What happened to fuel-cell technology?

  • Thread starter rogerk8
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Technology
In summary, the conversation discusses the current state and potential of fuel-cell technology, particularly in the automotive and material handling industries. While there is interest and growth in the industry, there are still challenges such as high costs and the need for infrastructure development. The conversation also touches on the comparison between fuel cells and batteries, with a focus on the material handling market where fuel cells have shown promise in providing a more efficient and cost-effective power source.
  • #36
Wind plants require a LOT of concrete, due to this they start with a CO2 deposit that takes years to climb out of.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #37
My idea was originally to make all those wind-mills that already are placed near the sea to produce hydrogen via electrolysis instead of electrical power (while they are so inefficient anyway).

I have however understood that those wind-mills will not suffice for my vision of future need for hydrogensubstitution of oil. This was naive in the first place.

With the aid of nuclear plants my vision however holds. I say that we should build as many nuclear plants as we can while waiting for fusion power to work. Which it will. There's no doubt in my mind.

Please keep in mind that there is such things as transmutation reactors http://www.frc.gatech.edu/Transmutation-Reactors.html that actually can make nuclear waste less hazardous.

Because let's face it, I read somewhere that China builds one coal plant every week. I can bet that they do not filter the exhaust whatsoever.

But that's China, right? Wrong, we only have one atmosphere!

And we can't demand that China, like all other developing coutries, may not become industrialized like we are, right?

So what to do? The way we are living right now simply do not hold in the long run. And the generations to come will suffer from our lack of responsibility if we don't do anything about it!

Roger
PS
I say that right now the only sensible power source is nuclear plants. And regarding the transportation sector I really hope for fuel cells.
 
  • #38
mfb said:
You cannot stop transporting things. If you just replace the power plants, you still burn 80% of the fuel of today (plus something to account for the increasing demand for transportation).

I recognize that, as a practical matter, the current transportation system is overwhelmingly dependent on liquid fuels.

However the OP referenced an article that implies replacement of oil is ruled out not by practicality and economics but on the physics of the energy tally. The article implies nuclear power (among other alternatives) is inadequate to the task. In so doing that (http://spectrum.ieee.org/images/jan07/images/ncmo01.gif) article goes too far. First, it erroneously compares primary and secondary energy. Second, it misleads in comparing the production of the global oil industry to a different, piecemeal standard for alternatives.

Finally, if the argument is to be a theoretical one of counting joules as per the IEEE article , then there's little or nothing physically intrinsic to transportation that can not also be accomplished by, say, nuclear power plants charging batteries or synthesizing methane, etc, etc.
 
Last edited:
  • #39
mheslep said:
Finally, if the argument is to be a theoretical one of counting joules as per the IEEE article , then there's little or nothing physically intrinsic to transportation that can not also be accomplished by, say, nuclear power plants charging batteries or synthesizing methane, etc, etc.
I think that is the idea. And you would need a lot of power plants to do so. Sure, batteries plus electric motors are more efficient than current cars (as the power plants are rated by their electric output, as far as I see), but that does not change the main conclusion.
 
  • #40
rogerk8 said:
My idea was originally to make all those wind-mills that already are placed near the sea to produce hydrogen via electrolysis instead of electrical power (while they are so inefficient anyway).

The problem with electrolyzing seawater is that you can't just split the water molecules apart. You also split the salts apart (primarily sodium chloride), which makes for some nasty waste products. If you want to avoid this unfortunate outcome, you have to purify the seawater first, which adds a lot of additional energy input into the process.
 
  • #41
mfb said:
I think that is the idea. And you would need a lot of power plants to do so. Sure, batteries plus electric motors are more efficient than current cars (as the power plants are rated by their electric output, as far as I see), but that does not change the main conclusion.

The IEEE article didn't make a concise conclusion. Instead the article implied a conclusion based on some hand waiving and a faulty comparison (inputs to outputs): a 'cubic mile' of oil is a huge iconic irreplaceable figure requiring some unreachable number of power plants ("a lot" if you like) so move along, can not be done, nothing more to discuss.

As established, most oil use, especially in the US, goes to transportation. US miles driven is 3.1x10^12. Replacing all of it with an all electric fleet at 300 Wh/mile requires 106 GW average power delivered, or ~112 GW generated at the bus bar before transmission. The US has at least twice that much average power plant capacity idled, today. Or, if you like, don't use the idled capacity and double the number of US nuclear plants.

