backtop


Print 28 comment(s) - last by JimmyC.. on May 27 at 11:44 PM


A view of the thin electrolyte membrane which MIT researchers have created. It ups fuel cell power by 50 percent.  (Source: MIT)
The fuel cell membrane advances soldier on; this time an advance in the electrolyte films

The rejuvenation of alternative energy research is readily apparent when considering the fuel cell industry.  After decades of little significant change in materials used in the cells, fuel cells -- both hydrogen and methanol -- are undergoing a materials revolution.

A basic fuel cell has three components.  The first is the anode electrode, which is attached to a membrane, typically coated in catalyst, which is selectively permeable and exposes reactants to each other.  The next part is the electrolyte, most commonly Nafion in methanol fuel cells.  The final component is the cathode, an electrode attached to another selectively permeable membrane. 

By reactions occurring at the cathode and anode, a voltage difference is yielded, which is how the fuel cell makes power.  DailyTech recently reported on a breakthrough in the membranes attached to the electrodes, something which has been relatively unchanged for a long time.  Another major breakthrough in the catalyst coating these membranes was also reported.

Now researchers have found a way to improve the third component, the electrolyte layer, for methanol fuel cells.  MIT engineers have improved a methanol fuel cell's power output by 50 percent by using a new material.  More importantly, they report that the new material is significantly cheaper than the current electrolyte material.

Paula T. Hammond, Bayer Professor of Chemical Engineering lead the MIT team in their research.  She says the new material is very promising, not only for fuel cells, but also for traditional batteries, as they use a layer of electrolyte as well.  She states, "Our goal is to replace traditional fuel-cell membranes with these cost-effective, highly tunable and better-performing materials."

Hammond authored a work with Avni A. Argun, a postdoctoral chemical engineering associate, and J. Nathan Ashcraft, a graduate student, which appeared recently in the Advanced Materials journal.  Their new material is less permeable than the commonly used current electrolyte layer, Nafion, which allows methanol to seep across it, lowering the cell's efficiency.

The new MIT electrolyte film takes advantage of a new materials assembly process known as layer-by-layer assembly.  The new approach allows for more careful construction of a chemical surface.  Says Hammond, "We were able to tune the structure of [our] film a few nanometers at a time."

The new material has two orders of magnitude less permeability as a result and compares favorably to Nafion in its proton mobility character.  The MIT researchers say that despite the new process, the material will be cheaper to make then the old one.

In the test researchers coated a Nafion film with the new material and observed a 50 percent increase in power.  Hammond and her team are now looking at moving ahead and using the film independently to entire replace the Nafion layer.  They have been working on developing thin stand alone films, much like plastic wrap.

Hammond's team focuses on methanol fuel cells for several reasons.  First methanol is easier to make, as it does not require alcohol to be broken down into hydrogen.  Secondly as it is a liquid fuel as opposed to hydrogen, which is a gas, it does not need to be stored under pressure and is less flammable than hydrogen.  It also has an attractively high energy density.

While it may seem like the components of a fuel cell are advancing piece by piece independently and are not yielding sufficient commercialization, we can be rest assured that these developments will soon see their way into the next generation of fuel cells that hit the market. 

And it may be sooner as opposed to later.  Next year several companies are set to release commercial methanol fuel cells to a consumer -- a first.



Comments     Threshold


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

Needs faster research
By noxipoo on 5/19/2008 10:58:42 AM , Rating: 1
i just paid $4.10/gal for gas and it is the cheapest i can find by my house. it was like $3.89 the last time i filled up. chicago gas prices :\




RE: Needs faster research
By BansheeX on 5/19/2008 11:41:50 AM , Rating: 2
Yep, and your sweet talking socialist politicians are about to go on a tear and drive it to $7 a gallon by continuing to debase the dollar with big spending projects and stimulus packages and bailouts, limiting supply through blocking exploration and creating more disincentive hoops to jump through, keeping demand at record levels by blocking nuclear and other readily available NIMBY technology that France of all people got right from the beginning (70% nuclear, not a single accident, and the biggest exporter of energy in Europe), and taxing domestic oil companies even more than they already are. So the Dems are screaming for corporate blood and completely misattributing the problem, and the Neo-Cons who call themselves republicans are sending Bush over to Saudi Arabia to beg OPEC for an increase in output (in return for weapons or something, I'm guessing). Meanwhile, Ron Paul libertarians who have been predicting this net result of inflationary policy for years are completely ignored. Have fun guys. Nothing like waiting until your face is smashed to dodge the punch.


