by
ThePicMan
|
At 16.33 2005.04.21 +1200, you wrote:
{Quote hidden}>Latest news from fuel cell store.
>Still a way to go.
>
>
http://fuelcellstore.com/cgi-bin/fuelweb/view=SearchResults/command=LogSearch?searchfor=ve100
>
>Metal hydride storage of Hydrogen
>
>
http://www.fuelcellstore.com/cgi-bin/fuelweb/view=Item/cat=/product=382
>
>At 1.65 kg full and 320 Watt-hour capacity that's 194 Wh/kg
>That's poor compared to secondary battery technology such as
> Li-Ion at now over 150 Wh/kg
> Li-Sulfur at 250 Wh/kg
> or even NimH at 100 ish Wh/kg
>
>Compared to the eg thermal 14 kWh in LPG it's pathetic.
>Diesel oil gives over 50% more!
>A major problem is the hydrogen fuel and mass-inefficient hydride storage.
>A Stirling engine with say 50% thermal efficiency and 25% of Carnot efficiency operating at 600C would give around 0.5 x 0.25 x (600-300)/600 =~ 6% or 1200 Wh/kg from diesel with minimal extra mass for fuel containment. That's 6 times better at VERY conservative ratings. Double that would not be unreasonable. A Stirling engine with 100 watts maximum capacity would also be size and mass competitive with the fuel cell.
>
>I await sensible direct-Methanol fuel cells. Better still direct-Diesel ! :-)
I await those nanodiodes that promise to produce 100% efficient electricity simply by cooling themselves. ;)
Remember to place a coldsink on them to heat them up!! =)
> RM
>
>
>
>-
2005\04\21@052848
by
William Chops Westfield
On Apr 20, 2005, at 9:33 PM, Russell McMahon wrote:
> I await sensible direct-Methanol fuel cells. Better still direct-Diesel
Direct ethanol would be handier, since you can go (self-fueled)
biological
processes most of the way. Or something that eats sugar...
BillW
2005\04\21@062916
by
Russell McMahon
>> I await sensible direct-Methanol fuel cells. Better still
>> direct-Diesel
> Direct ethanol would be handier, since you can go (self-fueled)
> biological
> processes most of the way. Or something that eats sugar...
I agree that direct Ethanol would be nice, but direct Methanol is what
people are working on as "the next big thing". I imagine the shorter /
smaller molecule has advantages. I think the "fuel" has to be
abnormally pure to avoid cell poisoning - whether Hydrogen or
Methanol. The methanol is also used quite dilute AFAIK do fuel mass is
annoying unless you have a process to dilute at point of use and to
recover water from the exhausted fuel. OK for large systems but not
nice for (wo)man portable use.
Methanol is not too hard to get from biological feedstock once the
bulk need for it is there. Destructive distillation of biomass will
produce Methanol, plus other interesting goo.
Stirling cycle engines still look reasonably attractive in the short
term.
RM
2005\04\21@105621
by
Stephen R Phillips
|
--- Russell McMahon <spam_OUTapptechTakeThisOuT
paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> Latest news from fuel cell store.
> Still a way to go.
>
>
>
fuelcellstore.com/cgi-bin/fuelweb/view=SearchResults/command=LogSearch?searchfor=ve100
>
> Metal hydride storage of Hydrogen
>
My father worked in the aero space industry eons ago (well decades).
Hydrides are very tricky and expensive to work with Uranium hydrides
quite nicely however it turns into a black finely divided powder
quickly. The price seems steep however if it's the only way to carry
power then I guess you're stuck huh? :)
>
>
www.fuelcellstore.com/cgi-bin/fuelweb/view=Item/cat=/product=382
{Quote hidden}>
> At 1.65 kg full and 320 Watt-hour capacity that's 194 Wh/kg
> That's poor compared to secondary battery technology such as
> Li-Ion at now over 150 Wh/kg
> Li-Sulfur at 250 Wh/kg
> or even NimH at 100 ish Wh/kg
>
> Compared to the eg thermal 14 kWh in LPG it's pathetic.
> Diesel oil gives over 50% more!
> A major problem is the hydrogen fuel and mass-inefficient hydride
> storage.
> A Stirling engine with say 50% thermal efficiency and 25% of Carnot
> efficiency operating at 600C would give around 0.5 x 0.25 x
> (600-300)/600 =~ 6% or 1200 Wh/kg from diesel with minimal extra
> mass
> for fuel containment. That's 6 times better at VERY conservative
> ratings. Double that would not be unreasonable. A Stirling engine
> with
> 100 watts maximum capacity would also be size and mass competitive
> with the fuel cell.
