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."
Re:Yay! (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting, but ignoring some issues (Score:3, Insightful)
The fuel cells are also said to capture about half of the energy in the coal gas, as opposed to the third captured by burning.
and
Because solid oxide fuel cells have traditionally operated best at temperatures above 850C (1,562F), they have had to be made from relatively expensive heat-resistant materials. When treated with barium oxide and running on coal gas, however, they can operate at temperatures as low as 750C (1,382F).
How much energy does it take to gasify coal? - Deduct that. Also deduct the energy required to keep the fuel cell at 750C. Fuel cells currently run about 40% efficient, so multiple the previous number by 0.4. It's going to be a lot less than 30%.
Unlike hydrogen fuel cells, these ones do create carbon dioxide in the course of operation. Part of that CO2 is reused, however, for gasifying the coal. The rest is in a much more pure form than that produced simply by the burning of coal in a power plant, so extensive separation and purification wouldn't be required for sequestration.
So what CO2 sequestration are they envisaging? I'm not aware of anything that is truly commercial yet, except for the paper accounting job of claiming biomass production for a CO2 removal brownie point.
How much energy
Re:Yay! (Score:2, Insightful)
Coal won't run out, but we are definitely past "peak coal." Instead of hollowing out a mountainside, companies are force to use more risky/dangerous/environmentally devastating ways to get at the coal.
Oh, don't forget quality of coal. Lignite coal is very polluting. The good stuff, anthracite is effectively all gone, so no coal plant is going to be running it. Instead, the coal being used is bottom drawer stuff that either spews toxins in the air, or if filtered, ends up at the coal site.
There was a /. post a few weeks back of some innovative poster who managed to compute the total of deaths per terawatt caused by energy sources. Believe it or not, nuclear was dead last in confirmed kills, and coal was pretty high on the list.
The reason why coal is so common is that it is cheap and relatively plentiful. Even though it will turn areas into environmental nightmares [1]. Coal also has a large lobby behind it, while people will piss their shorts if they hear "nuclear", or "noo-clu-ear" like our last CIC.
Bottom line: We need to leave the dirty brown shit in the ground where it belongs and start splitting the atom for energy sources. Unless we want gas masks to go from a cool fashion statement for a date on a Saturday night to a necessity.
[1]: Compare the areas left by coal mine tailings to the area around Pripyat. One of which has plentiful flora and fauna running around. The other is just barren with only a few strains of bacteria existing.