Building another hundred plus US nuclear capacity might be politically difficult, impossible, etc, which is certainly arguable. But one can not argue the required nuclear plants are physically untenable, as IEEE implies, since visibly that fleet has been built once already with 1970's technology.
 
  • #42
SteamKing said:
The problem with electrolyzing seawater is that you can't just split the water molecules apart. You also split the salts apart (primarily sodium chloride), which makes for some nasty waste products. If you want to avoid this unfortunate outcome, you have to purify the seawater first, which adds a lot of additional energy input into the process.

Though a small fraction of the current fresh water withdrawal (<<1%) would suffice to generate sufficient hydrogen to replace oil (joule for joule), not that hydrogen, as is, would be a practical substitute for current liquid fuels.
 
Last edited:
  • #43
Integral said:
Wind plants require a LOT of concrete, due to this they start with a CO2 deposit that takes years to climb out of.

Years? Apparently a common 1.5 MW turbine requires http://windsystemsmag.com/article/detail/48/concrete-proof-the-majestic-wind-farm for its foundation, which at ~400 lbs CO2 per yd3 of concrete is ~60 tons of CO2 per turbine.

The power from a common coal plant produces 8.5 thousand tons of CO2 per MW per year (3.5x106 tons/year/600MW @69% capacity factor). If the wind turbine is used to displace coal power, a 1.5 MW turbine at 30% capacity factor displaces ~4 thousand tons-CO2 per year, i.e., the turbine pays off its 60 ton CO2-from-cement debt in 6 days of operation.
 
  • #44
SteamKing said:
The problem with electrolyzing seawater is that you can't just split the water molecules apart. You also split the salts apart (primarily sodium chloride), which makes for some nasty waste products. If you want to avoid this unfortunate outcome, you have to purify the seawater first, which adds a lot of additional energy input into the process.

Interesting but then you could use part of the wind-mill power or the nuclear plants to purify the water first.
 
  • #45
mfb said:
The plastic tank is safer than hydrogen under pressure. It won't explode (as we are not in a movie). A burning car is bad, but an exploding car is worse.
I missed this earlier. A gasoline tank won't explode? You mean it won't explode from pressure as would a structurally failed 3000 psi tank (with whatever inside)? Yes I recognize gasoline needs to be vapor and mixed w/ O2 to explode (as does H2), but there's no need for movie fiction to demonstrate exploding gasoline tanks.
 
  • #46
Car fires are rare enough - I'm not sure I've ever heard of a car explosion happening in real life.
 
  • #47
russ_watters said:
Car fires are rare enough - I'm not sure I've ever heard of a car explosion happening in real life.
http://www.nfpa.org/research/fire-statistics/the-us-fire-problem/highway-vehicle-fires in the US. Used to be half a million decades ago.
 
  • #48
mheslep said:
http://www.nfpa.org/research/fire-statistics/the-us-fire-problem/highway-vehicle-fires in the US. Used to be half a million decades ago.

Keep clicking and you find the breakdown by cause:
http://www.nfpa.org/~/media/Files/Research/Fact sheets/vehiclefactsheet.pdf

Only 3% are due to collisions; 5% are due to other fires; 8% are intentional.

That leaves 72% due to mechanical or electrical failures/malfunctions.

And then there is the Tesla ... three complete burnouts in the last few months.
 
  • #49
And mechaniccal/electrical failures and malfunctions are usually not in the gasoline tank.
Sure, if a tank gets damaged, and there is a fire, this is really bad (but still without an exploding tank). Well, in that case hydrogen is not better.
 
  • #50
UltrafastPED said:
Keep clicking and you find the breakdown by cause:
...
The only relevant point would be fires that did not involve the fuel tank, regardless of the cause. Other components might burn, but no fuel tank, no gasoline/diesel fire.
 
  • #51
mfb said:
(but still without an exploding tank).
No explosion based on what? Sure explosions are over dramatized in movies but that does not mean gasoline vapors in or escaping from a tank can not explode.
 
  • #52
There is a huge difference between a small amount of fuel leaking somewhere and burning or exploding, and a full tank of gasoline exploding.

Anyway... you are claiming that something is possible (exploding cars without additional explosives or extremely special circumstances), please find a reference for that.
 