>
> I await sensible direct-Methanol fuel cells. Better still
> direct-Diesel ! :-)
Well the cells make sense they just haven't made a practical system
that fits within your budgetary desires :)
As for converting Diesel, you take long chain hydrocarbon compounds and
strip off JUST the hydrogen and see what you end up with LOL.
Seriously to convert desiel you would need a different kind of fuel
cell. You might be able to use a 2 teer fuel cell however, for example
molten carbonate and a platinum catalyst hydrogen fuel cell. The
molten carbonate consumes the carbon from the fuel and should just
leave the hydrogen. The hydrogen can then be converted with a hydrogen
fuel cell. Optimistically speaking of course, the hydrogen might
poison the molten calcium carbonate system, though it's unlikely. The
molten carbonate cell is used to convert low grade fuel to energy.
Things such as peet, lignite, and soft coal work well for example.
Have fun!
Stephen R. Phillips was here
Please be advised what was said may be absolutely wrong, and hereby this disclaimer follows. I reserve the right to be wrong and admit it in front of the entire world.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
2005\04\21@131928
by
Peter
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, William Chops Westfield wrote:
>
> On Apr 20, 2005, at 9:33 PM, Russell McMahon wrote:
>
>> I await sensible direct-Methanol fuel cells. Better still direct-Diesel
>
> Direct ethanol would be handier, since you can go (self-fueled) biological
> processes most of the way. Or something that eats sugar...
There already is one that 'eats sugar'. It's some enzyme that burns
sugar and produces very small amounts of electricity. There was an
article in an online magazine I read.
Peter
2005\04\28@063208
by
Howard Winter
Russell,
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:33:38 +1200, Russell McMahon
wrote:
> I await sensible direct-Methanol fuel cells. Better
still direct-Diesel ! :-)
The trouble with Diesel is all the byproducts of burning
it - with Hydrogen the only exhaust is water, of course.
Maybe you were joking, but I'm fairly sure a Diesel fuel
cell would not be viable...
Cheers,
Howard Winter
St.Albans, England
2005\04\28@063404
by
Howard Winter
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 02:28:45 -0700, William "Chops" Westfield wrote:
> On Apr 20, 2005, at 9:33 PM, Russell McMahon wrote:
>
> > I await sensible direct-Methanol fuel cells. Better still direct-Diesel
>
> Direct ethanol would be handier, since you can go (self-fueled) biological
> processes most of the way. Or something that eats sugar...
Yeast? Hey, I wonder if they'd allow a car that produces alcohol as a by-product? :-)
Cheers,
2005\04\28@082221
by
Russell McMahon
>> I await sensible direct-Methanol fuel cells. Better
> still direct-Diesel ! :-)
> The trouble with Diesel is all the byproducts of burning
> it - with Hydrogen the only exhaust is water, of course.
> Maybe you were joking, but I'm fairly sure a Diesel fuel
> cell would not be viable...
I was largely joking - but also with reference to Stirling Engines
noting that THEY will run entirely happily on diesel. The diesel can
be combusted in whatever way suits you and can be reasonably green if
desired. A fuel cell isn't going to be the answer to everything until
it is able to happily munch on about any available bio product or
anything else that can be oxidised and use air as the other input.
Plants and animals suggest that it may even be possible :-)
RM
2005\04\28@090714
by
Martin McCormick
|
"Howard Winter" writes:
>The trouble with Diesel is all the byproducts of burning
>it - with Hydrogen the only exhaust is water, of course.
>Maybe you were joking, but I'm fairly sure a Diesel fuel
>cell would not be viable...
When I have read articles on this subject, they mention a sort
of chemical reactor that extracts hydrogen from whatever fuel is
being used. The hydrogen runs the fuel cell and then there's all
this muck you get from what's left. My big question is Wouldn't that
be just as bad or worse than the smoke from conventional combustion?
Assuming the chemical reactor extracts hydrogen, there is
still sulphur, carbon and no telling what else that was part of the
Diesel fuel.
The same statements apply to gasoline and alcohols. What do
you have left after extracting the hydrogen and what could you
do with it?
There have been discussions at least in the press of using
various petroleum products and a chemical reactor device to extract
hydrogen to transition from petroleum-based fueling systems to some
method of directly using, storing and transporting hydrogen in the
future.
Martin McCormick WB5AGZ Stillwater, OK
OSU Information Technology Division Network Operations Group
2005\04\28@102326
by
Dave VanHorn
> There have been discussions at least in the press of using
>various petroleum products and a chemical reactor device to extract
>hydrogen to transition from petroleum-based fueling systems to some
>method of directly using, storing and transporting hydrogen in the
>future.
