Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

So Where Are The Fuel Cells? 315

Posted by timothy from the kept-down-by-the-man dept.
prostoalex writes: "While fuel cells have been touted as a revolutionary innovation for the electronics industry, they have not hit the market yet. This article in eWeek talks about the current problems with fuel cells, and claims that 'these devices, designed to last as much as 10 times longer than a standard lithium-ion battery, should hit the market by 2004.'" There are a few fuel-cell devices on the market, but this article points out a few reasons they're not yet more widespread.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

So Where Are The Fuel Cells? More

So Where Are The Fuel Cells?

Comments Filter:

  • they are (Score:4, Funny)

    by jjeffries ( 17675 ) on Sunday September 01, 2002 @12:54AM (#4179403)
    powering all the damn flying cars, where else?

  • Why don't they join forces...? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by G0SP0DAR ( 552303 ) on Sunday September 01, 2002 @12:57AM (#4179415)
    I've heard about fuel cells powering the 21st Century about as long as I've heard that I should have gotten a flying car for my birthday last year. First things first. Fuel cells have a lot of potential, but why waste all that extra energy on an Intel-powered notebook? Seriously, why don't the leading developers of fuel cells team up with Transmeta to make an invincible laptop that would blow Dell and Compaq-HP out of the water? That would mark one giant leap for the little guys, who greatly deserve a boost in success right about now.
    • That is a good point. Fuel cells are all fine and dandy, but until they are powering everything, and we are no longer polluting so much when we generate power, why don't we find ways to reduce our current power consumption.

  • battery vs. fuel cell, hmm... (Score:4, Funny)

    by rob-fu ( 564277 ) on Sunday September 01, 2002 @12:59AM (#4179419)
    There's the rub. Micro fuel cells may not be allowed on airplanes because the hydrogen-based devices use a highly flammable gas, while the methanol-based devices include an inflammable liquid.

    No thanks, I'll stick to my shitty laptop with the one battery that lasts about two hours. Better to have a laptop that sucks down the battery than one that EXPLODES IN YOUR LAP.
    • No thanks, I'll stick to my shitty laptop with the one battery that lasts about two hours. Better to have a laptop that sucks down the battery than one that EXPLODES IN YOUR LAP.

      You've obviously never had a Powerbook with a Lithium battery.

    • There's the rub. Micro fuel cells may not be allowed on airplanes because the hydrogen-based devices use a highly flammable gas, while the methanol-based devices include an inflammable liquid.

      This part makes me cringe for a different reason. Flammable [dictionary.com] and inflammable [dictionary.com] mean the same thing. Using them both in one sentence can only lead to confusion. I would assume hydrogen and methanol both burn pretty well, but it's hard to be sure what they meant.

    • Correcting some misinformation... (Score:5, Informative)

      by RedBear ( 207369 ) <redbear@@@redbearnet...com> on Sunday September 01, 2002 @02:16AM (#4179595) Homepage
      You're probably thinking mainly of the Hindenburg disaster when talking about something with hydrogen in it exploding. The problem with that is, A) the Hindenburg didn't explode, and B) it is highly unlikely that the fire that did consume the craft was caused by hydrogen being ignited by a spark. I got this from my dad and then later saw a report on it on PBS. Through a quick search on Google, I found the most relevant page I could, here [aps.org].

      The gist of it is that the skin of the Hindenburg was made of fabric and coated with laquers and metal based paints, and the material itself was highly flammable. (The guy on the PBS documentary had a piece of the original fabric and showed how nicely it burned.) That's why the entire surface of the dirigible burned within seconds and it crashed to the ground, and that's also why it burned with a bright orange flame. A hydrogen flame is nearly invisible in daylight; in darkness it's a pale blue. Hydrogen is lighter than air, thus always burns upwards, not in all directions. The long and short of it is that there were many indicators that a few thousand observant engineers and scientists over the decades should have picked up on, that should have told them their assumptions about hydrogen's involvment in that disaster were wrong. But to this day, the Hindenburg "explosion" is used in books and courses to show how "dangerous" hydrogen is. Just goes to show that just because something has been "known" a for a long time, doesn't mean it's correct.

