backtop


Print 34 comment(s) - last by heulenwolf.. on Jan 29 at 2:41 PM


A new electrocatalyst can effectively break down ethanol molecules at low potential, producing hydrogen ions, electrons, and carbon dioxide. It was developed at the DOE Brookhaven National Laboratory and consists of a ternary structure of platinum and rhodium atoms deposited on a layer of tin-oxide nanoparticles.  (Source: Brookhaven National Laboratory)
A new catalyst has been developed which can efficiently break down ethanol

Hydrogen fuel cells are one of the hottest topics in alternative energy.  However, switching to a hydrogen economy brings with it a load of difficulties and costs, the biggest of which are how to mass produce, ship, and store the fuel.  Thus fuel cell designers have looked to seemingly easier marks like methanol and ethanol.

While methanol fuel cells are relatively proven, with many designs set to enter the small battery market in the next few years, methanol still has the problem of limited supply.  Thus researchers are turning to ethanol, which will become increasingly cheap and abundant as cellulosic sources hit commercial-scale production.

The key difficulty, though, is that the bonds between ethanol's two carbon atoms prove too strong to be broken by most catalysts, making such hopes for naught in the past.  However, through extensive research scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Brookhaven National Laboratory along with researchers from the University of Delaware and Yeshiva University have discovered a solution.

The new catalyst -- a network of platinum and rhodium atoms on carbon-supported tin dioxide nanoparticles -- can split the carbon atoms.  Even better, at room temperature it can efficiently oxidize the resulting molecules, yielding hydrogen ions, electrons, and a main byproduct of carbon dioxide.  Previous catalysts had produced acetalhyde and acetic acid, two one-carbon molecules which still have hydrogen atoms bonded.  Acetalhyde and acetic acid are unsuitable for power generation.

Brookhaven chemist Radoslav Adzic cheers the discovery, stating, "Ethanol is one of the most ideal reactants for fuel cells.  It’s easy to produce, renewable, nontoxic, relatively easy to transport, and it has a high energy density. In addition, with some alterations, we could reuse the infrastructure that’s currently in place to store and distribute gasoline."

He adds, "The ability to split the carbon-carbon bond and generate CO2 at room temperature is a completely new feature of catalysis.  There are no other catalysts that can achieve this at practical potentials."

In order to analyze how the catalyst behaved, researchers compiled data from x-ray absorption techniques at Brookhaven’s National Synchrotron Light Source and transmission electron microscopy analyses at Brookhaven's Center for Functional Nanomaterials.  The result was a better understanding of the synergy in the ternary catalyst that produced such a high chemical activity.  This understanding should be useful in various other alternative energy fields, the researchers believe.

Scientists plan to begin producing the new catalyst in sufficient quantities to test fuel cell prototypes, in hopes of scaling up to eventual commercial designs.  The resulting cell will need a slight electrical potential to stimulate the catalyst, but as mentioned by the researchers, this potential is quite small, unlike other catalysts available.

The work is detailed in a paper in the online journal Nature Materials.

The research was funded by the Office of Basic Energy Sciences within DOE’s Office of Science.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

And what do we do with that Nasty Carbon Dioxide
By Scott66 on 1/27/2009 9:39:06 AM , Rating: 1
In our world or increasing global warm...uh-- change, what will be done with the CO2.




RE: And what do we do with that Nasty Carbon Dioxide
By AmazighQ on 1/27/09, Rating: -1
By dj LiTh on 1/27/2009 10:06:03 AM , Rating: 5
If you cant change destiny, how about the wording of your text?


By kontorotsui on 1/28/2009 6:28:12 AM , Rating: 2
My (any) Kingdom for an edit button.


By FireSnake on 1/27/2009 10:12:01 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, it might.

But, we are reading about new technologies all the time, but they are nowhere to be seen. Hybrid cars? Not good enough when we take into consideration how many CO2 is emitted when car is being built.


By FireSnake on 1/27/2009 10:14:48 AM , Rating: 2
.... that was just an example.


