ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Fuel cells in your future

Posted: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 8:03 PM by Alan Boyle

Does the future of energy lie in fuel cells? You might think so, based on what chemists have cooked up for this week’s annual meeting of the American Chemical Society. One team has come out with a pellet system that could open the way for safe and easy hydrogen-based fuel, while another has developed a battery-scale fuel-cell system that capitalizes on, um, the microbes in a cow’s guts. Such technologies could provide less smelly alternatives to the poop-fueled systems that are already belching out power today.

Pellets are often proposed as the best way to distribute hydrogen for use in next-generation fuel-cell cars like the ones being developed by GM. The hydrogen isn't an energy source per se, but rather a carrier of energy generated from other sources, ranging from natural gas (not so good) to wind (better) to microbial waste processing (best).

When it comes to distribution, the trick is to come up with pellets that can pack a lot of hydrogen inside. Purdue researchers recently unveiled a system that could extract hydrogen from water using aluminum pellets, but they acknowledged that the raw materials for the system were too expensive to compete in today's economy.

Researchers from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory are pursuing a different approach, with compressed pellets of ammonia borane that are about the size of aspirin tablets. It would take just two pellets to store the equivalent of a liter (61 cubic inches) of hydrogen gas - and after the hydrogen is released in a fuel-cell system, the pellets can be reprocessed for reuse.

The lab says the pellet fuel system could take up less space and weigh less than systems using pressurized hydrogen gas - potentially resulting in fuel-cell cars that are comparable to today's gasoline-powered cars in room, range and performance. Now the researchers are working on ways to regulate the release of hydrogen from the pellets, so that accelerating would be as easy as stepping on a gas pedal.

"With this new understanding and our improved methods in working with ammonia borane, we're making positive strides in developing a viable storage medium to provide reliable, environmentally friendly hydrogen power generation for future transportation needs," Dave Heldenbrant, a researcher at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, said in Tuesday's news release.

Hydrogen storage is just one challenge facing future fuel cells. The cost of the materials that go into building the cells themselves is another. Today's fuel-cell engines require expensive catalysts that often incorporate platinum, one of the world's priciest metals. However, researchers at Argonne National Laboratory are experimenting with less expensive ruthenium-based catalysts. As noted in this week's news release, ruthenium costs just 1 percent as much as platinum.

Now, about those cows: The idea of generating electricity from the methane in cow manure isn't exactly new, and some farmers have even experimented with extracting hydrogen from the methane for fuel cells.

Researchers at Ohio State University have been experimenting with a different kind of cow power for fuel cells: microbe-rich fluid extracted from the largest chamber of a cow's stomach, known as the rumen. The microbes in the fluid can be harnessed to produce an electric current as they break down cellulose in a specially designed biofuel cell.

The scientists collected the fluid from a living cow's stomach via a surgically implanted tube. The fluid was then mixed with cellulose in one chamber of the cell, and an oxidizing agent called potassium ferricyanide was put in the other chamber. As the cellulose was digested, the microbial brew released electrons that flowed from one chamber to the other, setting up a circuit.

The system generates a tiny amount of power - enough to put the shine into a miniature light bulb on a Christmas tree, said Ann Christy, an associate professor of food, agricultural and biological engineering at Ohio State. The key is to make the system smaller and more efficient, so that tiny fuel cells can take on bigger and bigger jobs.

Ohio State's researchers have already come a long way: The latest biofuel cells are only about a fourth the size of the cells developed two years ago, but generate three times the power, said researcher Hamid Rismani-Yazdi. Each cell measures about 2 inches wide and 3 inches in height and length - somewhere between the size of a D-cell battery and a 6-volt lantern battery. Two of the cells are enough to recharge one AA-size battery, the research team reported.

Rismani-Yazdi said he adds fresh cellulose to the cells every two days or so. The amount varies, depending on how quickly power is drained from the cells.

"But the power output of these fuel cells is sustainable indefinitely as long as we keep feeding the bacteria with cellulose," Christy said in Tuesday's news release. "We ran these cells for three months."

And the kind of cellulose digested by the bacteria can be harvested from crop waste, wastepaper or wood - the sorts of things that even cows leave behind.