      While we were talking about this (dad and I), he also told me about some experiments he'd seen and/or done many years ago with hydrogen. For example, if you have a tank filled with hydrogen and poke a hole in the side, and light the stream of hydrogen that's coming out with a match, guess what happens? No, it doesn't explode. If it's dark, you'll see a blue flame right at the edge of the hole. You'll see it until there isn't any gas left in the bottle. The pressure of the escaping gas is always just enough to keep it from burning back into the bottle. But there's also another reason it doesn't burn back into the bottle and blow up. Say you stick that match into the hole, guess what happens? The hydrogen will put it out. Poof. Not enough oxygen. See, hydrogen is only flammable in the presence of oxygen. And it's only explosive in tightly confined spaces. So inside you're battery's fuel cell, you'd first have to mix it with a certain percentage of oxygen, while it's still sealed, and then somehow introduce a spark, inside the case, aslo while it's still sealed. Good luck.

      Anyway, I just wanted to spread some updated information on the Hindenburg, and I've always thought that whole pure-hydrogen-puts-out-a-match thing really interesting.
      • They suggest in the article, somewhat subtly, that the real problem is *chaning* fuel cells while on the plane. At that point, you might have some hydrogen mixing with oxygen if the packaging wasn't perfect.

        -Paul
        • What worries me is that when a jet airliner is at altitude the inside of the passenger cabin is pressurized. The problem is that if there is a fuel cell explosion from a laptop--especially if the laptop is on a seat tray next to the windows--it could blow a hole through the windows, and the resulting explosive decompression can cause serious injury and damage to the plane. No thanks.
          • The cabin is pressurized, but only to 8,000ft. Basically this means that there is less O2 in the cabin than on the ground.

            As for your specific concern, I wouldn't worry too much. The bigger hazard is in small fire starting and people panicing!
      • See, hydrogen is only flammable in the presence of oxygen. And it's only explosive in tightly confined spaces

        Sounds remarkably similar to an airplane passenger compartment to me.

      • Excellent comments. I too saw that PBS show and have told it many times to amazed listeners. Just think of where we would be in hydrogen production if it was known early on what really happened. I think we'd still have blimps all over the place also.

        I think the real problem with hydrogen fuelcells is that amount of hydrogen needed. It'll probably have to be compressed into liquid form to get enough hydrogen gas for significant power generation and THAT is dangerous. Gasoline is liquid at room temperature but hydrogen isn't liquid until it compressed to.... well just read THIS:
        http://www.fuelcellstore.com/information/hy drogen_ storage.html

        # Compressed Hydrogen
        Hydrogen can be compressed into high-pressure tanks. This process requires energy to accomplish and the space that the compressed gas occupies is usually quite large resulting in a lower energy density when compared to a traditional gasoline tank. A hydrogen gas tank that contained a store of energy equivalent to a gasoline tank would be more than 3,000 times bigger than the gasoline tank.

        Compressing or liquefying the gas is expensive. Hydrogen can be compressed into high-pressure tanks where each additional cubic foot compressed into the same space requires another atmosphere of pressure of 14.7 psi. High-pressure tanks achieve 6,000 psi, and therefore must be periodically tested and inspected to ensure their safety.

        LoB

  • Problem with fuel cells (Score:4, Insightful)

    by legolas ( 125275 ) on Sunday September 01, 2002 @01:11AM (#4179453) Homepage
    While everyone is quick to cheer on fuel cells as being über enviromentally friendly, as the process only produces water, etc. etc... people fail to remember that it takes a great deal of power to generate the hydrogen in these cells, and this power has to come from somewhere. Therefore, if we're running around with cars, laptops, etc., running these fuel cells and we are still relying on coal/oil power generation, then we are really no further ahead.

    Nuclear is my vote for meeting the needs of the future, but i suppose your millage may vary.

    I know this is slightly off topic, but it is something that should be kept in mind when discussing hydrogen fuel cells.

    -legolas.
    • Legolas, the nice thing about fuel cells is that they operate at an extremely high rate of efficiency. They're safe, (the use them on the space shuttle because they're nearly inert) and they don't genereate too much heat.