  • #53
mheslep said:
http://www.nfpa.org/research/fire-statistics/the-us-fire-problem/highway-vehicle-fires in the US. Used to be half a million decades ago.
Without knowing how many accidents there are a year, I cat say if that is rare or not, but it is more than I expected. Still, as pointed out, that wasn't the claim you should be sourcing.

Mythbusters did an episode on this. Their results indicate explosions are near impossible.
 
  • #54
mfb said:
There is a huge difference between a small amount of fuel leaking somewhere and burning or exploding, and a full tank of gasoline exploding.
I don't assert that 100% of a gasoline tank would explode. Heck it is hard enough to achieve perfect combustion in a cylinder designed for combustion. I don't think any flammable will completely explode unless it is somehow premixed with oxygen, and that goes for H2 as well. What I do expect is that whatever small amount gasoline vapor exists above the liquid fuel will ignite and burn rapidly given an opportunity, leading likely to more spillage of liquid fuel which will also burn if more slowly. Does that assumption require a source?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgOxWPGsJNY

A few years ago somebody did a comparison of an H2 versus a gasoline based car fire, short description here:
http://www.hydrogenandfuelcellsafety.info/resources/Swain-H2-Car-Video-Description.pdf [Broken]
Photos in the appendix.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #55
mheslep said:
Does that assumption require a source?
It does:
russ_watters said:
Mythbusters did an episode on this. Their results indicate explosions are near impossible.
The results indicate even more: An open tank can continue to burn, but the fire does not get larger.
 
  • #56
mfb said:
It does:

The results indicate even more: An open tank can continue to burn, but the fire does not get larger.
:confused: All I'm claiming is that fire damage can occur on the order of the video I provided above, how 'explosive' that may be I have no idea, and doesn't matter much with respect to the assertion that started this discussion, "The plastic tank is safer than hydrogen under pressure. It won't explode (as we are not in a movie). A burning car is bad, but an exploding car is worse." As far as I can tell that statement is dogma.
 
  • #57
mheslep said:
:confused: All I'm claiming is that fire damage can occur on the order of the video I provided above, how 'explosive' that may be I have no idea, and doesn't matter much with respect to the assertion that started this discussion, "The plastic tank is safer than hydrogen under pressure. It won't explode (as we are not in a movie). A burning car is bad, but an exploding car is worse." As far as I can tell that statement is dogma.
That's a burning car, it is not an explosion.

Anyway, this discussion gets pointless.
 
  • #58
I witnessed a fire in a pickup truck near my home. The first started small, then grew. At some point, the fuel must have ruptured because there was a poof (not a bang) and a big fire ball, followed by a huge fire. It seemed like a low grade explosion, but the truck itself did not explode or even move.

Fires and explosions are concerns for liquid fuel srorage/transport systems, and designers try to design storage tanks such that they do not explode. Vents and pressure relief valves are one way to mitigate vessel rupture or explosion. For explosive vapors, care must be taken to combust them or recycle them to avoid uncontrolled combutsion.
 
Last edited:
  • #59
Does anyone know where I can purchase a 1kw hydrogen fuel cell at the DOE price of $47/kw?

The only one I've found online costs $5685!

I have more experiments to do, in the not too distant future.
 
Last edited:
  • #60
OmCheeto said:
Does anyone know where I can purchase a 1kw hydrogen fuel cell at the DOE price of $47/kw?

The only one I've found online costs $5685!

I have more experiments to do, in the not too distant future.

The DOE did qualify that to be $47/kW for an 80kW cell in volume production of 500,000 units/yr.
So you may be looking for some extended period.

I'll take several, please, when you find them.
 
  • #61
etudiant said:
The DOE did qualify that to be $47/kW for an 80kW cell in volume production of 500,000 units/yr.
So you may be looking for some extended period.

I'll take several, please, when you find them.

yes. I saw the 500,000 units/yr figure. (economies of scale, blah, blah...)

hmmm...

I just checked out "HowStuffWorks" where someone described how to build one.
The link that allows you to buy platinum coated nickel: "You can order one online for 15 bucks." is dead.

I say conspiracy!

Though I see Platinum is in the same column of the periodic elements as Nickel.

