(Page 2 of 2)
A number of research groups at companies and in academic and government labs have developed components for fuel cells that could soon be ready to incorporate into products, although Holladay doesn't expect to see them on the market for at least another two years. (See "Better Fuel Cells for Laptops.") There are still issues to be resolved with the hydrogen fuel cells. For example, such fuel cells produce water as they make electricity, and finding a way to get rid of that water without affecting the surrounding electronics in a laptop is a challenge, he says. What's more, the fuel cells are still expensive. If a fuel-cell system costs three or four times more than a battery, Holladay asks, why not just buy extra batteries for long trips?
And many experts believe that fuel cells will never appear widely in consumer electronics. They doubt that regulators, for instance, will allow passengers to bring flammable liquids on an airplane, even in small amounts and carefully packaged inside the system.
Still, advocates of the technology point to numerous practical applications. Emergency workers with powerful 20-watt radios need energy sources that can work for days or weeks on end without ready access to grid electricity. (See "Printing Fuel Cells.") The military could also be a major customer, using the technology replace batteries.
A cheap polymer material increases the power output of methanol fuel cells by 50 percent.
GE's advance allows for a solid-oxide fuel cell to use coal-based fuels at costs approaching that of conventional power plants.
Let's stop comparing apples to oranges when it comes to the ability of fuel cells to supply the sustained demands of radically different energy requirements.
Fuelcell discussions invariably wander into applications with radically different energy requirements. The reason is that everytime someone suggests any particular application for FCs, it gets shot down as a stupid approach compared to what's already available. That's the FC problem in a nutshell. There's basically no application for which it is the best solution.
.
SVE said "There's basically no application for which it is the best solution."
that's true, since the fuel cells will be no more used also in the field where they was the absolute winner for 40+ years: "spaceships"
infact, the new NASA Orion will use solar arrays and rechargeable batteries
.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
Gaetano Marano
246 Comments
It could be applied (also) to swappable electric cars' batteries >>>
.
this new idea could be applied (also) to swappable electric cars' batteries:
http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/033cellphoneCAR.html
thanks to its 6x power vs. LiIon cars batteries, the new cars could have (both) lighter batteries AND a longer autonomy (maybe, up to 300 miles)
and the "swappable battries" solve the main problem of all electric cars: the (now) very long (4+ hours) recharge time
.
Reply
SVE
51 Comments
Re: It could be applied (also) to swappable electric cars' batteries >>>
The issue with using this in cars is you're just swapping one liquid-fueled technology (gasoline) for another (methanol). You still can't use the home-delivered power grid for recharging, one of the main selling points for electric cars. Electric energy is cheap. With this, you're still dependent on going to some energy supply depot (gas station or battery swap station) that has to be widely available.
Reply
Gaetano Marano
246 Comments
you're right on this point, but...
.
you're right on this point and about the home recharge, but, if these new cells will be "sealed" the only way to "refuel" a car in long trips is to "swap" them "somewhere" (gas stations, Wal-Mart, etc.) while, if that cells can be refueled with methane, it's a NON SENSE to use a (very expensive) fuel cell and a (low performance) electric motor, instead of (simply) modify a gasoline car to work with methane!
however, I agree with you that rechargeable batteries are (and will always be) better, simpler, SAFER (since they have no explosive LH2 or methane) and several/dozens times cheaper than ANY kind of fuel cell
and, about "safety"... recently many notebooks has gone on fire due to defective Li-Ion batteries... well, how much "safe" a notebook with a methane+hydrogen fuel cell will be? ...could that kind of notebooks fly with their owners/passengers on common airlines and trains? ...etc.
.
Reply
Guest (zed2)
Re: you're right on this point, but...
1. It's not using the gas, methane (CH4), it's using the liquid, methanol (CH3OH).
2. You have it backwards. Electric motors are by no means inefficient. They can be up to 90% efficient. Compare this with 20% for an internal combustion engine running on any kind of fuel.
Reply