RE: Needs faster research
By valleyboy5 on 5/19/2008 11:53:47 AM , Rating: 2
Fuel cells! Does anyone else remember 1960 or so when International Harvester was going to have a fuel cell on the market within a few years and there would no longer be need for power lines and power plants because every thing from cars and houses would run on fuel cells. Glad I didn't hold my breathe.


RE: Needs faster research
By BansheeX on 5/19/2008 2:50:13 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, pie in the sky it would seem. Fuel cells won't be ready for another ten years, and even then, it will take another twenty for machines to change over as it becomes commercially viable. Furthermore, how do fuel cells solve the infrastructure problems? It takes energy to create fuel cells, you know. We can't sprout up hundreds of nuclear plants overnight even with political consent. We are super late on the game and politicians are still posturing around it and blocking the arctic, blocking the gulf, blocking the pacific coast. We are going to have some kind of shortage or crisis in the next couple of years and it's going to cause prices for everything to spiral upwards. Our dependency on this stuff is supreme. Farm equipment uses it, airplanes need it, transport vessels need it, semis need it. I mean, how in the mean time does wind or solar save us in those applications? It's impossible.


RE: Needs faster research
By Spuke on 5/19/2008 4:53:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We are going to have some kind of shortage or crisis in the next couple of years and it's going to cause prices for everything to spiral upwards.
I'm going to just wait for the death calls myself.


RE: Needs faster research
By JimmyC on 5/27/2008 11:44:32 PM , Rating: 2
Guns and gold, time to stock up on the only stuff that'll be worth anything in a few years.


RE: Needs faster research
By Ringold on 5/20/2008 5:51:03 AM , Rating: 2
I've said the same thing about shortages and California for years. That state just wont die, though.

People said $100 oil would be catastrophic to the US economy, now we're at $127 and the non-recession recession already appears to be over. Economists are already starting to have a little fun at the NBER's expense; if they call the Jan-March slow-down a recession, it'll be the shortest and most shallow recession in history, defined purely by below trend growth, with not a single quarter of negative GDP growth in the books. Some economists even expect Q1's GDP numbers to get revised up at some point. Monday, the Conference Board noted strengthening leading economic indicators, second month in a row, just the most recent in a string of up-beat data points.

I think we'll be more resilient than people think. I'm even surprised, and I said all along the recession talk was bunk.


RE: Needs faster research
By BansheeX on 5/20/2008 11:36:30 AM , Rating: 2
Hehe, over? We're years away from a bottom. The people I listen to, who have a good track record, predicted as far back as last year when this began a brief rally in the middle of 2008, which they call the "creamy filling" followed by a poor fourth quarter and eventual dollar crisis (though the dollar has already lost 40% of its purchasing power the last few years, and unlike the Volcker years we can't raise rates because we're in massive debt and have way less productive capacity as then). Oil will probably hit $150 by the end of the year and go to $200 by the end of 2009. Massive oil fields are starting to go into decline and we simply don't have the replacements to keep up with worldwide demand. But even speculation and supply worries don't explain the hike we've seen priced in dollars (gold has followed oil throughout all of this). Maybe $20 to $40, but not $20 to $120. This is mostly dollar-related. In any case, oil at $200 is simply going to murder consumers and producers alike, and the debt Americans have accumulated all these years doesn't just disappear and turn into happy days again. The long-term outlook is still pretty bleak, just pray to god politicians don't go crazy and turn it into a depression in 2010 with all of this stimulus nonsense.

I should also mention that the GDP is rigged. To barely stay above 0%, the government uses a heavily manipulated calculation of inflation, the CPI. If CPI reflected true inflation, it would have been a negative result. In the real world, we're in a recession. In keynesian hedonics adjusted, food and fuel-omitted la la land, we are doing just fine.


RE: Needs faster research
By Ringold on 5/20/2008 4:39:21 PM , Rating: 2
Less productive capacity? Manufacturing output has almost quintupled since 1960; job weakness in the manufacturing sector just reflects robots doing far more 'productive' work. The service sector... is NYC not 'productive' by your definition? I'm not sure what you mean here. Also, if we balanced the budget, we could raise rates but leave the old debt locked in at the old rates, thus rendering that a non-issue (for the government, at least). No, we can't repeat Volcker's tactics because as soon as the Fed started causing pain on Main Street, the Democrats would destroy the Fed's independence and set rates lower themselves, just like how Sarkozy is trying to pressure the ECB to cut rates.

