The only fuel cells that have a future on the mass market are those that use liquid fuels - since storage is impractical for gaseous fuels like hydrogen & methane. The only company that I know of that is developing Direct Liquid Fuel Cells is Medis Technologies in New York (http://www.medistechnologies.com), they are making a fuel cell for portable electronics that runs on ethanol without the need for a reformer to extract hydrogen or a proton exchange membrane. Ethanol is a renewable liquid fuel made by hydrolyzing and fermenting plant matter such as wheat straw, corn stalks, sugar cane, sugar beats, wood pulp & sawdust, recycled newspapers & cardboard, etc.. The great thing about Medis Technologies approach is that they have a product with mass market potential, so they can earn revenue while continuing to improve their technology. In contrast, while automotive manufacturers continue to tinker with useless hydrogen-based fuel cells, they have yet to sell a single fuel cell-powered vehicle.

Now Time Magazine Europe has acknowledged Direct Liquid Ethanol Fuel Cell technology.

http://www.time.com/time/europe/forecast2003/html/mobile.html

:confused:

um, i dunno...we've been using the stuff in Iowa for years now...

Originally posted by Success_Machine
The only fuel cells that have a future on the mass market are those that use liquid fuels
I see that you do not work in the automotive industry.
In contrast, while automotive manufacturers continue to tinker with useless hydrogen-based fuel cells, they have yet to sell a single fuel cell-powered vehicle.
I see that you do not work in the automotive industry.

There are actually a huge number of participants working on direct methanol fuel cells, and a smaller number working on direct ethanol fuel cells. Neither will ever appear in a vehicle.

- Warren

There are actually a huge number of participants working on direct methanol fuel cells, and a smaller number working on direct ethanol fuel cells. Neither will ever appear in a vehicle.

WHy?

Success Machine..


u got some serious 'plainin to do...


i hope you come back here and clarify some of your points.

ok?>ok.:D

OIL, by extracting the hydrogen from the oil, the big multinationals keep in control, otherwise, with bio-mass, the peasants would become the new rich.

:D burning money!!! <--- this takes on a whole different meaning/perspective for me, now!

They got some smart boys and girls working at Medis. Their whole product line seems to be based on SURVIVING WITHOUT OIL/OIL SHORTAGE. I think it must be offspin of millitary programs to support israels basic needs in times of shortages....

the threat of war and conflict always seems to bring up the most creative minds...

Originally posted by Gifted
WHy?
Consider the design challenges in building a 100kWe direct methanol fuel cell, which is what would be required for an automobile. It's impossible to build one with that kind of power with existing technology.

- Warren

Ik zou..willen hebben een kamer met een tweepersoonsbed met bad..nog een kussen oh..and nog een deken. ooh, i forgot..some more klerenhangers, too. :D

Fuel cells in general are too expensive to be used in cars, although I've read recently that Toyota (I think) has begun leasing hydrogen fuel cell vehicles on a 30-month contract @ $10,000 per month. For equivalent power a Direct Liquid Ethanol Fuel Cell vehicle would probably be in the same price range. That is why neither type of fuel cell will be useful for the mass automotive market.

If one assumes that fuel cells will eventually become affordable, then Direct Liquid Ethanol Fuel Cells will be more practical than hydrogen or natural gas fuel cells. This is because compressed gas cylinders weigh 10-20 times more than the fuel in them. In contrast a featherweight plastic container will hold gallons of liquid ethanol and will not subtract from the passenger- or cargo-carrying capacity of the vehicle.

Like I mentioned before ethanol is a renewable fuel, and I like the increased fuel economy of fuel cells combined with renewable, eco-friendly biomass-based fuel. However one does not need a fuel cell to use ethanol. Ethanol is combustable fuel that has been used in internal combustion engines for nearly 100 years. In fact I found a book in the local public library recently dated 1907 containing detailed information on the production and use of ethanol as a fuel in motor vehicles. Indeed most automakers are turning out entire production runs of vehicles that can burn either gasoline or ethanol, or any combination of the two fuels -- they are called Flexible Fuel Vehicles (FFVs). The US Dept. of Energy publishes an online Buyers Guide (http://www.ccities.doe.gov/vbg/consumers/e85.shtml) for FFVs for the current model year.