Will Ohio State's biofuel cells - plus other renewable-energy technologies ranging from cellulosic ethanol to microbial fuel factories - add up to enough to avert a future energy crisis? Or does the energy frontier offer more hype than hope? Feel free to weigh in with your comments below.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

I'm sure this technology will be blocked by oil lobbyists and their mostly right-wing croneys.  We'll all be forced to continue to "drink of the wrath of our fornication" with Babylon the great.  Its hard to allow market forces to shift our energy reliance to alternate fuel when the established beneficiaries of current market forces refuse to allow anything different.  I'll be surprised if cheaper, cleaner fuel sources become commonplace before we all get extorted at the pumps at $6/gallon.
Not more hype than hope, definitely more hope than hype.
IT'S ABOUT TIME THAT WE GET OFF THIS OIL FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND MAKING THE MIDDLE EAST LESS IMPORTANT. WE HAVE TO STOP BURYING OUR NUKE WASTE IN THE GROUND AND RECYCLE THE WASTE TO USE AGAIN LIKE JAPAN. WE NEED NUCLEAR POWER TO MANUFACTURE HYDROGEN.
No, Hydrogen isn't blocked by the oil companies, they are the biggest promoters of H2! The oil companies are the biggest producers of H2, they have the cheapest sources of H2, and they plan to sell the pricy new H2 fuel when the oil supply runs low.

The problem remains that H2 is a lousy fuel for autos, it is far too bulky and expensive. To pack enough aboard for reasonable driving range remains a big problem. Reacting a metal with water to create H2 is very inefficient, expensive, and heavy. Not suprising that Perdue realized that using aluminum to make H2 was too expensive to be competitive. Ironically, using aluminum in a disposable/recyclable battery would be more efficient and less expensive!

The Pacific Northwest National Labs ammonia borane pellets might sound impressive, until you realize that one liter of H2 produced by two pellets is the energy equivalent of 3.5 ml (about 3/4 teaspoon) of gasoline. Worse, the pellets would be much more expensive than H2, and H2 is currently more expensive than the gasoline equivalent.

Much better choice is battery electric or plug-in hybrids, as driving on electricity is about 1/4 the cost of gasoline, 1/5 the cost of H2 fuel. Even with the cheaper ruthenium catalysts, an automotive sized PEM fuel cell still costs much more than an automotive sized LiIon battery pack. The future is electric.

As the article indicated, it is possible to design fuel cells that don't require pure H2. There have been fuel cells running on cellulose, carbon, natural gas, liquid hydrocarbons, methanol, even zinc or aluminum! Zinc air fuel cells are particularly promising, with high efficiency, compact size, easy to handle and store zinc fuel granules, and the waste zinc oxide is easily recycled into new zinc fuel.
Do the sums. If we converted all of our cropland to ethanol production, we would still only produce enough fuel to displace 28 days a year's worth of oil, and we'd have to import food to replace that not grown because of being displaced by fuel crops.

Our demand for energy is voracious, and to keep our civilization going, our appetite for energy is only going to grow. Biofuels, wind, solar, etc, while theoretically sufficient, either aren't feasible or economic on the scale needed to displace oil.

There's only one proven technology that we know for sure can replace fossil fuels to meet our current and future energy demands. That's nuclear fission. We can eliminate 40% of our fossil fuel demand starting immediately by simply replacing every fossil fired electric generating plant with nuclear plants.

For transportation, electric vehicles are a necessary solution. But battery technology isn't up to the task, and likely never will be. Fuel cells remain too expensive and too problematic to fuel. The solution is to electrify the roadways. When cars and trucks are powered by the roadway, energy storage issues become moot, and the source of the electric power totally fungible. Non-contact inductive technology is available to allow vehicles to draw power from the roadway. Autonomous guidance then becomes an almost free side benefit, allowing us to safely pack more vehicles in the same number of lanes, and run them at much higher speeds than manual driving can safely handle. That will help solve many of our traffic problems.

The electric demand to meet our transport needs would be prodigious, requiring 3 times as many electric generating plants as we now have, but that demand can be filled by nuclear plants, or other electrical generating methods capable of meeting on demand requirements. The wind may not blow, and the sun may not shine, when we need to travel, but nuclear plants can be throttled to supply the necessary power on demand.