As for oil and it's impact, people said the same thing about $75 oil, then $100 oil. Now it's $130, and just 10 minutes ago HP repeated a number that knocked out analyst expectations. Shockingly, demand curves are downward sloping, and the number of miles people travel on average has been falling for 4 months. As a percentage of household income, gasoline is still cheap compared to recent history. I too expect $200 - 300 oil, but we survived Carter, we'll survive when gas reaches a similar share of household income again -- especially if we don't get another Carter that manipulates the market, making things worse. Oil use per dollar of GDP is far, far lower than during the Carter years.

I think we agree there, though. Politicians could very easily turn the situation from bad to all-out catastrophe.

Peoples own 'balance sheets' may not be great, but savings rate have bounced off zero/slightly negative, and through Q1 incomes rose but spending grew less. Obviously we need several years of those tiny gains, but it was a good start.

As for GDP, Q1 GDP is expected to be revised upwards because they were over-zealous in their deflators. I stated exactly why I stripped out food and fuel; it doesn't represent real inflation, it represents international demand, as evidence by a flat dollar while oil soared. Therefore, if you are looking for fed-induced inflation in the classic sense, then you almost have to strip out those frothy elements for a true reading, and when you do, you see little evidence of more dollars chasing the same goods. But if the objective is to look at peoples buying power, then sure, have to leave them in.

Asides from the disdain for fiat currency (I've tried, hard, and am unconvinced that a gold standard solves much), I think our main difference is that you're just a bit more pessimistic than I am.


RE: Needs faster research
By BansheeX on 5/21/2008 1:24:25 PM , Rating: 2
The big question about your demand theory is, where is that demand coming from all the sudden? If we grant that wealth is relative, and that the world has always been competing for a finite amount of goods, I see no other explanation of why China is gaining relative to us than the inflation/debasement of our own currency.

I mean... if we were legitimately wealthy and productive, we shouldn't be having these problems at all. Central banks around the world are inflating their own currencies and buying up our securities to keep us buoyant and subsidize our consumption of their products. China, for example, links their currency to ours. Somehow our economists have convinced them that we are driving their growth by consuming their products, so they need us and haven't delinked. I don't think they need us at all. They are quite capable of being consumers of their own products, and if they delink and let their currency appreciate, billions of people over there will experience a dramatic period of growth at our expense. All we've been doing is borrowing and spending and they have been producing their way to prosperity. Their growth is sustainable, ours isn't. I don't even want to know what our savings rate is today. The only bright spot to a weaker dollar is exports, but most of what we consume is imported today. It's going to take a lot of time creating factories again and get back to real wealth.


RE: Needs faster research
By BansheeX on 5/21/2008 1:30:38 PM , Rating: 2
What I mean by not being productive is relative. We are running massive trade deficits today, so we are consuming more goods and services from the world than they are of us. And unlike in the past when we borrowed to build infrastructure, now we're borrowing for... consumption? To buy bigger homes, to get new cars, to remodel our bathrooms? That doesn't make sense in the economic picture. Sounds like highway robbery.


RE: Needs faster research
By FITCamaro on 5/19/2008 12:20:48 PM , Rating: 2
Here in Charleston, regular is $3.59-3.65. I paid $3.79 for premium this morning. Pretty sad that a small car now is $45-50 to fill up.

I pray for a miracle and we get a decent presidential candidate that actually cares about making this country competitive, doesn't seek to punish corporations, and doesn't want to tax us to death.

McCain's only bright points are not wanting to raise taxes and not planning to end the war tomorrow. But he's still a global warming nut, for amnesty for illegals, for carbon emissions caps, etc.

He's pretty old so maybe he'll get sick in the next month or so and we can have Huckabee back with Ron Paul as his running mate.


RE: Needs faster research
By Spuke on 5/19/2008 12:29:28 PM , Rating: 2
All of the candidates are for us paying more money out of pockets in one way or another. I, for one, look forward to meeting our recession overlords.


RE: Needs faster research
By FITCamaro on 5/19/2008 1:21:35 PM , Rating: 2
Hence my hope for a different candidate.


RE: Needs faster research
By cludinsk on 5/19/2008 3:55:11 PM , Rating: 2
more science, less politics, thanks.


RE: Needs faster research
By JonnyDough on 5/19/2008 8:28:19 PM , Rating: 2
Better politics would lead the way for more science. We have problems with how we're governed and the freedoms that allow us to invent. Ever hear of Red Tape? Ever hear of monopolies? We need better politics to allow for a truly free market in which science can blossum. We need politics AND science. Please don't try to insinuate that they aren't connected. They're joined at the hip, along with religion and culture.


