Hydrogen Fuel Cell Batteries

[XenonM3]

Link

I wonder how long till we start using these cells in our flashlights.

 

[XenonM3]

Here is another link

 

[cobb]

We will have these when there is peace in the middle east, our troops are out of iraq and afgan, everyone has a 52 inch digital HD tv and they have 100 watt LED stars for sale.

 

[bfg9000]

One of the four fuel-cell manufacturers mentioned in the article demonstrated it at IDF yesterday, and announced the Army will be testing them for military contracts this year: http://www.gizmag.com/go/5325/

Supplies 2.7A at 7.2v for 9 hours between refills. Not enough to run that hundred watt star.

 

[jtr1962]

My guess is before these hit the consumer market either chemical batteries or ultracapacitors will have caught up in power density. It's one thing to use these for military applications, but I'm less than thrilled at the idea of consumers handling methanol. And the idea of explosive hydrogen in automotive fuel cells pretty much makes that idea a non-starter.

I think a better idea is a nuclear battery with a low, steady current which charges a standard rechargeable cell for high-current demands. Probably too expensive to be suitable for things like flashlights, but it might be ideal for automotive use. It can be sealed in a case to protect it from rupture in any possible accident scenario, plus it would mean vehicles you never have to refuel or recharge. And it provides a use for all that low-level radioactive waste from nuclear power plants which is currently doing nothing but heating up pools of water.

 

[gunspepper]

I'll take one!

 

[bfg9000]

The "highly concentrated methanol" is only 67% so it's essentially diluted windshield washer concentrate without the soap, not even as much methanol as M85 fuel. Using the Gilette razor business model would allow selling the fuel cell below cost in exchange for the consumer cartridges being disposable/nonrefillable. The printer ink cartridge refillers should then have a new market to tap.

I don't think I'd be thrilled at the idea of consumers buying radioactive waste. And yikes, I can see it in the news now: not just a "car bomb" but a "dirty (car) bomb."

 

[HarryN]

Methanol is more of a health hazard that amost any other alcohol, regardless of concentration. It is one of the few common alcohols that can be absorbed through the skin and causes remarkably quick blindness. I know it is used to dewater gasoline in the winter, but it really is not great stuff. Military wise, anything can work in that market.

Hydrogen for car use will make people long for the days of the relative safety of gasoline.

jtr1962 - yup.

 

[BatteryCharger]

Toshiba said its 100-milliwatt version is similar in shape and size to a pack of gum and can power a flash-based player for approximately 35 hours on a single 3.5-milliliter charge.

100 miliwatts? That's a pretty pathetic flashlight. I'll stick to 18650s.

 

[Melchior]

Only ~100 years ago lead-acid batterys weighed many pounds, and probably sucked for power output as well. Still going to stick to that old reliable Oil lantern eh?

The Fuel Cells benefits arn't extremely high engergy density (like petrolium) or high efficiency (like supercaps), but the fact they do not vent toxic gasses, are light-weight and can be easily recharged while running. Also storage wise they should last nearly forever.
Also they arn't (too) bad for the environment.

Fuel cells really lack that high amperage draw capacity, also they are low voltage.
Perfect to keep that supercap charged up for the heavy surges. Sounds like a perfect choice for Laptop computers, and portable electronics.

I understand the storage problems are mostly worked out now, nobody makes the fuel(s) in sufficient quanities yet. (Its a 'Catch-22')

Edit: Also
http://www.voller-energy.com/products.asp
I know 100 Watts @ 3 hours is not exactly great, but... would you put a diesel generator in your house?

Think of Fuel cells like this; they are ENGINES, NOT BATTERIES.

 

[Mike Painter]

Hydrogen for car use will make people long for the days of the relative safety of gasoline.

MAybe for the cost of gas but I don't see it as any great danger. A gas tank will rupture far more easily than a cylinder designed to hold hydrogen and hydrogen will be much less likely to cause a fire or explosion than gasoline.
Accidental car fires are very, very rare and usually confined to the engine compartment.
As for explosions, those are pretty much limited to movies and require lots of gas in plastic containers and explosive devices to set them off.
In real life when a gas tank goes it is heard as a slightly louder "wooosh" over the sound of the rest of the fire. Heard but not seen.

 

[HarryN]

Mike - you might be interested to know that firms like Cree and Lumileds use a LOT of H2, and I can tell you, they worry about H2 a LOT. Firms like Intel have gone to great bother to keep H2 use out of their production facilities for a reason - the probability of an "event" is high, and semi producers are used to having a lot of nasty stuff around.

I am all for alternative energy generation / use / storage, but IMHO, H2 is way more dangerous than gasoline for consumer use.

 

[Melchior]

Indeed, its possible that pure Hydrogen gas Fuel cells will never see commercial use.


Methanol reformers on the other hand are just around the corner.
Thats just the tip of the iceberg in fuels, Fuel cells can be made to run off nearly anything.

