backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 23 comment(s) - last by martinrichards.. on May 8 at 5:57 AM

Progress is made on methanol fuel cell catalysts

Methanol fuel cells are gaining traction as a viable alternative to batteries, based on their quick recharge rates and promise of instant power while away from the plug.  Both Sony and MTI Micro have promised to bring methanol fuel cells to market, with MTI Micro stating that it will be selling fuel cells by next year.  However the cells remain pricey and are not optimally efficient, limiting their power output, lifetime, and potential.

University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU) research chemist, José E. Barranco hopes to make methanol fuel cells more viable.  For his PhD research he has developed improved catalysts that can be put to use in the cells.  Catalysts accelerate the rate of chemical reaction, allowing cells to have potentially higher outputs.  Barranco, who currently works at Polytechnic University School in the Basque city of Donostia-San Sebastián, developed new amorphous metallic catalysts that should help the burgeoning methanol fuel cell industry.

While methanol fuel cells are a hot topic certainly, more research effort and money has gone into perfecting hydrogen fuel cells.  Barranco argues that methanol fuel cells are advantageous to hydrogen ones in a variety of ways as methanol has superior energy density, is more cheaply produced, and does not need to be pressurized.

During the fuel cell's operation power is generated by electro-oxidation reactions.  These reactions occur at special membranes that expose gases to each other, but prevent them from completely mixing.  Catalysts are placed in these membranes to speed these reactions.  Platinum is a typically used catalyst as it provides a good boost.  However it is extremely expensive.  Additionally, carbon monoxide from reactions bonds to platinum, impeding the catalyst's function.

Barranco's research focused on minimizing the platinum used.  He devised a catalyst with 1 percent platinum, composed of nickel, niobium, antimony or ruthenium and other metals.  The new catalyst was cheaper and also catalyzed a new reaction -- the conversion of carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide, helping safeguard the catalyst from deterioration.  Barranco points out that while this means the cell will emit the greenhouse gas, a car engine powered on a methanol fuel cell would release less carbon dioxide than a typical petrol engine.

Further progress was made by Barranco when amorphous platinum was used for the small platinum content.  The new amorphous material was 80 to 100 times better at speeding the reaction than crystalline platinum, due its disordered structure.  Further, it resisted corrosion better than traditional platinum.  Amorphous platinum can be produced by sudden cooling of heated crystalline platinum.

Finally, Barranco designed a unique delivery form for the catalyst, making it into a very fine powder, placed in a can, which could essentially be spray painted on.  In tests, it was revealed that this approach yield 9 to 13 times the operational capacity of larger particle catalysts typically used.

The end result is that fuel cell efficiency is improved 50 percent.  Barranco is currently working with other researchers to further improve the overall methanol fuel design.

While some people scoff at such developments as they regularly occur and take years to reach the market, it is such iterative improvements that delivered the modern PC and the modern combustion engine.  With Barranco and others delivering terrific advancements in fuel cell technology, these advances will eventually culminate in the form a valuable commercial product.



Comments     Threshold


Not a difficult choice..
By masher2 (blog) on 5/7/2008 12:09:58 PM , Rating: 5
> "...the conversion of carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide...while this means the cell will emit the greenhouse gas..."

If I had to choose between a fuel cell emitting deadly CO or safe, wholesome CO2, I'll take the latter in a heartbeat.




RE: Not a difficult choice..
By hubajube on 5/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Not a difficult choice..
By AsicsNow on 5/7/2008 12:51:01 PM , Rating: 1
It'd still be a hell of a lot cleaner than many of the other viable options we have. Hydrogen is still very very iffy due to the dangers of using an extremely volatile gas that has to be held in pressurized containers that could cause cars to explode upon contact.

Methanol has a considerably higher energy per carbon than ethanol, butanol, and so forth which means it's at the VERY least cleaner than these alternatives. It'd likely still be much cleaner than gasoline and ethanol combustion engines. I just wish more people were aware of and pushing for the methanol option in the search for viable alternative energy sources.

Of course, the introduction of Stirling engines based off of the Carnot Cycle would help more than any of these new fuels alone in cutting emissions since they are considerably more efficient than conventional combustion engines. Shame our civilization took the cheap option 100 years and went with our current engine design over stirling engines. I think there are people working on making Stirling engines that are more practical for production and use in cars. I remember reading somewhere that the gain in efficiency over combustion at the moment is like 2.5x.


RE: Not a difficult choice..
By Smartless on 5/7/2008 2:43:39 PM , Rating: 3
Sorry the picture they used on wiki of the stirling engine made me laugh. Yeah yeah I watch to much Southpark.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine
But in any case, methanol is an interesting possibility. I did a paper in college on alternative fuels and at the time, methanol seemed the most promising except that if it gets out, its a bit more poisonous than ethanol. Funny thing was, the headliner at the time was turning cow-farts and sewage gases into methanol.