      As far as the hydrogen question goes, this is where solar energy comes in to play. Because you can easily transport hydrogen and oxygen over great distances without the loss of it's potential energy, you could set up one massive bank of solar collectors to provide the energy to generate an entire country's hydrogen and Oxygen. Or wind generators.

      And no nasty waste to cart off to Nevada.

      That being said, fuel cells are still pie in the sky. Far too expensive to manufacture with current technologies.

      tcd004
      • However, the rate of efficiency is only as good as the efficiency of power used to generate the hydrogen in the first place. If you are using an oil/coal cycle with 20% to create a hydrogen cell with 99% efficiency, your hydrogen cell is only really 20% efficent.

        And solar power is certainly not where efficiency can be found. While it would be nice if we could sustain our energy needs with solar/wind/etc., I'm afraid that at our currently increasing rate of consumption, it seems unlikely. (Without, at least, cutting down all the remaining forest for solar cells). When you move to a more northern climate, such as eastern Canada (where I live), the frequent fog, and generally low intensity of sunlight makes this go from unlikely to impossible.

        Considering that 1 non-enriched uranium fuel pellet in a Candu reactor can produce more energy than several tons of coal... it seems like something worth looking into.

        -legolas.
        • I can't be sure, but I think you missed the parent post's point. You put a big solar array in some wide-open area near the equator, isolate the hydrogen and oxygen there, and ship the hydrogen and oxygen to coastal areas like Bellinham, WA that only have two seasons (cold rain and warm rain).

          Even if solar power is a bad example, the idea is intersting. Distribution of energy is as much of a problem as power generation. For example, losses on distribution power lines are significant.

          -Paul Komarek

          -Paul Komarek
        • Legolas, I think this is the most intelligent conversation I've ever had on slashdot. Thanks! =)

          The other poster did summ up my point. I think i read a stat recently that stated that more energy makes its way from the sun to the earth in a 12 hour period, than is stored in the earth's petroleum reserves. Harness 1/1000th of that and I think we'd have our energy crisis solved.

          However, like fuel cells, what's most limiting to solar power is the cost of PV cells.

          This is irritating though, since solar cell tech is so old. It should have evolved further than it has in the last 30 years.

          The fact is that no large power companies are willing to put serious money into solar reserach and development to bring the cost down. An example: BP Amoco is currently running an advertisment bragging that they've spent $200 million over six years researching Solar technologies. $200 million? Big deal. The U.S. defense budget this year is over $300 billion.

          The only major U.S. solar tech developer is Siemens, and they only seem interested in doing solar for highly specialized applications.

          And while Nuke energy may be inexpensive and efficient in the beginning, the costs of waste storage are astronomical. Estimates I've read put out by the NRDC show that it will cost well over $1.2 trillion to properly set up Yucca Mountain, and that's going to take 10 years.

          Put that trillion into solar energy development and it would be much farther along in the develpment cycle.

          Lastly, I'll mention a point from a recent Mother Jones article on wind power. Wind and solar installations are far less vulnerable, and less dangerous in the event of a terrorist attack.

          Tcd004

    • Fuel cells produce water when they are USED on the road in the open air. The hydrogen or other fuel could be produced anywhere, e.g. in a plant where the contaminants could be contained or scrubed somehow.

      I would think that it's far easier and far more efficient to catch CO2 from the stacks of coal/oil/natural gas plant, than from the exhausts of hundreds of thousands of cars.

      So even if the conversion of other energy to hydro fuel is difficult or polluting, the pollutants are much more easily contained.

      That's my amateur scientific guess.

    • Nuclear is my vote for meeting the needs of the future, but i suppose your millage may vary.

      I hope you're kidding. Decentralized power generation via renewable means is the only way we should go: solar and wind on every home and everywhere you have empty space (parking lots anyone?) will generate enough electricity to meet our current needs and future needs.

    • In about 50 years we will start running out of oil unless we find a new "hotspot", so it's not something I worry to much about. It'll be very hard to try and push everything one way or another while a solution [oil] is currently economically viable, just not optimial, but requires no research to use at this moment. As soon as our suply becomes less than our demand, the tech will instantly shift to new forms of energy.

      I have a sad sad feeling the current era will be known as the "oil age" to future historians.