We can wean ourselves away from oil. We can develop an electrical infrastructure which can carry us into the indefinite future. We can do it economically and responsibly. But we have to be hard headed, do the sums, and don't waste our efforts on dead end feel good technologies.
I'm highly surprised at ammonium borane being considered seriously. It's material safety data sheet says it's an explosive, and the ATFE lists it as such. It was tested by the Air Force for its "specific impluse", that is its power capability when used as a rocket fuel. And this is one of the more stable borane compounds. They've tried for decades to make boron compounds stable enough to use as a fuel, and ended up with a lot of pieces of metal strewn around the desert. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
Alternative fuels? cutbacks are very important,like walking afew blocks to the store,letting your clothes dry on the clothesline,non petroleum additives for your engine if you must drive,car pooling,less tv,if you knew how many oil spills there were in the last 50 years you would be sick,lets quit these wars just to protect some so called important peoples oil invesrments!shall i go on? no? you know what to do
We don't need fuel cells.  We already have a technology (lithium ion battery and / or super capacitors) that will carry the energy we need to transport ourselves and our goods around the country more efficiently than any fuel cell.  There are hundreds of electricity producing methods using a wide range of energy sources that can charge these energy carriers.  The problem is with consumers.  We are all addicted to oil products and are extremely slow to change.  We need to improve our use of sources of energy to produce and store electricity more efficiently.  We need transportation devices that consume electricity.  We need to stop buying products that use a gas or liquid and stop transporting gas or liquid products around the country.
It doesn't matter if we use oil or hydrogen to power our vehicles. The money is still going to the same place, the big energy companies. Do you actually think that the energy companies won't have a hand in producing the hydrogen? They already have a infrastructure in place to  transport large amounts fuel. Although using hydrogen could lessen our need for foreign oil.
I don't understand why, in the face of threats that are more significant than what we faced at the onset of World War 2, that we can't put our national energies into a project similar to the Manhattan Project (that delivered an atomic bomb in less than 5 yrs), that will deliver a real alternative to a resource (oil) that will break our dependence on unstable foreign governments.
You know, it's astounding that the Europeans are already using hydrogen cells to power some of their public transportation. How do you account for that?
And they're generating the hydrogen using wind and solar power - unless I'm mistaken - at least partially form sea water. Remember when it used to be called American ingenuity?
As a member of the team that successfully "flew" fuel cells on Gemini 5, I find that some of the concepts in the article were ones which we considered decades ago. The use of an alternative to PT is a question of current density. It is good to see that others are working on the age old question of cost per KW Hr.

Richard Fowler, Bedford, VA
$850 million dollars per DAY leave our country to pay for foreign oil  This money is never taxed again and because of the trade imbalances never comes back, except maybe to buy real property (USA is now 51% foreign owned).   Alternate fuels / electric vehicles may be slightly more costly, but the money stays here putting Americans in real jobs.  Sorry Bush.  
Sorry I have to disagree. I think wind is the best solution since any organic wastes generated by our planet are too valuable to squander. They need to be put back into the biological system as organic material.

Also, why the devil do I need an expensive fuel cell in my car? Internal combustion engines run fine on H2 and the infrastructure is already in place for supporting those engines.
It appears to me that some researchers only are interested in producing products that have a supply and demand component.As long as large corporations are allowed to continue to dictate our energy needs we will always be under their thumb.Whatever happened to free energy?
As with any major change in society, there has to be something catastrophic to happen before the change can occur. Eg. World war over oil!!!
Has anyone considered this idea for powering autos.  A car has an axle that turns.  An electric motor has a shaft with a magnet that spins inside a coil of wires to produce electricity.  Why not build an electric motor around the axle?  That way the car could start off in gas power mode, the turning of the axel would run the electric motor, which would be connected to an inverter to produce DC to charge a set of batteries.  The batteries could be stored just above the wheel wells in the rear of the vehicle.  With some added suspension this should be a good place.

That way you could drive for lets say 20 miles on gas, and then convert to electric.  Even running on batteries the axel would turn and charge back up the batteries.

