| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Platinum-Free Carbon Catalyst For Fuel Cells Invented |
| 2008-07-16 |
| Nisshinbo Industries Inc. has worked with the Tokyo Institute of Technology to develop the technology to use carbon instead of expensive platinum as the electrode catalyst for fuel cells. The company hopes to have a practical version of the new catalyst ready in fiscal 2009, and will start by commercializing a product for the electrodes of residential fuel cells. Later, it will develop and commercialize a version for automotive fuel cells. In a fuel cell, the catalyst promotes the oxidation-reducing reactions at the electrodes that lead to the generation of electricity from the hydrogen fuel and oxygen in the air. Platinum is now used as the catalyst, but high demand and unstable supplies from main producer South Africa have driven prices sky-high. A 1kw-class residential fuel cell uses several grams of platinum and a 150kw-class automotive fuel cell uses around 60 grams, which at current prices adds 400,000 yen (US$3,762) to the cost of a car. The carbon catalyst promises to remove this cost barrier, which along with the needed infrastructure for hydrogen filling stations is a major roadblock to the adoption of fuel cells for homes and cars. The new catalyst is made from nanospheres of carbon. For practical purposes as a fuel cell catalyst, 10 times more carbon is required than platinum; but even in this larger volume, the cost is just a 10th that of using platinum. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #11 A suitcase is huge. 6MJ is the energy in 21 oz of gasoline. The problem with capacitors is their low breakdown voltage (a few hundred volts) limits the energy density (e=1/2*C*V^2). Good for explosive power, not good for primary energy storage. EEstor is claiming their process will work at a 3500 volts (10 times the voltage and 100 times the energy density of today's ultracaps) and even exceed Li-ion battery energy density, yet no product has been publicly demonstrated. I will remain highly skeptical that it ever will be. Here (pdf) you can see a 5.6MJ (1.562kwH) Li-ion battery that looks like a car large car battery (12.2x6.8x9.2 in) and weighs 41 pounds. Not to mention much safer than any ultra-capacitor. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-07-16 18:36 |
| #10 ed: Batteries are old tech. Future apps are for capacitors, which have all the goodness of batteries and more. They have much better charge-discharge curves, much less weight, and are naturals with nanotech. Do a google on advanced capacitors. The military has one the size of a suitcase that can hold something like 6MJoules. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-07-16 17:36 |
| #9 Problem with hydrogen is this: hydrogen is an energy carrier, not an energy source. We have no hydrogen wells and no hydrogen mines, and so have to make hydrogen. We can electrolyze sea water or we can breakdown methane. The first requires huge amounts of electricity, the second requires lots and lots of natural gas. Nuclear power would generate the electricity for electrolysis but that's expensive (for now). Fuel cells are interesting but until we have a cheap source for hydrogen are likely not practical. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2008-07-16 17:15 |
| #8 Hydrogen needs electricity for it's creation but it could be used as a storage system to for wind and solar when they are going (same as batteries) and a supplement to the grid when they are not. As far as in-home use goes there are safety considerations w/r hydrogen and it's distribution systems. I would hate to be the one to dig up a hydrogen line to my house or have a hydrogen leak to the fuel cells. BANG!! |
| Posted by: tipover 2008-07-16 16:58 |
| #7 Compare battery life and weight to fuel cells. Consider the effect of large numbers of nuclear plants. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-07-16 16:53 |
| #6 You or your grandkids won't be driving hydrogen powered cars. Starting w/ electricity, making hydrogen and converting it back to electricity gives you 25-30% efficiency. That does not even take into account the very expensive means to transport hydrogen. Direct thermal decomposition of water will up the efficiency, but fuel cells will never approach battery efficiency. Compare that to 80% efficiency for battery storage, including the losses from the power plant to the home. Fuel cells make marginally more sense in cold climate homes when fueled by nat gas where the waste heat is used for heating and hot water. The rub is that there is not enough nat gas to make this a standard in home construction. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-07-16 15:47 |
| #5 "unstable supplies from main producer South Africa" This could also take money out of Zimbabwe-ass-kissing South Africa's hands. Lagniappe.... :-D |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2008-07-16 15:37 |
| #4 Carbon nanotubes can also super strengthen very thin layers of metals, making possible ultr-lightweight vehicles that use less gas besides space applications. Necessity is the "mother of invention". |
| Posted by: Danielle 2008-07-16 15:32 |
| #3 I want want for home use. Add 20K (cost plus service contract) to my house price to be completely free of the grid? I'd say yes. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-07-16 15:29 |
| #2 You're correct OS, this is HUGE. The 5KW 'home version' (1KW is a tad 'wimpy') of these units was currently projected to run $18K-$24K ($4+/watt approx.) or better plus installation. This discovery possibly could cut that in third or better by my guess, thereby making it affordable for most homeowners (still not free, though, along with the flying cars they promised us when we were kids). |
| Posted by: Mullah Richard 2008-07-16 15:10 |
| #1 This is potentially HUGE. House and car fuel cell. No need for losses in the grid, no need for petroleum. Just big nukes to produce the hydrogen and grid power for base load by business. Imagine a community where the only "wires" are buried fiber optics. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-07-16 14:46 |