Automotive Gasoline Fuel Cells: Energy, Weight & Efficiency

AI Thread Summary
Gasoline fuel cells are being explored as an alternative to traditional internal combustion engines, with potential efficiencies around 60%, compared to 25% for gas engines. The discussion highlights that while gasoline fuel cells could theoretically release more energy than combustion, practical challenges such as fuel cell longevity and waste management complicate their viability. The existing gasoline infrastructure offers an advantage for fuel cells using liquid hydrocarbons, which have a greater energy density than gaseous fuels. However, the efficiency and practicality of gasoline fuel cells depend on various factors, including the complexity of reactions and the management of byproducts. Overall, while gasoline fuel cells present an interesting option, significant hurdles remain before they can compete effectively with electric batteries or hydrogen fuel cells.
bbbl67
Messages
216
Reaction score
21
I understand that there is some research going on into gasoline (i.e. petrol) fuel cells (as opposed to the more typical hydrogen or alcohol fuel cells). How much energy can be released through a gasoline fuel cell, as opposed to simply burning it in an internal combustion engine? Will more energy be released or less than combustion? Also how much weight do fuel cell apparatuses usually weigh? Compared to an IC engine of course. Just looking for ballpark figures.

Just wondering if fuel cells would be more practical power sources for electric engines than batteries? And if so, how much efficiency can be expected? The reason I'm asking about gasoline fuel cells is because the infrastructure for gasoline already exists throughout the world. I'm pretty convinced that an electric engine is miles above an IC engine in terms of both performance and efficiency, so having cars driven by electric motors is the way to go from here on in, just it's a matter of whether batteries or fuel cells should be the power source?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
A fuel cell using a liquid hydrocarbon fuel has a great volume advantage over gaseous fuels. A 20 gallon tank with liquid fuel holds much more energy than 20 gallons of gas at modest pressures.

However, the actual efficiency of a fuel cell depends on many factors and IMO is too difficult to estimate without a lot more detail. A persisting problem in fuel cell design is not efficiency but lifetime. As the cell makes energy, the fuel leaves contaminants behind that foul the mechanisms. You would not be happy with an energy efficient fuel cell car if you had to buy a new fuel cell (costing $10000) every six months.

But try the chemistry yourself. If you removed all the hydrogen from gasoline, what are you left with as a waste product? How would you remove that waste from the cell? Then if you took all that hydrogen and combined it with oxygen in the fuel cell, how much energy is there to capture? When you have that answer, then just divide by 2 or 4 to account for real life imperfections and you have a back-of-the-envelope estimate of the efficiency.
 
anorlunda said:
A fuel cell using a liquid hydrocarbon fuel has a great volume advantage over gaseous fuels. A 20 gallon tank with liquid fuel holds much more energy than 20 gallons of gas at modest pressures.

However, the actual efficiency of a fuel cell depends on many factors and IMO is too difficult to estimate without a lot more detail. A persisting problem in fuel cell design is not efficiency but lifetime. As the cell makes energy, the fuel leaves contaminants behind that foul the mechanisms. You would not be happy with an energy efficient fuel cell car if you had to buy a new fuel cell (costing $10000) every six months.

But try the chemistry yourself. If you removed all the hydrogen from gasoline, what are you left with as a waste product? How would you remove that waste from the cell? Then if you took all that hydrogen and combined it with oxygen in the fuel cell, how much energy is there to capture? When you have that answer, then just divide by 2 or 4 to account for real life imperfections and you have a back-of-the-envelope estimate of the efficiency.
One thing I'm lost about is why would you need to remove the hydrogen from the gasoline? Couldn't you do a fuel-cell reaction with the whole molecule of petrol (or diesel, or kerosene, etc.)? I mean you'd end up with the same waste products as a regular air combustion of the fuel (carbon dioxide & water), but hopefully it would be a lot slower reaction, and therefore more efficient than internal combustion?
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell said:
slask.png
 

Attachments

  • slask.png
    slask.png
    12.6 KB · Views: 648
bbbl67 said:
How much energy can be released through a gasoline fuel cell, as opposed to simply burning it in an internal combustion engine?
Well, gas engines tend to run at about 25% efficiency and have complicated drivetrains. Fuel cells run on the order of 60% efficiency. So figure on around triple the output.
 
anorlunda said:
hydrogen fuel cell schematic
Well, sure, that's the case for a hydrogen fuel cell, where just hydrogen and oxygen goes in, and out comes water. But in a gasoline fuel cell you'll have other reactions too, like carbon and oxygen, can't you extract electric potential from those reactions too, and not just the hydrogen and oxygen ones?
 
russ_watters said:
Well, gas engines tend to run at about 25% efficiency and have complicated drivetrains. Fuel cells run on the order of 60% efficiency. So figure on around triple the output.
Well, that's why I was asking this question. But there are cases where a certain type of reaction is much more efficient than another type of reaction, yet it produces less power in the end. So would this be the case with a fuel cell vs. internal combustion engine? For example, in an IC engine, it's harnessing the heat energy of the fuel reaction. But in a FC, it's harnessing the movement of electrons. Is heat a more abundant source of energy than electrical potential in these reactions?
 
bbbl67 said:
from those reactions too,
"Air-garbage" fuel cells are possible in principle; the practice is another matter. The carbon oxidation is also described as a hydrogen reformer/steam reformer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming .
 
  • Like
Likes bbbl67
Bystander said:
"Air-garbage" fuel cells are possible in principle; the practice is another matter. The carbon oxidation is also described as a hydrogen reformer/steam reformer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming .
Can this be put into an ordinary sized passenger vehicle, or is this something that belongs in an industrial-scale refinery plant situation?
 
  • #10
It's industrial scale;
russ_watters said:
60% efficiency. So figure on around triple the output.
... , and divide by three for the hydrogen/steam reformer, and you're back to square one. Very attractive at first glance, and break-even at best when examined in detail.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #11
bbbl67 said:
Well, sure, that's the case for a hydrogen fuel cell, where just hydrogen and oxygen goes in, and out comes water. But in a gasoline fuel cell you'll have other reactions too, like carbon and oxygen, can't you extract electric potential from those reactions too, and not just the hydrogen and oxygen ones?

It's not impossible, but I haven't heard of any such fuel cell designs.

You have to consider the end products too. With a hydrogen cell, H combines with O to produce H2O (water) which can be drained onto the road. With other reactions, the end product might not be liquid or it may be polluting or toxic which means you would also need to carry a additional tank to hold the waste products. You also need a way to dispose of those wastes eventually.

I repeat what I said earlier, factors other than efficiency can dominate fuel cell practicality.
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
34
Views
4K
Replies
22
Views
4K
Replies
11
Views
22K
Replies
11
Views
16K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
6K
Back
Top