|
Wednesday, April 05, 2006 Cheaper Fuel CellsA new membrane makes fuel cells more powerful and less expensive to produce. By Kevin Bullis
Fuel cells still cost too much to be a viable alternative for internal combustion engines in cars -- they require expensive materials and are difficult to make. Now, according to results presented last week at the American Chemical Society meeting in Atlanta, a new, simple-to-produce material boosts the performance of fuel cells many times -- and could be a major step toward making them affordable. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill researchers who developed the new material say it can "dramatically outperform" the material now used to form fuel-cell membranes. Proton-exchange membranes are used in fuel cells to sort protons and electrons, by allowing the protons to pass through them from one electrode to the other, while blocking electrons and forcing them to travel between electrodes via an external circuit, powering a motor or other electronic device along the way. [To see images of the new material for fuel cells, click here.] The researchers say the new membrane conducts protons nearly three times as well as the currently used material, significantly improving power density. Also, unlike the current material, the new membrane can be easily molded into patterns to increase its surface area. By increasing the area by up to 60 percent, the researchers have further doubled the power density of a fuel cell. Joseph DeSimone, the UNC-Chapel Hill chemistry and chemical engineering professor who heads the lab where the work was done, thinks they can increase the membrane's surface area 20 to 40 times by using different patterns, increasing the power density proportionately. Such improvements in power density mean that a much smaller fuel cell could provide adequate power for a vehicle. The material is also easier to work with, which should reduce manufacturing costs. It begins as a liquid that can be poured over a patterned mold, something that's not possible with the material now primarily used in membranes, a fluorinated polymer called Nafion made by DuPont, which is solid at room temperature. Once in a mold, the liquid form of the new material is cured with light to form a resilient solid. "Fuel-cell cars are currently ten times as expensive as conventional cars," says James McGrath, chemistry professor at Virginia Tech. "A lot of that is related to processing. If you can simplify the processing, that would be great. Joe [DeSimone]'s liquid processing technique has a lot of potential for fabricating the intricate patterns necessary to produce a fuel cell." DeSimone says that a clearer idea of potential cost savings from their new material should be available within six months. And he expects that fuel cells using the membrane could be in production within two to three years.
|
Audio »
Share »
Digg this
Add to del.icio.us
Add to Reddit
Add to Facebook
Slashdot It!
Stumble It!
Add to Newsvine
Add to Connotea
Add to CiteUlike
Add to Furl
Googlize this
Add to Rojo
Add to MyWeb
Favorite
Print
E-mail
The Atomic Battery
06/16/2005
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Comments
Guest (Frantz Louis-Jacques) on 04/05/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Also why is this news not on the front page of the Wall Street Journal or the New York Time or the lead story of the TV network?
What's the catch?
Guest (Kruelhunter) on 04/05/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Commercial production requires, among other things, suitable infrastructure and clear understanding of regulatory climate. It is unlikely that anyone is currently in a position to produce this new membrane in large quantity much less to take advantage of the governmental regulations and incentives that might apply.
While I cannot speak for the Times or the alphabet soup television news, as a long time reader I suspect that the Journal's staff realizes that while this new material represents an excellent step forward it does not of itself make fuel cell technology cost competitive with the more mature fossil fuel systems currently in use.
On the other hand, this advance, incremental or otherwise, offers evidence that science rather than religion disguised as environmentalism will provide cleaner energy sources.
Guest (dd) on 06/14/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
peter924 on 08/24/2006 at 4:44 PM
1
Yes, right on for the last paragraph. However, think about how rapidly new technology can be developed, legislated, produced and assimilated if the buying public decides they want it - for whatever reason.
Look at films made in 1992, now look at films made 5-10 years later-spot the mobile phone phenomenon. You can do the same for desktops and VCRs etc. If the automotive users of the world get a fuel cell bug in their ear-Tv coverage-fear of terrorism controlling oil sources- sick of gas prices-for whatever reason, this technology will be whizzing you to work in 5-10 years flat.
There are no substantial problems standing in its way beyond some developmental requirements that are mainly money and not technology based. After all, it's just a car motor not an entire transport network.
Regards
Peter from Brisbane
Guest (anonymous) on 04/07/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Simbolic) on 04/10/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (McClune) on 04/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Dr. B. J. MACRIS) on 06/11/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Your prompt answer would be greatly appreciared.
Thank you in advance
B. J. Macris
Athens, Greece
avoelectrix on 04/17/2007 at 4:34 AM
1
Regards
Robert B van der Merwe
Guest (Erich J. Knight) on 04/15/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
The point is right now I could pay $20 K for a 12% efficient PV array to end my electric bill, in effect prepaying my electric bill for twenty years. If the nano developments in PV's, or direct thermal/electric or photoelectrochemical direct conversion to H2, can double the current efficiency while cutting the price in half, then we are talking $5,000 to be bill free.
Hydrogen Solar sent me their current Tandum Cell numbers @ 10.2% efficiency: $1.50/LB for H2
And they say that a theoretical efficiency of 35% is possible, and a 22% efficiency is realistically achievable, i.e.,... $0.75/LB of H2 which equals $0.049/KWhr equivalent. From what I understand of the direct solar to hydrogen fabrication technology, it is a much greener process, and cheaper that silicon based PVs.