(Page 2 of 2)
That could make formic acid a more expensive hydrogen source than methane or methanol. At the same time, the process takes less energy than steam reforming, and with better catalysts, the researchers could make costs more favorable, Beller says.
Formic acid could have a shot at reaching the portable electronics fuel-cell market, suggests Richard Farmer, who leads the hydrogen production and delivery team at the Department of Energy's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Laboratory.
To make large quantities of hydrogen for fuel-cell vehicles, however, the process would have to compare with the current benchmark: steam-methane reforming. With a small steam-reformer unit at a fueling station, Farmer says, "we've hit our near-term target of three dollars per kilogram [of hydrogen], untaxed but delivered."
Beller and his colleagues may have a long way to go to produce sufficient amounts of cheap hydrogen for vehicles, but they are already discussing their technology with two German automotive companies. They are also working with some engineers to build a small prototype model car that uses the technology and that should be ready in two months. But in the short term, Beller says, the researchers consider formic acid a fuel source for portable electronics. "We don't aim currently for large use in cars--this does not make sense."
Despite doubts about its feasability, hydrogen is finding its way into niche applications.
A cheap polymer material increases the power output of methanol fuel cells by 50 percent.
An absolute quantity (energy) was expressed in terms of a rate (power) here:
"Beller points out that using formic acid to make hydrogen also has drawbacks. Compared with methane and methanol, formic acid has much less hydrogen. If you use all the hydrogen in a kilogram of methanol, you get 4.19 kilowatts of power, while the hydrogen in formic acid gives 1.45 kilowatts."
I'm guessing you meant kWh.
Yeah -- and that would be kWh of ENERGY, not power. If you are a science/technology journalist, please take the time to get your units of power/energy correct. I see this mistake made all the time and it drives me nuts.
Me too! Good point to make. It's like walking around with your zipper down. You might say something smart, but who's listening when your zipper's down?
Small wonder that they don't see this working for FCVs - Ruthenium is one of the rarest elements on Earth and very expensive.
Today, Ruthenium runs ~270USD per troy ounce.
Gold at ~900USD per troy ounce.
Re: Ruthenium ~ 1/3 price of gold
Ruthenium is very rare, but it is also usually in low demand. When new demands occur, the price reacts quickly. The average price of Ru has been coming back from a recent high of $870/oz. Average price for the past month is $385, while today's bid price on the spot market is $270 ($340 Ask). The price soared when demand for its use in hard drives doubled and there was speculation of a new use in dye-sensitized solar cells.
Since every one seems to be stating better ideas I though that I would throw out the oxidizing magnesium idea.
You take finely ground magnesium powder and mix it with water. The Oxygen in the water binds with the magnesium releasing the H2 “enter fuel cell”. When the magnesium is all converted into magnesium oxide you return it to the store and get some new stuff. Much like LP tank exchange. At this point a laser can be used to de-oxidize the magnesium. This method is as clean as the energy source used to power the laser. A kitten fired steam generator for all I care.
Guest (jpdemers)
Comparable to the aluminum-gallium alloy mentioned above. These are, essentially, very elaborate versions of batteries: electrical energy is stored as chemical potential energy in a reactive zero-valent metal, and the energy is released in a chemical reaction and converted back to electricity. The disadvantages are in the complexity of the hardware, and the fact that "recharging" involves lugging the metal oxides back to a reprocessing plant. The big advantage is in the high energy density of pure, light metals like Ga, Mg or Al. I'm not aware of any working energy storage system based on boron, but in theory it should be the ideal element for such an approach.
Magnesium metal is Mg(0), which is readily oxidized to Mg(II) by giving up two electrons. In HCl, there is lots of H+ available, and this is readily reduced by the electrons provided by Mg(0), forming H2 gas as a result. The Mg(II) is left with two Cl- ions, making MgCl2, which is dissolved in solution. The end observation is that the ribbon dissolves with much fuss and bubbling, and maybe even a flame due to the exothermic nature of the redox reaction.
Is't correct?
Read my blog too
http://hidrogen-fuel.blogspot.com/
Formic acid is carbon monoxide in water. Another interesting compound is hydrogen peroxide, which is a liquid that can easily react to form steam, which can drive a simple expander and generator.
Carbon in the form of graphite is compact, stable and cheap. All we need is a fuel cell that uses air and graphite. Powder graphite is easy to handle since it flows easily from a storage tank. Do not worry about CO2; google "The Lynching of Carbon Dioxide-The Innocent Source of Life".
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
Guest (jpdemers)
Not too useful
Generates one CO2 for every H2, which wipes out the primary reason one would use a hydrogen fuel cell. You're better off using a fuel cell that burns methanol.
Reply
fkearney
6 Comments
Re: Not too useful
That's a good point about CO2, but realize that most of the methods for producing the hydrogen have a CO2 load of their own. We can't consider only the emissions from the vehicle. Unfortunately, few discussions of these technologies study the overall energy and waste balances.
What is the fate of the amine? That's a disposal issue and a drain on efficiency unless it can be recycled.
I'm not sure if we'll see enough formic acid gereation to fuel vehicles, etc. However, if the CO from a syngas stream is converted to formic acid, this could be a good way to make use of that energy on its way to CO2.
Reply
nuubik
2 Comments
Re: Not too useful
There is that Aluminium-Gallium pellets + water and
Out comes H2 AlO2 and Gallium works as a catalyst and does not react.
AlO2 and Gallium can be sored and recycled. AlO2 is restured to Al the same Gallium is added back and O is released.
Basically energy goes from refurb. plant to car no side effects if the energy is green.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/08/29/purdue-on-demand-hydrogen-from-aluminum-gallium-and-water/
Reply
johnnybravo411
2 Comments
Re: Not too useful
"Generates one CO2 for every H2, which wipes out the primary reason one would use a hydrogen fuel cell. You're better off using a fuel cell that burns methanol."
Uhh -- "burning methanol" is going to release CO2 as well. Nice try.
In any event, if we're talking about using this for small devices only, the amount of CO2 produced is going to be completely negligible compared to other large producers.
Reply
Guest (jpdemers)
Re: Not too useful
Yes, but you get much more energy from the methanol, using much less hardware. I probably should have said that you "might as well" use a methanol fuel cell. In a fuel cell/ICE hybrid vehicle, the methanol can also fuel an internal combustion engine when peak power is needed.
Methanol can come from coal or syngas, which is a plus if we're tying to cut oil imports. (I don't know where formic acid comes from, but I suspect it can be traced to syngas.) Neither fuel "solves" the CO2 problem, but the efficiency of hybrids ought to cut emissions substantially.
Reply