What are the drawbacks or benefits to this idea?
I think we'll start using Hydrogen fuel cells in cars when we will consume all OIL resources from this planet. The reason is simple no one will choose more expensive fuel just for the sake of the environment. Global warming is inevitable. It's just a matter of time.
I don't agree with Real's assessment of the oil companies.  I don't think they'll block this research, I think they'll buy up the most viable solutions, develop them, and then release them to the public after they suck us dry first with as high of gas prices as they can get until that time.  Let's face it, the only companies with enough money to fund the development of new energy sources are the oil companies.  In fact, we should just go ahead and start calling them "Energy Brokers" because that's what they are, and will continue to be, for years to come.
Hey Réal -- get real, and stop being so paranoid about "big oil" and right-wing cronies.  Yeah -- they have a big voice, but they're not invincible.  This is the same nonsense some people spew about a conspiracy to prevent a cure for cancer, because it would supposedly put the drug companies out of business.

The reason this stuff is not yet mainstream is because it's not yet economically feasible.  There are lots of ideas out there, and only a few of them will ultimately come to fruition.  I'd personally not like to have my tax dollars subsidize every unworkable idea out there -- though certainly some amount of money for research is prudent -- and is available.  The federal government during the current administration has spent billions on energy research and climate-change related activities.

Let the market do its magic.  These scientists are working really hard not just to find new ways of producing energy, but to do it in a way that is economically sustainable, which is the only way it's ever going to have a big impact. Your [...] comments are an insult to thousands of hard working individuals trying to make life better for us all.

There may come a threshold when hydrogen power makes economic sense, and then the change will come so fast it'll make your head spin.  We are already on such a cusp with solar power.  Give that another 10 years, and you'll be complaining about the solar power lobby and "big solar."

There are lots of good reasons to ween ourselves off of middle east oil.  But it's not going to happen overnight.  We are entrenched in our current ways, and it's not easy to overcome that momentum.  It's as simple as that.  But the tide is turning.  The oil companies will be scrambling to find new paradigms to make money.  Change will happen.  It always does.
Hey Real, it was OK when your left-wing cronies wanted to tax gas to $5 a gallon to fund their wealth redistribution schemes, but when market forces do it, it's a conspiracy!

If the real floor for oil prices were $50-60/bbl a whole lot of alternatives would work, problem is they are poor investments when all it takes is for OPEC & Russia to open the oil field valves and make the investments worthless.

I vote, more nukes as fast as they can be built up!  I'm doing my part with a Hybrid car getting an honest 42 MPG on my 80 mile round trip commute -- and that ain't driving 55!
I agree with all the comments so far, HYDROGEN is the answer!
Whatever happened to Hydrogen Technology Applications, Inc. ( http://www.hytechapps.com/ ) and their Aqua-gen water engine concept? They had a working model of a car running on H2O! Is this a fraud? You would think if the concept didn't work there would have been a lot of fallout since the media was all hot and bothered about them for 2 seconds.
I'm all for alternative as long as I can pump it into my Jeep's gas tank and get the same or better performance. There is no way that the millions of drivers on the road today will go out and buy a high-priced alternatively powered vehicle...this will take decades. Best to run a better product in our existing vehicles while developing the newer technologies of the future. Let's hope that with the record profits these oil companies have been reporting, they put it into producing new cleaner fuels and not their own pockets. Otherwise, we should not be paying $3.00 dollars and more at the pump. Also, I am all for getting US politics out of the Middle East...this should always be part of the mission of developing eco-friendly fuels and other alternative energies. We should also work closely with China and India as they will be the key to cleaning up our planet over the next 100 years and beyond. We can burn clean fuels all day in the US, but if China and India are using cheap oil from the Middle East, we will be worse off than we are now.
Well, if you think about it, oil, gas and coal are NOT energy sources per se either. They're just an efficient storage medium of solar energy that was chemically processed by biological organisms.