By porkpie on 1/27/2009 10:21:26 AM , Rating: 1
Only if you believe in the myth that CO2 affects temperatures.


By FireSnake on 1/27/2009 11:16:26 AM , Rating: 2
And you know that it is the fact that it doesn't?


By 67STANG on 1/27/2009 11:30:38 AM , Rating: 5
The only known fact is that it adds bubbles to soda.


By Alexvrb on 1/27/2009 6:34:27 PM , Rating: 3
I love carbonic acid! I'm drinking some right now. Heck, its even got phosphoric acid and citric acid too.


By MrPoletski on 1/29/2009 5:52:50 AM , Rating: 2
yeah, not sure why I got rated down.

BTW, that very fine foam you get in the head of a pint of Guinness or similar stout/bitter is made by bubbling nitrogen instead of carbon dioxide into the beer.

You're beer lesson is now over, raise your glass and toast.

TO BEER!


By trisct on 1/29/2009 2:10:21 PM , Rating: 2
I think the down-rating might be explained by the fact that there are some misinformed and self-centered people out there who actually object to the word "dude". Either that or they really hated Bill & Ted.


By inighthawki on 1/27/2009 12:37:48 PM , Rating: 2
Of course it affects temperature, it's a greenhouse gas, and traps heat. I think what you MEAN to say is the myth that CO2 significantly increases global warming.


By CZroe on 1/27/2009 2:00:15 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, the carbon came from our immediate environment and not deep in the Earth sequestered from a time with a very different atmosphere for a very different ecosystem, so it is "carbon neutral" in that scope, but the carbon was not all from the atmosphere (the plants consume other organic/plant material in the soil and turn it into CO2 gas).

Anyway, even if you think artificially added atmospheric carbon is bad (I don't), this is not so bad: because it's not burned away, the carbon can be more easily contained


By MrPoletski on 1/27/2009 11:53:49 AM , Rating: 5
THIS HAD BETTER NOT CAUSE A RISE IN THE PRICE OF BEER!


Rhodium
By krotchy on 1/27/2009 11:10:14 AM , Rating: 2
Where are we planning on getting a plentiful source of Rhodium if all these fuel cells are going to need some. Currently it's main use is in catalytic converters for automobiles, and that use alone spiked its price to over 10k/oz at one point. Throwing some in millions of fuel cells is not feasible.




RE: Rhodium
By Curelom on 1/27/2009 11:45:06 AM , Rating: 2
It also uses platinum which will mean these suckers are going to be expensive in any case.


RE: Rhodium
By FITCamaro on 1/27/2009 12:09:38 PM , Rating: 2
Your post and cureloms were also my thoughts. Those two elements are not plentiful and are very expensive. We'd have a better shot at using gold since there's more of it.


RE: Rhodium
By Moohbear on 1/27/2009 1:35:17 PM , Rating: 2
Bear in mind that's a first design. Now it's proven to work, there will be more research to study how and create different catalysts with cheaper materials, just like methanol fuel cells doing away with platinum.


RE: Rhodium
By CZroe on 1/27/2009 1:49:43 PM , Rating: 2
#1: fuel cells will be recyclable and "refillable" fuel cell technology will be common (how do you think the Honda Clarity FCX "refuels?").
#2: I expect it to have an effect on the amount of combustion engines manufactured, hence less need for catalytic converters. Ideally, there will be less combustion engines needed/built for every fuel-cell vehicle needed/built. The non-vehicular consumer applications should all be recycled/refilled so that is all that really needs to happen.


RE: Rhodium
By HotFoot on 1/27/2009 4:24:51 PM , Rating: 2
What amount of precious metals are in these fuel cells compared to the catalytic converter in an IC vehicle? This may very well be a moot point.


CO2 from fuel cells
By tigerspot on 1/27/2009 11:57:13 AM , Rating: 2
CO2 emitted from an ethanol fuel cell will be identical to the CO2 emitted from the same ethanol, burned in a regular engine.

