backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 35 comment(s) - last by Orbs.. on Mar 25 at 4:52 PM


Professor Mark Wiesner developed the new membrane which uses microscopic iron particles. He teaches civil engineering and environmental engineering at Duke University.  (Source: Duke University)
Duke scientist Wiesner invents a membrane that is cheaper and can operate at higher temperatures and lower humidities than Nafion, the current most widely used membrane, invented in the '60s.

Fuel cells, a promising form of alternative energy, on a most basic level consists of a reaction between hydrogen and another chemical, which can be used to drive electrical current.  Typically, the other chemical is oxygen, which is advantageous in that the byproduct is clean water.  The key element to this process working efficiently is keeping the chemicals in a constant state of proper limited exposure, and often to catalyze the reaction.  To do this, special membranes go between the two gas fuel components.

Fuel cells are advantageous in that they can run for long periods of time and do not require combustion, producing less waste heat.  Their lack of moving parts, in most designs, is another advantage.  These pluses have led to their adoption for use in submarines, remote weather stations, satellites, and other remote applications.

Now researchers at Duke University's Pratt School of Engineering developed a breakthrough in membrane technology.  The researchers created a membrane with the key component being iron nanoparticles.  This special new membrane promises higher efficiency.  Furthermore, it should allow fuel cells to operate at lower humidity and, theoretically, at higher temperatures with less degradation.  

The research is being reported in the Journal of Membrane Science.

Mark Wiesner, Ph.D., a Duke civil engineer and senior author of the paper, explains the new membrane's advantages, stating, "The current gold standard membrane is a polymer that needs to be in a humid environment in order to function efficiently.  If the polymer membrane dries out, its efficiency drops. We developed a ceramic membrane made of iron nanoparticles that works at much lower humidity. And because it is a ceramic, it should also tolerate higher temperatures.  If the next series of tests proves that fuel cells with these new membranes perform well at high temperatures, we believe it might attract the type of investment needed to bring this technology to the market."

The current most commonly used membrane, Nafion, was first developed in the 1960s and has changed relatively little since.  This polymeric membrane becomes unstable at high temperatures and loses efficiency due to dehydration.  Nafion membranes are pricey, accounting for nearly 40 percent of the cost of the average system by Wiesner's estimates.  Wiesner's membranes are significantly cheaper to manufacture.

The key to proving his new membrane's value are high-temperature trials, says Wiesner.  Wiesner states, "The efficiency of current membranes drops significantly at temperatures over 190 degrees Fahrenheit.  However, the chemical reactions that create the electricity are more efficient at high temperatures, so it would be a big improvement for fuel cell technology to make this advance."

Wiesner and his team aren't done yet, however.  The extremely pure water produced from the reactions is no longer needed to humidify the cell, thus it can be removed and used for other purposes. Wiesner and his team are also tinkering with the membrane's fabrication to try to make it more flexible and more durable.  



Comments     Threshold


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

Did I read that right?
By nvalhalla on 3/19/2008 5:46:44 PM , Rating: 5
The Journal of Membrane Science?

Are you F'in kidding me?




RE: Did I read that right?
By Darkskypoet on 3/19/2008 10:16:21 PM , Rating: 2
That was exactly my thought. :) +1


RE: Did I read that right?
By csmark on 3/20/2008 1:06:43 PM , Rating: 2
Membrane research is a huge area of research. Well, that may be overstating it a bit. Membranes are hugely important in manufacturing for many reasons including separating charged particles to create energy. In an area of research that I keep tabs on they study the use of membranes made from bacteria. Sounds crazy I know. But the bacteria are cheap to produce (they grow well in culture) and their membranes have highly unique properties. Obviously the major issue is lack of durability. A lot of membrane surface can be produced in a short time. Just something else to think about.


RE: Did I read that right?
By Orbs on 3/25/2008 4:52:22 PM , Rating: 2
Insane in the membrane... insane in the brain!


By Etsp on 3/19/2008 5:23:54 PM , Rating: 5
I've been reading a lot about scientific breakthroughs lately, and usually the difference revolves around the utilization of some rare or hard to process material. This sounds quite promising, as iron is relatively easy to come by, and humanity has been processing it for centuries. Let's hope it can provide the promised benefits!




By alp689 on 3/19/2008 6:02:33 PM , Rating: 2
Definitely going to agree there. If any kind of breakthrough is going to be practical, it needs to be with something that is fairly readily available.

Between this, and all the stuff that's being done with carbon nanotubes (and from what was posted in a DT article a week or two ago, they just discovered a way to produce CNT's much more easily), it's very promising indeed.


Civil engineer ??
By phxfreddy on 3/24/2008 8:57:19 AM , Rating: 2
Somethings wrong here. The guys a civil engineer. They are the girlie men of engineering. They do slump tests with cement...not develop new membranes for fuel cells. Wonder which grad student actually did?




Go Duke!
By JBird7986 on 3/19/2008 5:27:58 PM , Rating: 1
Is it just me, or is Duke the one coming forward with most of the breakthroughs these days? First the "cloaking device," now this!

On a more serious note, the one thing that could make this work really well would be a catalyst to get hydrogen from water.

P.S.: Note of bias:

I'm a member of the Duke University Class of 2008.