I will never understand chemistry, nor Earthling economics:

Nickel:[/PLAIN] [Broken] $0.40/ounce
Platinum: $1453.00/ounce


:cry:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #62
Nickel 150 ppm on earth, platinum 0.005 ppm. Heavy elements are rare, especially compared to elements up to iron.
 
  • #63
jim hardy said:
Folks far removed from the energy industry generally don't grasp the scale.

The world uses around a cubic mile of oil per year.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3084 [Broken]

CMO.jpg


From http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/fossil-fuels/joules-btus-quadslets-call-the-whole-thing-off


,, "here" referring to this graphic from 'theoildrum'

ncmo01_0.gif


So start today building a hundred windmills every day.
At end of fifty years, if they last that long, you'd have built enough (about 1.6 million) that you could shut off the oil spigot. Well for today's usage anyway (actually 2006's).
But the first half million you built will be getting might rickety by then...
And that's a technology problem not a political one.

But to the subject of the thread -
Hydrogen is awful stuff to handle. I would not ride in the same car with a bottle of 3000 psi hydrogen .
I do like the fuel cell idea when coupled with H2 production by reducing water with aluminum.
http://www.alumifuelinternational.com/company.html [Broken]



old jim

Is this oil usage estimate strictly for fuel - or all uses?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #64
enosis_ said:
Is this oil usage estimate strictly for fuel - or all uses?
Does it matter? The non-fuel uses, chemical feed stocks and the like, are a relatively small fraction of the total.
 
<h2>1. What is fuel-cell technology?</h2><p>Fuel-cell technology is a type of renewable energy technology that converts chemical energy from a fuel, such as hydrogen, into electricity through an electrochemical reaction. It is considered a clean and efficient alternative to traditional fossil fuel sources.</p><h2>2. Why is fuel-cell technology important?</h2><p>Fuel-cell technology is important because it offers a sustainable and environmentally friendly source of energy. It also has the potential to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and help mitigate the effects of climate change.</p><h2>3. What happened to fuel-cell technology?</h2><p>Fuel-cell technology is still in development and has not yet been widely adopted as a mainstream energy source. However, there has been significant progress in research and development, and it is being used in certain applications such as transportation and power generation.</p><h2>4. What are the benefits of fuel-cell technology?</h2><p>Fuel-cell technology offers several benefits, including zero emissions, high efficiency, scalability, and versatility in terms of the types of fuels that can be used. It also has the potential to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and create new job opportunities in the renewable energy sector.</p><h2>5. What are the challenges facing fuel-cell technology?</h2><p>Some of the challenges facing fuel-cell technology include high production costs, limited infrastructure, and the need for a steady supply of hydrogen. There is also ongoing research and development to improve the durability and performance of fuel cells, as well as to find more efficient and cost-effective ways to produce and store hydrogen.</p>

1. What is fuel-cell technology?

Fuel-cell technology is a type of renewable energy technology that converts chemical energy from a fuel, such as hydrogen, into electricity through an electrochemical reaction. It is considered a clean and efficient alternative to traditional fossil fuel sources.

2. Why is fuel-cell technology important?

Fuel-cell technology is important because it offers a sustainable and environmentally friendly source of energy. It also has the potential to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and help mitigate the effects of climate change.

3. What happened to fuel-cell technology?

Fuel-cell technology is still in development and has not yet been widely adopted as a mainstream energy source. However, there has been significant progress in research and development, and it is being used in certain applications such as transportation and power generation.

4. What are the benefits of fuel-cell technology?

Fuel-cell technology offers several benefits, including zero emissions, high efficiency, scalability, and versatility in terms of the types of fuels that can be used. It also has the potential to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and create new job opportunities in the renewable energy sector.

5. What are the challenges facing fuel-cell technology?

Some of the challenges facing fuel-cell technology include high production costs, limited infrastructure, and the need for a steady supply of hydrogen. There is also ongoing research and development to improve the durability and performance of fuel cells, as well as to find more efficient and cost-effective ways to produce and store hydrogen.

Similar threads

  • Mechanical Engineering
Replies
2
Views
91
  • Nuclear Engineering
6
Replies
191
Views
5K
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
17
Views
4K
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • Materials and Chemical Engineering
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Electrical Engineering
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • General Engineering
3
Replies
96
Views
10K
Replies
42
Views
2K
  • Materials and Chemical Engineering
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • General Engineering
Replies
27
Views
3K
Back
Top