Takes energy to break those bonds, so it would seem hard to run this
at a net profit.
2005\04\28@111211
by
Russell McMahon
>> There have been discussions at least in the press of using
>>various petroleum products and a chemical reactor device to extract
>>hydrogen to transition from petroleum-based fueling systems to some
>>method of directly using, storing and transporting hydrogen in the
>>future.
> Takes energy to break those bonds, so it would seem hard to run this
> at a net profit.
If there's a net gain from combustion with air you should be able to
replace the burning process with a "fuel cell" reaction. Probably far
less net energy though.
RM
2005\04\28@152513
by
Peter
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Russell McMahon wrote:
> that THEY will run entirely happily on diesel. The diesel can be combusted in
> whatever way suits you and can be reasonably green if desired. A fuel cell
> isn't going to be the answer to everything until it is able to happily munch
> on about any available bio product or anything else that can be oxidised and
> use air as the other input. Plants and animals suggest that it may even be
> possible :-)
Why would you expect a fuel cell to be able to burn anything when no
furnace or engine can ? And burning stuff in a smoky open heart and high
efficiency combustion are two different things.
Peter
2005\04\28@201042
by
Russell McMahon
>> ... A fuel cell isn't going to be the answer to everything until it
>> is able to happily munch on about any available bio product or
>> anything else that can be oxidised and use air as the other input.
>> Plants and animals suggest that it may even be possible :-)
> Why would you expect a fuel cell to be able to burn anything when no
> furnace or engine can ? And burning stuff in a smoky open heart and
> high efficiency combustion are two different things.
It's not that I EXPECT it to happen any time soon, it's just, as I
said, that it isn't the universal answer until it can. At the present
rate of progress I'd expect to see something that works OK any time in
the next 100 to 200 years :-)
And fwiw, most things biological can be burnt surprisingly well with
appropriate fluidised bed technology. And most things biological act
quite well as energy feedstock using eg a duck or a goat. We just
haven't caught up with the state of the art yet :-)
RM
'[EE] Fuel Cell progress'
2005\05\02@113128
by
William Chops Westfield
On Apr 28, 2005, at 6:07 AM, Martin McCormick wrote:
> The same statements apply to gasoline and alcohols. What do you have
> left after extracting the hydrogen and what could you do with it?
>
The direct methanol and direct ethanol fuel cells apparently get energy
from the C + O --> CO2 route as well as the hydrogen oxidation. At
least,
they manage to oxidize the carbon and get rid of it...
BillW
2005\05\03@093054
by
Mike Hord
|
> >> I await sensible direct-Methanol fuel cells. Better
> > still direct-Diesel ! :-)
>
> > The trouble with Diesel is all the byproducts of burning
> > it - with Hydrogen the only exhaust is water, of course.
> > Maybe you were joking, but I'm fairly sure a Diesel fuel
> > cell would not be viable...
>
> I was largely joking - but also with reference to Stirling Engines
> noting that THEY will run entirely happily on diesel. The diesel can
> be combusted in whatever way suits you and can be reasonably green if
> desired. A fuel cell isn't going to be the answer to everything until
> it is able to happily munch on about any available bio product or
> anything else that can be oxidised and use air as the other input.
> Plants and animals suggest that it may even be possible :-)
Funny, this. In the dentist's office yesterday morn, I found a paragraph
in a sidebar suggesting that a research group from a University
(Northwestern?) is working on a diesel fuel cell to power accessories
for truckers, to reduce emmissions when they pull over at night. It
was in the May issue of Popular Science.
Google for "diesel fuel cell" reveals 650+ hits; remove the quotes and
it jumps to 700,000+.
Mike H.
2005\05\03@104102
by
Russell McMahon
>> >> I await sensible direct-Methanol fuel cells. Better
>> > still direct-Diesel ! :-)
> Funny, this. In the dentist's office yesterday morn, I found a
> paragraph
> in a sidebar suggesting that a research group from a University
> (Northwestern?) is working on a diesel fuel cell to power
> accessories
> for truckers, to reduce emmissions when they pull over at night. It
> was in the May issue of Popular Science.
>
> Google for "diesel fuel cell" reveals 650+ hits; remove the quotes
> and
> it jumps to 700,000+.
Alas they all seem to be taking the path of reforming the Diesel to
produce Hydrogen and proceeding from there. It's a start though.
RM
More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2005
, 2006 only
- Today
- New search...