Fuel cells offer a supposed advantage in efficiency. But that tends to disappear pretty quick unless the application is stationary. For on-board use, on a car or truck, you have a heavy, slow-responding beast that doesn't survive well when shaken.

I guess I'm wondering whether an ethanol fuel cell has a place, even in a future carbon-constrained world?

Or put more simply, why not just an enthanol-fueled IC engine?




RE: CO2 from fuel cells
By jrussell55 on 1/27/2009 12:27:48 PM , Rating: 2
A fuel cell replaces the battery pack for an electric drivetrain vehicle. In that case the use efficiency of the ethanol energy would be between 80-90% instead of the maximum possible efficiency of an IC engine of under 30% (the best current diesel engines are in the 22% area of fuel potential energy utilization) as limited by the laws of thermodynamics.

As to the materials, a fuel cell - electric vehicle will not be using a catalytic converter to clean the exhaust stream so the question becomes will the fuel cell require significantly more or less platinum/rhodium than the C.C. used on the I.C. drivetrain it replaces.


RE: CO2 from fuel cells
By Keeir on 1/27/2009 3:30:30 PM , Rating: 2
Close to correct but confusing...

You are mixing different efficieny numbers without proper explanation. There are three different numbers you are using or implying

#1. Engine Efficieny- Chemical Energy --> Electrical (Fuel Cell) or Rotational (IC)

#2. Drive Train Efficieny - Electric (Fuel Cell) or Mechanical (IC)

#3. Fuel to Wheel Efficieny.

Fuel Cells have a theortical engine efficieny in the .8 range. However, in practive they are much closer to .5 using Methonal or Hydrogen. I have never seen an Ethanol Cell efficieny. It is important to remember that fuel cells, just like IC, have different efficieny points depending on load. In practice, the efficieny of a car propulsion Fuel Cell is in the .4 range.

In contrast, a Diesal Engine has a theortical engine efficieny in the .6 range. In practice, this is significantly lower in the .4 range.

The Transmisson Efficieny is what really kills the IC in comparison to Fuel Cell. Electrical Drive trains are .8-.9 efficient, whereas most mechanical ones are .6-.7

This results in a final Fuel To Wheel values of ~.3-.4 for Fuel Cells and .2-.3 for Diesel Engines. Note, these assume the cars are experiencing varying load requirements such as the New European Driving Cycle or the US EPA testing regime.

I have seen that Honda Claims a efficieny of .6 for Fuel to Wheel for the FCX Clarity. I think they are either harnessing the heat engergy or doing a comparison value factoring "wieght savings" or something since I have yet to see a Hydrogen Fuel Cell Engine Efficieny be above .6... (though I am certainly not an expert, the expectation that even after transmission losses your Fuel Cell is consistently equal to the very best Fuel Cells even though it has obviously different loading schemes seems to be overly optimistic...)


RE: CO2 from fuel cells
By masher2 (blog) on 1/27/2009 4:02:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Transmisson Efficieny is what really kills the IC in comparison to Fuel Cell. Electrical Drive trains are .8-.9 efficient, whereas most mechanical ones are .6-.7
A few problems with this. A drivetrain that is .6 efficient would lose 40% of applied power in the form of heat-- meaning your transmission would get nearly as hot as your engine. In reality, auto drivetrain losses are about 15% for manuals, a bit more for automatics.

I'm not sure what you mean by an "electric" drivetrain. If an electric vehicle doesn't transmit power directly to the wheel (i.e. by a wheel-mounted motor), then its going to need generally the same transmission and thus the same losses. You'll save a few percent because the flat torque curve of an electric motor means less gearing-- but the real savings come from the direct drive approach, which eliminates the drivetrain entirely.


RE: CO2 from fuel cells
By Keeir on 1/27/2009 4:27:32 PM , Rating: 2
Hah, yes I was being unclear.

By Transmission I meant from Engine Output to Forward Motion, which includes alot of factors besides just gearbox losses.