RE: Needs faster research
By Ringold on 5/20/2008 5:42:14 AM , Rating: 2
I like a lot of your posts, but If you'd lose the gold-standard chip on your shoulder, I'd like even more of them. :P

There have been a lot of trading days over the course of the year where I've seen the dollar strengthen while oil simultaneously surged higher. The dollar is now pretty much where it was versus the Euro at the start of March -- oil? The USO ETF has gone from $80 to $102. Does that not sink your inflationary oil thesis?

Is some commodity price inflation maybe due to lax central bank policy? Sure. Is the real story the fact that China is essentially building the equivalent of a new California every year? Yes.

When you strip out energy and food, both of which are slaves to the aforementioned international boom in prosperity, our core inflation rate is tame, and it has not yet been baked in to wages. Indeed, citrus I think is down 10% year over year, and TV's I think were closer to 20% lower. Clothes and computers, perennial deflationary items, have continued their perpetual price declines.

I think you might be giving too much credit to the Fed; they control their one tiny little policy rate. LIBOR and bond rates can do, and have done, what ever the hell they wanted to do, much to the annoyance of the Fed. They can move bonds around worth billions of dollars, yes, but dollars traded in FOREX markets is in the trillions, and the total international bond market is, what, 100 trillion today?

That said, yeah, I'd be more comfortable with the rate being 100bp higher. Negative real rates just can't be good for long. Volcker slayed the inflation dragon, we don't need to resurrect it. We are far too weak politically today, with both parties, to make the sacrifices necessary to fight that battle again. Then your fears really would come tree, Banshee. But not yet.


What really needs to happen
By FITCamaro on 5/19/2008 8:00:23 AM , Rating: 4
They need to get these things into an actual product. It's all well and good to hear about research. But the public won't start accepting something until we see an actual implementation.




RE: What really needs to happen
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 5/19/2008 8:22:54 AM , Rating: 2
Well that has always been a problem with civilian science. They come up with all sorts of neat advancements, but its a long time (if ever) that they can get it to a practical point. In many cases comeone comes along afterwards and finds a practical application for it years later.


RE: What really needs to happen
By AnnihilatorX on 5/19/2008 9:02:04 AM , Rating: 2
Well it's mentioned that despite being a superior design, the production cost is cheaper.
Most often the barrier to a consumer market entry for a new technology is their cost, which won't come down until economies of scale kicks in.
In this case however, since the new process is cheaper, minus perhaps a one off investment cost for new equipments; combined with he power improvements, we should see this technology being applied pretty quickly. I would say less than 2 years if they are now mass production ready.


RE: What really needs to happen
By Polynikes on 5/19/2008 9:47:46 AM , Rating: 2
I'd rather have an arc reactor instead. ;)


RE: What really needs to happen
By NicePants42 on 5/19/2008 11:33:09 AM , Rating: 2
And what better company to make/market these new devices than Apple? Further fuel cell improvements and reduced dependency on foreign oil could be only a few billion new iphones away, (assuming they don't get bricked).

Sony and Mobion are already working on it.
http://www.dailytech.com/Sony+Unveils+Tiny+Hybrid+...
http://www.dailytech.com/Mobion+Embedded+GPS+Devic...


RE: What really needs to happen
By FITCamaro on 5/19/2008 12:09:27 PM , Rating: 1
Apple is the worst company I can think of to start offering it. They'll severely overcharge for it which will make everyone else charge less but still be overpriced.

And using methanol for gas would not really remove our dependence on foreign fuel sources since we don't produce enough natural gas ourselves to fuel a methanol economy. There's using coal too but still.

Besides, methanol is corrosive to aluminum which is what nearly all modern engines are made out of which means we either go back to iron (heavier) or find a new material.


RE: What really needs to happen
By Spuke on 5/19/2008 12:25:18 PM , Rating: 2
Can we use magnesium?


RE: What really needs to happen
By FITCamaro on 5/19/2008 1:20:43 PM , Rating: 2
If you like the possibility of your engine igniting. A ceramic/metallic compound would be the material of choice. Ceramic for high heat tolerance and metal to aid in structural integrity.


RE: What really needs to happen
By Smartless on 5/19/2008 2:21:26 PM , Rating: 2
Wait you lost me. Aren't we talking about a fuel cell? So an electric motor not a combustion engine right? Although I do agree that magnesium would be a lovely engine... and if Macgyver got it, he'd use it to blow torch an armored car open.


By masher2 (blog) on 5/19/2008 3:24:31 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, Porsche and a couple other automakers used to make magnesium-based engines.


RE: What really needs to happen
By JonnyDough on 5/19/2008 5:47:46 PM , Rating: 2
If you're thinking of fuel cells in small handheld devices you're thinking small. There are much more important and larger needs for fuel cells than iPods.


"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home














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