RE: Not a difficult choice..
By Alexvrb on 5/7/2008 4:07:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Shame our civilization took the only viable option 100 years and went with our current engine design over stirling engines. I think there are people working on making Stirling engines that are more practical for production and use in cars.

Fixed that for you. Read the "disadvantages" section in the wikipedia article on Stirling engines. There are a whole host of reasons why they are still unsuitable for cars today, even after all this time.


RE: Not a difficult choice..
By Misty Dingos on 5/7/2008 1:12:20 PM , Rating: 5
Because I am nice and I like to help people out I will explain why they "just don't get it".

Because Global Warming is a hoax and they are smarter than you. They figured it out.

I am really glad that I could help you out there.

So who needs help next?


RE: Not a difficult choice..
By aftlizard on 5/7/2008 2:17:11 PM , Rating: 2
Sigh.


RE: Not a difficult choice..
By hubajube on 5/7/2008 3:39:27 PM , Rating: 2
He he. Sarcasm escapes us! C'mon you guys know the wackos will be in this thread soon to sprout their "end of the world" BS. I thought I was being obvious but I guess not.


RE: Not a difficult choice..
By nvalhalla on 5/7/2008 4:25:42 PM , Rating: 2
You needed to be over the top. That sounded exactly like them.


RE: Not a difficult choice..
By codeThug on 5/7/2008 4:57:31 PM , Rating: 2
Excellent deadpan. You even had me wondering there for a second.

+5 at least...


By martinrichards23 on 5/8/2008 5:57:08 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
We really need to reduce our CO2 emissions. I just don't understand why you or others just can't see how important this is for all of humanity. This must be done and done NOW!


I think you've been breathing too much carbon monoxide.


By Chemical Chris on 5/7/2008 12:52:44 PM , Rating: 2
From the wording in the article, though a little confusing, it seems to state that the new process catalyzes the conversion of CO to CO2, thereby reducing the CO emitted (which also breaks down the catalyst) and increasing the CO2 emitted. This is a win-win. The only 'downside' is the mass of emissions will be greater (only 1 carbon from the fuel is used for each gas emission molecule, but CO is 28g/mol and CO2 is 44g/mol, so there is more mass of emissions, but the emissions are not as bad, and CO is a much better (ie, worse), by an order of magnitude, greenhouse gas compared to CO2).
So, win-win all around :)

Still, I had to read it over a few times, poor wording to blame.
Chem C


RE: Not a difficult choice..
By RogueSpear on 5/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Not a difficult choice..
By Etsp on 5/7/2008 1:07:31 PM , Rating: 2
That's not a humans job, that's the job of plants...


By Chemical Chris on 5/7/2008 3:49:25 PM , Rating: 2
I just had a vivid image of a bunch of plants on a picket line protesting the theft of *their* CO2 by us animals......"No more Oranges until we get our CO2 back!"

The cycle is very simple, plants take CO2, use the carbon to make the plant bigger, give off O2, we take the O2 as the final electron acceptor for our metabolic cycle (Krebs), and give off oxidezed carbon (CO2) for the plants....big circle, that pretty much everyone knows (one should hope, at least).
The motor for this cycle is, of course, the sun.


RE: Not a difficult choice..
By nvalhalla on 5/7/2008 2:21:37 PM , Rating: 3
I inhale, and then exhale, CO2 all day long, never hurt me. CO2 is harmless in the FACT that man made global warming is a ridiculous scare and greenhouse gases don't even contribute significantly to "global warming", which went away this year.


RE: Not a difficult choice..
By hubajube on 5/7/2008 3:41:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you find it to be so safe and wholesome then perhaps you could do the world a favor and inhale nothing but CO2.
Oops, looks like the wackos are already here.


RE: Not a difficult choice..
By codeThug on 5/7/2008 5:00:13 PM , Rating: 2
I'll take Mike's hit of CO2 as long as you take a hit of CO.

We'll see who lasts longer...


RE: Not a difficult choice..
By Carter642 on 5/7/2008 12:55:27 PM , Rating: 2
At roughly a third more efficient than ICEs I'd definately take one. I just wish they made cool noises like a proper engine :)


Amorphous metals are not easy to make...
By Fenixgoon on 5/7/2008 6:27:43 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think this technology will make it unless someone figures out how to make amorphous metals in bulk (not necessarily alternator sized though, haha).

Amorphous metals typically require a cooling rate of 1,000,000 K/sec. This is generally achieved (AFAIK) by flinging a small droplet of liquid metal onto a spinning wheel cooled with water, giving a "ribbon" of sorts. Amorphous metals were big back in the 70's, but nothing came of it and the funding ran dry. Now people are getting back into it though.

By comparison, taking a molten metal and quenching it directly in ice water yield a cooling rate of roughly 1000 K/sec.