Initially we can use land-based crops to supply ethanol, such as wheat straw, corn stalks, high-cellulose grasses, etc. Eventually we will need a larger supply of biomass to fully displace fossil fuels. This could come from ocean biomass (seaweed), selectively bred for high-cellulose content. Currently large-scale seaweed cultivation in carried out only in Asia where it is grown for food, not fuel, and has a very low cellulose content. Read my essay entitled "Benthic Energy", found near the bottom of my Starship Generations (http://geocities.com/womplex_oo1/StarshipGenerations.html) website.

You're still missing the point, Success_Machine -- PEM gas-phase fuel cells can be miniaturized, and can have significant power output. These cells will soon be small enough, powerful enough, and cheap enough to put in cars. The direct-methanol and direct-ethanol approaches will never be able to achieve the power needed in a car, and will never find their way into cars.... except maybe to power the stereo.

- Warren

I disagree, the problem is not the fuel cell technology but the fuel storage. Both gas-phase and liquid-phase fuel cells have been continuously miniaturized for the last several years. The reason PEM fuel cells will not work is because the hydrogen storage system is not practical, and is not expected to improve significantly within the next 20 years. In addition there is no large-scale renewable source of hydrogen. With ethanol fuel cells the fuel storage was never a problem, and neither is the large-scale renewable source of fuel. The solution for ethanol is downright LOW-TECH compared to hydrogen.

If I had to predict anything, it'd be PEM fuel cells and cyrogenic hydrogen storage. Despite popular belief, I think cryogenic fueling can be easily accomplished at the necessary level of safety.

- Warren

I don't think cryogenic hydrogen is at all safe. The first intoxicated drunk that makes a mistake attaching the hose to the receptacle, or attaches a damaged fixture, will get sprayed with liquid hydrogen: life-threatening cold burns and flash freezing of appendages, loss of eyesight. Plus the tanks rocket or pinwheel dangerously if a fuel leak is ignited. And a leak *will* ignite. God help the jackass who smokes while refueling his car. Now multiply those incidents by a million-fold as liquid hydrogen is used in vehicles nationwide.

Cryogenic hydrogen has other problems, such as the need for heavy, spherical tanks to slow evaporation. Evaporation also reduces the amount of fuel in the tank, and reduces the range of the vehicle. I don't know exactly how bad evaporation is, but I think it is a concern. In any case, a vehicle would require a liquid hydrogen tank 4-times the size of a gasoline tank with equivalent energy capacity. A vehicle will only require an ethanol tank 1.5-times the size of a gasoline tank with equivalent energy capacity.

Ethanol is the right choice. It is a low-tech solution to the problem. It is a liquid fuel that can be used in fuel cells, or internal combustion engines. It can even be mixed with gasoline if desired, which means it is excellent for making a gradual transition away from fossil fuels. A featherweight container will hold gallons of the stuff. One can also make ethanol at home using a fermenter and still, just as wine and beer have been made for thousands of years. Not only is it ancient technology, it is easy, and the price of ethanol will probably compete with gasoline if there is any oil shortage.

Originally posted by Success_Machine
I don't think cryogenic hydrogen is at all safe. The first intoxicated drunk that makes a mistake attaching the hose to the receptacle, or attaches a damaged fixture, will get sprayed with liquid hydrogen:
Surely you're not trying to convince me that there is no such thing as a fail-safe fitting for liquid transfer, mm? There are many ways to design a system so that it won't operate unless a complete, reliable seal is formed. This is called "engineering."
And a leak *will* ignite.
People have been pumping gasoline, which is a highly explosive fuel, into their gas tanks for years now at corner gas stations. Despite the initial concern, it hasn't been shown to be overtly dangerous. Gasoline vapor, in fact, is explosive at lower concentrations than hydrogen, and has a significantly higher energy content per unit volume. Please explain to me how gasoline vapor never seems to ignite at your local Chevron, but hydogren gas will ignite instantly. Mmm?
Cryogenic hydrogen has other problems, such as the need for heavy, spherical tanks to slow evaporation. Evaporation also reduces the amount of fuel in the tank, and reduces the range of the vehicle.
A refrigeration system would not be difficult.
In any case, a vehicle would require a liquid hydrogen tank 4-times the size of a gasoline tank with equivalent energy capacity.
Sure, it'll be four times the size. It'll also weigh 1/3 as much.
Ethanol is the right choice. It is a low-tech solution to the problem... Not only is it ancient technology, it is easy, and the price of ethanol will probably compete with gasoline if there is any oil shortage. [/B]
It is a stop-gap solution that will further the use of inefficent ICE technology. Direct ethanol fuel cells are not predicted to ever be able to power an entire vehicle. The best choices are LH2 and PEM fuel cells.