Go Duke
By morked on 3/19/2008 8:58:07 PM , Rating: 1
GO BLUE DEVILS!!! :)




should've happened sooner...
By jlips6 on 3/19/08, Rating: -1
RE: should've happened sooner...
By acejj26 on 3/19/2008 5:54:27 PM , Rating: 3
because that's not the government's job?


RE: should've happened sooner...
By jlips6 on 3/19/2008 6:12:00 PM , Rating: 2
If you are being sarcastic, I salute you
If not, it is the governments job to give grants for important discoveries. While granting grants is not specifically stated in the constitution, I bet we could find a lawyer to cook up why it's supported by the elastic clause. :)


RE: should've happened sooner...
By AmishElvis on 3/19/2008 6:31:36 PM , Rating: 3
If you are not being sarcastic, I salute you. I'm tired of whiny liberals hanging off the government teat.


RE: should've happened sooner...
By bupkus on 3/19/2008 8:07:59 PM , Rating: 1
It's not the government's job when we say it's not the government's job. Who died and left you God?


RE: should've happened sooner...
By jlips6 on 3/19/2008 10:02:11 PM , Rating: 2
when we say? that sounds more like you think the government shouldn't give out grants. The government is responsible for handing out grants, and it says so itself. Why again do you not want your tax dollars to go to something useful?


RE: should've happened sooner...
By jlips6 on 3/19/2008 10:06:08 PM , Rating: 1
sir! I am most offended! I pride myself on being a whiny liberal! This may suprise you, but I actually am liberal. What's really strange is that all the traits which are supposed to belong to the republicans on the news are never brought up here. They are arguing points which are considered liberal, which I guess is appropriate since liberal is a part of the political spectrum and republican is a political party. Nowadays the phrases are so mixed you can't help but slur them.


RE: should've happened sooner...
By masher2 (blog) on 3/19/2008 6:21:08 PM , Rating: 3
> "but why hasn't the government been offering some grants to improve the fuel cell if the oil crisis is so huge? "

First of all, a fuel cell isn't a source of energy. The fuel within it is...but where does one get the energy within that fuel?

Fossil fuels have their energy "built in". But a hydrogen-based fuel cell requires one to produce hydrogen. The normal process today is steam-reformation of natural gas (itself a fossil fuel). There are several alternative routes (up to simply splitting water itself) but all of them require massive energy inputs.

Secondly, the oil crisis is -- while certainly very real -- not quite as large as the media might lead you to believe. Less than five years ago, I read countless articles on how $100/bbl oil would be the death of the nation. Today, oil's brushing $110, and we seem to still be doing just fine.


RE: should've happened sooner...
By Rugar on 3/19/2008 7:36:15 PM , Rating: 3
Here's an interesting analysis I heard the other day that puts oil prices in an interesting light:

If you look back to the year 2000 and adjust prices to 2006 dollars (they used this because the WSJ has a nice history of oil prices adjusted to 2006 dollars), then an ounce of gold (at ~$300/oz) would buy you roughly 10 barrels of oil (at ~$30/bbl). If you look at today, an ounce of gold (at ~$1000/oz) would buy you roughly 10 barrels of oil (at $100/bbl). The argument was that the value of these commodities has remained stable in comparison to each other and that the "high prices" we are seeing have more to do with a weakening dollar than with a shortage in supply.

Just interesting to consider.


By InternetGeek on 3/19/2008 8:05:00 PM , Rating: 3
So basically, what you're saying is that our incomes have not kept up in relation to what commodities cost these days. Which is why we're all feeling these new prices.


RE: should've happened sooner...
By MadMaster on 3/19/2008 8:38:09 PM , Rating: 2
However, 6 dollars used to get you 150 miles (in a 25 mpg car). Now it only gets you 50 miles.

That's a stupid/crappy/retarded analysis. Taking the government index of inflation into account, oil is the most expensive it has ever been.

Also, the reason gold is expensive is because of a rush to commodities by investors because everything else is doing crappy (sub-prime mortgage, etc. but could be improving right now). Historically, gold has been a crappy index for inflation (for a whole multitude of reasons, and only retard economists use it as a index for inflation).

I have to say the Saudis/OPEC are right this time, there is plenty of oil on the market and there is no justification for more. Oil is currently overpriced (but I personally think this is a good thing...but that's another argument).

If prices remain here, at 80-110 dollars, the economy will do okay. (not great)

However, prices are guaranteed to go past 80-110 in the near future (2-5 years). We're talking in the $200-300/bbl. Or $6-10/gallon. Our economy will not be able to brush off those economic effects (at least, not yet).

One simple fact, everybody (from the Chinese, to the USA) is depending on the Saudi's for future oil. The Saudi's are pumping (lots) of water out of all of their oil fields. Basically, when that happens, it is beginning of the end of any oil field. Say goodbye to cheap gas.


RE: should've happened sooner...
By masher2 (blog) on 3/19/2008 9:37:16 PM , Rating: 3
> "That's a stupid/crappy/retarded analysis."

It's actually a fairly astute one. Oil is a world commodity, and sellers don't care why the US debased its currency with poor fiscal policy. If the dollar declines, oil prices rise.

Certainly increased demand is bumping up prices, but the fact remains that a fistfull of Euros buys a lot more oil nowadays than the same amount of dollars. Other nations have seen far smaller relative price increases.

> "We're talking in the $200-300/bbl"

Barring a major war, I can safely say $300/bbl oil is out of the question in the 5-year timeframe. As the price rises, too many other alternativ