Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Wed 07/16/2008 View Tue 07/15/2008 View Mon 07/14/2008 View Sun 07/13/2008 View Sat 07/12/2008 View Fri 07/11/2008 View Thu 07/10/2008
1
2008-07-16 Science & Technology
Platinum-Free Carbon Catalyst For Fuel Cells Invented
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Anonymoose 2008-07-16 14:00|| || Front Page|| [4 views ]  Top

#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||   2008-07-16 14:46|| Front Page Top

#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||   2008-07-16 15:10|| Front Page Top

#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||   2008-07-16 15:29|| Front Page Top

#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||   2008-07-16 15:32|| Front Page Top

#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">Barbara Skolaut  2008-07-16 15:37|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/]  2008-07-16 15:37|| Front Page Top

#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||   2008-07-16 15:47|| Front Page Top

#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||   2008-07-16 16:53|| Front Page Top

#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||   2008-07-16 16:58|| Front Page Top

#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||   2008-07-16 17:15|| Front Page Top

#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||   2008-07-16 17:36|| Front Page Top

#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||   2008-07-16 18:36|| Front Page Top

23:53 Jan
23:48 Jan
23:39 tipper
23:34 Jan
23:20 Redneck Jim
23:20 Angemp Ghibelline7503
23:11 Angemp Ghibelline7503
23:10 Angemp Ghibelline7503
23:08 Cyber Sarge
23:00 Cyber Sarge
22:29 Odysseus
22:26 Hank
22:17 Red Dawg
22:06 Abu do you love
22:04 Red Dawg
21:52 Ptah
21:40 Old Patriot
21:33 Frank G
21:29 Frank G
21:26 Eric Jablow
21:16 Steve White
21:14 john frum
21:07 john frum
21:06 Frank G









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com