The new material is a long-needed advance, says Brian Benicewicz, professor of chemistry at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI). "For about 30 years now, everybody has used the exact same piece of Nafion, or the same Nafion-like product. We have 30 years of history that shows what the problems are, and a number of engineering solutions to get around the problems with the membrane. What is refreshing about Joe's approach is that now, instead of engineering around a problem membrane, he's actually going back and trying to engineer a better membrane." The enhanced conductivity of the new material comes in part from having a higher acid content than Nafion -- by definition, acids tend to give up protons, allowing protons to move freely through the material. The amount of acid that can be incorporated into Nafion is limited -- too much acid and its polymers dissolve in water. Because the new material forms a cross-linked polymer once cured, it doesn't dissolve in water, even after being heavily loaded with acid. As a result, "the conductivity goes through the roof," says DeSimone. While the material has been tested using hydrogen as a fuel, DeSimone says the lab is now testing the material with methanol -- a fuel source that could be important for fuel cells in portable electronics, and maybe vehicles. |
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.