Maybe as we understand how to bio-engineer more efficient bacteria than the ones found inside cows stomachs we can finally use cellulose as a cost-effective source of energy. But that will be only one of the many avenues we must explore and exploit to succesfully overcome our dependency of fuels that pollute the atmosphere.
UNTIL WE ARE ABLE TO BREAK THE CYCLE OF PROFIT, OVER THE HEALTH OF THE PLANET WE LIVE ON, ALL THESE NEW ENERGY ALTERNATIVES ARE JUST INTERESTING ENGINEERING STUDIES. I AM CONVINCED THAT THE TECHNOLOGY IS NOW AVAILABLE TO MAKE OUR HOME A MUCH CLEANER PLACE TO LIVE AND MAKE US MORE ENERGY INDEPENDENT AS A NATION.
What I keep seeing here is the call for one overall solution to a problem that has many forms.  Nukes could work in some places, yes, but it's not *the* answer, nor is wind, geo-thermal, trash-burning or any other one form of power production.  To rely on a single solution for a nation our size would be foolish at best.  One BIG reason we don't see the same fast changes in energy production here in the Unted States isn't the politicians, but We the People.  Countries such as Norway and the Netherlands are smaller, easier to turn around, have fewer resources (more motivated) and are Socialist.  They also have far higher taxes and fewer regulations when it comes to using experimental technologies.  In order to convert to more enviornmentally friendly methods of producing power, companies have to get the money from somewhere.  It's either going to be from your current power bill or from the government which would have to raise taxes in order to make it happen.  There's also the NIMBY factor.  Already complaints are being heard all over the country about the "blight" of wind farms.  One of the most publicised ones recently is the Nantucket Wind Farm proposal; All those rich Democrats are worried about having their view messed up with a wind farm planted several miles out to sea.  It would be no more than a blip on the horizon.  We will see the changes (which are being funded by both the oil companies and the government), but turning this country around will be like turning a luxury cruise liner.  Smaller countries are like salboats in comparison.  It will take time.  We can't turn on a dime like smaller countries, not unless you want your taxes and/or power bills raised through the roof.

As for fuel for cars, again there is no one answer.  Biofuels right now are among the best because current diesel technology can use it and research is further along in converting other biomass besides corn into biofuel.  One of the biggest problems in this country with oil is not the price for crude but in the lack of refining capabilities we have.  It's difficult to get a new refinery built in this country because of all the enviornmental regualtions.  Those same regulation make it cheaper for the oil companies to retrofit existing refineries.  We also can't get completely off oil.  There are too many products, to include life saving equipment, that are made with oil.  Even then, there is research into alternative methods to make plastics.  However it's currently not a top priority.  So make all the demands you want but consider all the consequences of immediate change.
The answers to our energy problems will be found and implemented if we can find the political will to implement a floor price for a barrel of oil. With a high enough floor price alternative energy investments will be protected. If investments are made and the price of oil falls low enough, alternative energy investments will be lost and future investments will be considered too risky.
Somwhere I read about magnets as away to propel objects hey sounds clean to me if we could figure that one out hum!
   A piece of our national treasure, which is critical to the survival and prosperity of this nation, was SOLD OUT by the Bush Administration to the Russians at dirt cheap price.

   Read the article by MotherJones:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2004/05/04_406.html

   Why is it relevant? You can both be a patriot and make some serious money as well! As the ONLY platinum group metal producer in the USA, SWC stands to benefit tremendously from some recent development of fuel cell technology for mobile electronics like cell phones and laptop computers. Called Direct Methanol Fuel Cell, DMFC.

   Ever has a cell phone running out of power? With DMFC you will NEVER need to worry about that again. It can power a cell phone 6 months straight without recharging. Who would not LOVE something like that! But DMFC requires palladium and platinum. That's a huge new demand that will drive PGM price sky high, and bring an extremely bullish outlook for SWC!

   Right now SWC is rallying up from a52 week low bottom. So it's an excelent opportunity to laod.

Butanol is the four carbon alcohol made by a bacteria from wood

chips, shavings and sawdust.  It produces twice as much energy per

unit volume as ethanol, as much as gasoline and at 100 octane.  It

will work in your car without change.  It is easily separated from

water by chilling it to slush but not freeze. In much of the country

this happens easily.  It can be transported in existing pipelines and

uses no food crop to disrupt the production of meat or cereal products.

Read about it at:  http://www.geocities.com/profadrian/FutureFuel.html

or http://SCAF.i8.com/FutureFuel.html


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=328787

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google