- Warren

I'll never believe that liquid hydrogen is a safe fuel for the general public to use.

And where will the hydrogen come from? Petroleum! Separating hydrogen from hydrocarbons will produce just as much greenhouse gases as burning straight gasoline would. What the hell is the point? Hydrogen is a non-renewable fuel. When the fuel becomes more and more scarce, it doesn't matter how efficient the powerplant is.

Ethanol can be used more easily, more safely, it's cheaper, it's more versatile, it's renewable. All the CO2 emissions from ethanol combustion are re-absorbed in next year's biomass crop. It's a zero net-emitter of greenhouse gases. It also burns cooler than gasoline or diesel, so far fewer smog forming gases are formed, such as nitrous oxides.

Originally posted by Success_Machine
Hydrogen is a non-renewable fuel.
Wrong again bucko. You can get as much H2 as you want from plain old water. You can use any energy source you'd like to electrolyze the water, then use the H2 in your car. When you burn the H2, you'll get back -- guess what -- water -- which you can electrolyze again. A hydrogen/oxygen system is essentially a battery. You're investing energy in electrolysis on one place (i.e. a factory where there can be very stringent pollution standards, etc.) and undoing the process somewhere else to get energy -- with NO emissions of ANY sort at the vehicle. Hate to tell you this, but CO2 is the biggest greenhouse gas we have! The only reason it's unregulated is because regulation would have an unbelievably serious economic impact.

- Warren

Electrolysis of water is about 60% efficient. If you combine the 40% efficiency of PEM fuel cells, that gives you a net efficiency of just 24%, even lower than engines running on biodiesel. To generate enough electricity to produce hydrogen for nationwide PEM fuel cell use in automobiles would require us to build at least 120 new nuclear powerplants, dedicated specifically to water electrolysis (based on national oil consumption for transportation energy equivalence). There are only about 230+ nuclear powerplants in the world, and they produce around 10,000 tonnes of long-lived radioactive waste annually. So the use of hydrogen from electrolysis would actually result in a massive INCREASE in energy consumption, and toxic waste. Building that many nuclear powerplants would be extremely expensive, and I doubt the cost of fuel would compete with any other fuel, especially ethanol.

Ethanol is the fuel of choice.

You've both made some good points.

Doesn't the CO2 created in burning ethanol get canceled out by the CO2 created by the plant life necessary to produce the ethanol?

I like the IDEA of hydrogen-powered ICE engines. I don't think electrical motor vehicles have much of an advantage over them.
The same can't be said for ethanol-powered vehicles -- they do pollute.

Of course, the hydrogren must be produced by nuclear, wind, or solar power to not just transfer the pollution back to the energy production plant....

Sucess_Machine: Surely you're not implying that 60% and 40% are efficiencies inherent to the processes themselves; they both stand to become dramatically more efficient as the technology develops. I don't doubt a bit that electrolysis can be made 90% efficient, and that PEM fuel cells can be made 90% efficient.

Besides, who says that nuclear is the only way to generate the fuel? I'm hopeful that fusion will become practical anytime now. Regardless, solar, wind, geothermal, and all the other "green" energy sources could be used to create H2. The concept of an enormous solar facility to generate H2 is no more rediculous than the concept of an enormous biological facility to generate ethanol. The output of a solar electrolysis plant per square foot of area is larger than the output of a biomass ethanol plant.

postoak: Even if the pollution is just pushed up the chain from automobile to factory, it's a huge improvement. Factories can afford large-scale chemical scrubbers to remediate their pollution. Producing all the pollution in one controlled place is much better than producing pollution in millions of uncontrolled vehicles (which must be made cheap enough for personal ownership).

- Warren

The efficiency of industrial electrolysis is well established. You're speculating on fuel cell efficiencies that have not been achieved. And while nuclear fusion is still 50 years away, it is already obvious that a single fusion reactor will produce more radioactive waste by decommissioning its vacuum chamber than all 230+ fission reactors worldwide produce in a year. None of these technologies are any good.

Plants can convert between 17% - 30% of impinging solar energy into fibrous plant tissue, the stuff that ethanol is made from. This efficiency easily competes with and often exceeds those commonly reported for photovoltaics, wind power, and solar thermal conversion. To cover 10,000 acres of land with solar modules would cost about $100 billion, not including inverters, batteries, and other infrastructure. To sow biomass crops on the same land would cost about $30 million, including the cost of the land itself. Photovoltaics will never compete with biomass. And to top it off, biomass can be grown just about anywhere, even on floating nets in the middle of the ocean!