 

[Mike Painter]

Mike - you might be interested to know that firms like Cree and Lumileds use a LOT of H2, and I can tell you, they worry about H2 a LOT. Firms like Intel have gone to great bother to keep H2 use out of their production facilities for a reason - the probability of an "event" is high, and semi producers are used to having a lot of nasty stuff around.

I am all for alternative energy generation / use / storage, but IMHO, H2 is way more dangerous than gasoline for consumer use.

How many H2 incidents have happened in this industry and the chance of an incident is high compared to what?

There is no evidence to support that H2 is more dangerous but natural gas and LPG are not considered very dangerous to the consumer and they have a much higher potential for explosion and fire.

There have only been two or three BLEVE's (Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapour Explosion) in the last 20 years and the film that most fire fighters have seen involved the use of C4 because they could not get the tank to explode even after they wielded the overpressure valves shut.

Gasoline vapors are heavier than air, H2 is not.

 

[HarryN]

Hi Mike - I don't know the number of incidents per "end user system" compared to another common material used, isopropanal, which is closer to gasoline in properties.

I am very confident in saying that despite your correct observation that H2 should rise quickly and dissipate, making it seem much less likely to be involved in incidents, this is definitely not the case. I can say that firms which buy equipment for use with H2 assume that they absolutely will have at least some kind of explosion periodically, no matter what safety features are put in place.

 

[Mike Painter]

Hi Mike - I don't know the number of incidents per "end user system" compared to another common material used, isopropanal, which is closer to gasoline in properties.

I am very confident in saying that despite your correct observation that H2 should rise quickly and dissipate, making it seem much less likely to be involved in incidents, this is definitely not the case. I can say that firms which buy equipment for use with H2 assume that they absolutely will have at least some kind of explosion periodically, no matter what safety features are put in place.

You may well be extremely confident but with no evidence to support your belief it is just that.
I assume that I will absolutely be exposed to all kinds of evil things every time I walk into a house to take care of somebody. I'm prepared even though it hasn't happened to me, nor to anyone I know.

I watched a PG&E worker climb into a ditch with natural gas blowing out a line. He banged and hammered for a few minutes and did not take *any* safety precaution (while we stood in the hot sun with full tunouts on) until the line was almost secure, then he grounded his tools.
Had that been gasoline it would have been an insane act.


We KNOW that at every level gasoline is *FAR* more dangerous than LPG.
Roll an LPG tanker down a hill and you will probably have a wrecked truck. Worse case a valve will break and there will be a fire that is easy to control.
Do that with a gasoline transport and the probibility of there not being a major explosion is almost zero.

 

[HarryN]

Hi Mike - you are right, I am not presenting solid, engineering evidence to back my claims. I have chosen not to present this evidence because the incidents I am aware of are not appropriate to discuss in a public forum like this. I am not going to comment more on that, and yes, I know that makes my statement less valid - ok.

Please remember that unlike LPG, H2 is able to actually pass through the walls of many containment vessels and pipes. Even cryogenically and adsorbtion based H2 storage requires continuous venting, which is not a requirement for gasoline. There are a number of other technical factors, such as the concentration range of H2 under which it will ignite, as well as the flame velocities which make H2 quite impressive.

I think there is a definite place for commerical size facilities with H2 generators / fuel cells as a way to store off peak electricity for peak use, I am just skeptical of its use as a methane / natural gas replacement, or a consumer friendly fuel. Of course, I am not an expert in this area, and there are lots of firms trying to make money in this area, so maybe I am completely off base.

OTOH, I will buy just about anything, and I won't be buying H2 powered anything.

 

[gadget_lover]

It's not the explosive nature of the gas that bothers me, it's the high pressure tanks that will store it. I've seen video of a scuba compressed air tank letting loose at only 3000 PSI. It's impressive. I don't want to see a tank rupture with 5000 PSI or more.

I'm also not wild about the waste from the fuel cells. All of them create liquid waste of some sort. Sometimes it's just water, but that assumes you are feeding the fuel cell pure oxygen and not plain air. Once you add all the atmospheric trace elements the waste becomes.... different. Some of the reforming processes have ugly waste.

I'm satisfied without fuel cells. The oft maligned storage battery has made much bigger strides in the last decade.

Daniel

 

[Lightmeup]

Here's an interesting article I ran across today about some Scots that have developed a car using a hydrogen fuel cell that is charged using wind turbine energy, thus making it nondependent upon fossil fuel to create the hydrogen.

http://www.sundayherald.com/54479

 

[gadget_lover]

The Scots have rediscovered electrolysis. Imagine what they will do when they discover batteries???



Seriously, they have an energy rich area with no demand. The national grid is apparently draging their feet (a ten year wait for a grid tie???) and does not want their energy. In their case, any energy storage method, no matter how inefficient and expensive, is better than none.

In other areas, excess energy has been stored by pumping water into hydro-electric dams and by using storage batteries. Both had better efficiency than the electrolysis -> fuel cell cycle.