And yes, I was thinking Wheel Hub motors, since thats where the real benifit comes from.


There is no problem with hydrogen production
By blowfish on 1/27/2009 11:10:12 PM , Rating: 2
There is no problem with hydrogen production - the problem is with the oil companies, who want to hang on to their infrastructure, which cannot be used for hydrogen distribution.

Consider that the hydrogen fuel cell was invented at the end of the 19th century - and has been used by NASA and others since the 1950's - so how much longer can the oil companies suppress the technology?




By shin0bi272 on 1/28/2009 1:52:46 AM , Rating: 2
you know the word octane right? that means that there are 8 bonds to be broken in the gasoline molecule. in hydrogen theres only 1. so you need 8x more hydrogen to go the same distance... that means it has to be kept under high pressures (~3000-5000psi) and you technically have to be certified to refill your tank.

Or you can just pull up to the gas station and be done in a few seconds and go on about your day.


correct me if I'm wrong but
By shin0bi272 on 1/28/2009 1:47:13 AM , Rating: 2
I didnt see anywhere in the article that said this was going to run an electric vehicle. Hydrogen fuel cells dont run electric cars they run hydrogen cars right? So basically this federally sponsored science lesson spent millions of our tax payer dollars to tell us that if you take some very precious metals and submerge them in cellulosic ethanol you get what exactly? Oh yeah hydrogen, electricity and co2. They dont mention in the article that ethanol fuels are only 15-20% less polluting than standard gasoline(there will be other byproducts in this process since plants are more than carbon and oxygen and hydrogen and you have to mine the precious metals to make this work), and that it's 20-30% less fuel efficient (meaning less miles per gallon so you have to use more of it to go the same distance). So doing the math there the best you can hope for is to break even with gasoline and at the worst case scenario youre polluting a lot more than gasoline... the only reason the greenies want you to use ethanol is because it screws "big oil".

Lastly can someone point to me in the constitution where it says that the government is supposed to hand out tax dollars to fund research into science experiments? Or for that matter "alternative energy"? If alternative energy were better than gasoline dont you think someone would have built a car to run on it without being federally subsidized or mandated? If theres a better alternative out there people will flock to it. Like the old saying goes "build a better mouse trap and the world will beat a path to your door". Well I guess here you could say "Have the government mandate people to use alternative mouse traps and you will be given millions of dollars to find a way to build a worse one".




By heulenwolf on 1/29/2009 2:41:47 PM , Rating: 2
Since you asked...

What the constitution does say is that "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8
I believe the argument is made that funding research towards alternative fuels provides both for common defense in reducing dependence on foreign oil and general welfare in the face of rising national energy use and costs.

It also says that the House "shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States"
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec2
... and the Senate "shall be composed of two Senators from each State, (chosen by the Legislature thereof,)"
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec3
...which means that constituents of each state can un-chose them, depending on their state laws, if they agree that their representatives are doing their jobs poorly.


errrrmmm
By MrPoletski on 1/27/2009 11:54:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
a network of platinum and rhodium atoms on carbon-supported tin dioxide nanoparticles


Giggity!




Makes Ethanol More Viable
By Giant Panda on 1/28/2009 12:01:02 AM , Rating: 2
One of the issues currently with ethanol is that it is difficult to distill it to a high enough purity to use in a combustion engine. Typical distillation techniques have difficulty getting above about 95% purity, which is really pretty pure, but that 5% of residual H2O still poses a serious problem if it were to get into your engine or build up in your gas tank, and it must be removed with some somewhat fancy chemistry. All of this distillation and refining adds cost, and requires the input of energy, which makes ethanol more costly and overall less efficient. One aspect of these fuel cells that I am very curious about is the kind of ethanol concentrations that they require to operate efficiently. If one could run with reasonable efficiency with an 80% to 95% pure ethanol, even though that fuel would have less energy gallon for gallon, it could be produced far more efficiently and thus cheaply, which could really help to make ethanol an actually viable fuel.




"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis














botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki