New Process Allows Fuel Cells To Run On Coal 125
Zothecula writes "Lately we're hearing a lot about the green energy potential of fuel cells, particularly hydrogen fuel cells. Unfortunately, although various methods of hydrogen production are being developed, it still isn't as inexpensive or easily obtainable as fossil fuels such as coal. Scientists from the Georgia Institute of Technology, however, have recently taken a step towards combining the eco-friendliness of fuel cell technology with the practicality of fossil fuels — they've created a fuel cell that runs on coal gas."
Missing the point (Score:5, Informative)
The point of a fuel cell would be to burn fossil fuels more efficiently.
Umm, the supply of coal is far more plentiful (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Coal is not green or clean (Score:4, Informative)
"in-" is a negative prefix.
I was going to mod you in-sightful ; but I doubt anyone would get the joke.
Are you in genius, in competent, in capable... - BB.
Re:Yay! (Score:4, Informative)
We cut the top off of mountains because it is cheaper not because "coal that we can get from a mine" is running out.
Direct Carbon Fuel Cells? (Score:5, Informative)
Whatever happened to just carbon fuel cells?
from 2005: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7891-coalpowered-fuel-cell-aims-for-efficiency.html [newscientist.com]
and some unknown date: https://www.llnl.gov/str/June01/Cooper.html [llnl.gov]
Re:Interesting, but ignoring some issues (Score:2, Informative)
To give you some numbers, gasification is ~80%+ efficient depending on scale. The fuel cell process is exothermic, so you get the heat needed to keep the reactor at 750C for free except for the initial few minutes when you turn on the reactor--which won't happen very often because solid oxide fuel cells don't like being turned on and off frequently (big thermal stress). Finally, the 40% figure you quote is the overall efficiency for existing fuel cells, so it doesn't make sense to multiply that again.
Coal air Fuel From 1970 - 1980 NO Gasification REq (Score:5, Informative)
This is nothing really new. Back in the Late 1970's and early 1980 I was part of a team at SRI international that used Bituminous coal as the fuel source for a molten Carbonate fuel cell that ran at near 500 deg C. The eutectic combination of Sodium Potassium and Lithium Carbonate would absorb the Sulfur, and ash content of the Bituminous coal. I found that series 300 stainless steal would form a very nice passivation layer as long as there was some oxygen around inside the fuel cell, so the cell could be contained in relatively cheap 316 steel. The molten carbonate would need to be cleaned every so often to remove the sulfur, and other solid ash from the coal. The output of the fuel cell was about 1.2 volts, and pure CO2. The only processing of the bituminous coal that was necessary was to solidify the bituminous coal into an electrode with a wire mesh of conductive wire that would not be corroded by the molten carbonate at 500 degree C. NO GASIFICATION WAS REQUIRED. from our experiments the fuel cell plant would have an overall efficiency of about 35 - 40% which is much higher than coal burning plants, plus all the sulfur, and ash would be contained in the molten carbonate rather tan spewed into the atmosphere. The project was killed when the Government deemed in the early 1980's that we were beyond the research stage, and the team at SRI international and EPRI could not find funding for a pilot plant operations. if you are interested in furthering this project, you just need to look for papers with the authrs of Robert Weaver, Steven Leach and/or Michael McKubre. There are papers in the EPRI archives, as SRI international reports and in the Journal of the Electrochemical Society.
The problem with Gasification is the SULFUR, and the FLY ASH from the coal. SULFUR KILLS Fuel cells that use most catalyst , and fly ash is the BIGGEST issue with coal burning plants. I wish this tam all the best in commercializing this process, but I also know that while this process will be more efficient than using steam conversion teh biggest issue will be the SULFUR and Fly ASH.
GOOD LUCK and may the US Government and the big power cartel treat you better than they treated our team.
Re:Direct Carbon Fuel Cells? (Score:2, Informative)
Your article just talks about a battery, plain and simple. The carbon acts as one of the electrodes and the reducing agent. Generally, carbon is used as an electrode when one of the substances used in the battery is water-soluble (as carbon is notoriously difficult to oxidize or reduce). Here, the article states that they're actually oxidizing carbon -- stealing away electrons from it. I don't see how that would work, honestly, but that's probably a deficiency of my chemically-oriented education. I would see that as something that could be more efficiently (in terms of energy expended and CO2 produced) with a battery lacking carbon as the oxidizing or reducing agent, charged via conventional combustion. In any case, that's interesting.
Neat, but not New (Score:4, Informative)
These guys are working on a new SOFC catalyst that will allow them to run gasified coal at lower temperatures without running into problems with coking. The basic idea is to gasify coal and then use internal reforming (a standard benefit of SOFC technology) to reform the hydrocarbons into CO and H2 which can be used directly as fuels. The new part is that this new catalyst is capable of running at lower temperatures without seeing a buildup of carbon, generally this is a problem that is solved by higher temperatures/power densities (which causes faster degradation) or more steam injection (more water needed).
The problem itself was the entire goal of the SECA program in the US because there is so much coal, and this gets better efficiency than just burning it normally. However, it looks like funding is on the way out for these programs, fossil fuel guys don't like fuel cells and vice versa. Most of the big players, GE, Siemens, etc have already bailed.
Some companies that use similar technology: Versa Power (US & Canada), Bloom Energy (US), Staxera (GE), Ceres Power (UK), CFCL (AU) and others