    • Nuclear is my vote for meeting the needs of the future, but i suppose your millage may vary.

      Use breeder reactors on the moon to create hydrogen. Ship the hydrogen back down to earth.

  • Not an expert but... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tcd004 ( 134130 ) on Sunday September 01, 2002 @01:16AM (#4179461) Homepage

    I do own a fuel cell. To be exact, it's a small direct methanol cell, which runs on a 3% methanol and 97% water solution. I'm damn sure that 3% methanol is not too flamable.

    My guess is that the number one thing keeping fuel cells off the mainstream market is the cost of production. Specifically, the poles of the cell have to be made of platinum. Last time I checked platinum isn't too cheap.

    Visit [lostbrain.com]

    tcd004

  • mass market is very sensitive (Score:3, Insightful)

    by g4dget ( 579145 ) on Sunday September 01, 2002 @01:20AM (#4179468)
    Size, volume, cost, and safety has to be just right for a mass-market product. And those issues are very sensitive to available materials and demand.

    New materials are beginning to make fuel cells feasible. They will happen once everything falls into place.

    Look at handhelds: the Palm was not the first by a long shot, nor technically the best, but Palm was lucky that when they came to market, all the pieces had fallen into place and they hit the right price point (and, yes, it was luck).

    • It wasn't luck, it was market research. Palm Computing first did the software (GEOS-based) for the Tandy/Casio Z-PDA 7000, which was about the size of a paperback book and failed horribly. It was based on a V20 CPU (intel clone) and had a 384x512 (IIRC) mono CGA display, 1mb ram, 4mb rom, IR, 44.1khz 4 channel 16 bit audio, and a type II PCMCIA slot. It is also the original platform for which the 'graffiti' handwriting recognition was written. It failed horribly due (most likely) to its large size and high price.

      Palm's experience developing the software for that handheld led them to develop a more ideal device. This is how the industry works, folks. It's not luck in this case at all, it's planning. And the best part is that since they were just a contractor (essentially) on the Zoomer (the other name for the Z-PDA 7000) they didn't lose any money on that deal. I love America!

      • It wasn't luck, it was market research. [...] Palm's experience developing the software for that handheld led them to develop a more ideal device. This is how the industry works,

        Really, it was luck. Palm wasn't the first to figure out this form factor and feature set--several other companies had done it before, but they were a little too early to market. On the other hand, if Palm had delivered their product, say, a year later, they'd probably have failed as well as other products were coming along.

  • What about Flywheels? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by evilviper ( 135110 ) on Sunday September 01, 2002 @01:22AM (#4179475) Journal
    So, are we completely giving up on flywheels? They may not be too mainstream, but they hold the promise of incredibly light devices (at least they can be) with the ability to hold incredible ammounts of energy, and store it with practically no loss, for a very long period.

    That would also relieve the long charging times necessecary with batteries (at least they could).
    • the only use of flywheel tech ive seen that made it beyond the research stage was a UPS system. It used a massive weight spinning at extraordinary speeds to store the energy in case of a power loss. For safety it was spec'd to be buried outside below grade since it weighed around 90kg and spun at an angular velocity of a few hundred kph.

      You'd need something similar to that to provide the kind of energy needed to accelerate and power an automobile at a reasonable rate.

      • the only use of flywheel tech ive seen that made it beyond the research stage was a UPS system. It used a massive weight spinning at extraordinary speeds to store the energy in case of a power loss. For safety it was spec'd to be buried outside below grade since it weighed around 90kg and spun at an angular velocity of a few hundred kph.

        Here's a bit more info on this: Flywheel Basics [8k.com]

        A 12 inch diameter flywheel weighing only 23 lb will store 3 kilowatt hours of energy at 100,000 rpm. This is the kind of flywheel UPS that is being installed as mechanical batteries for UPS systems. Typically they use concrete containment vessels (an uncontrolled release of 3 kwh in a few hundred milliseconds is catastrophic) but a lighter weight containment vessel is feasible. It's just hard to beat digging a hole and burying it for low cost safety.

    • Re:What about Flywheels? ( see Rosen Motors ) (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Locutus ( 9039 ) on Sunday September 01, 2002 @02:44AM (#4179652)
      There once was a US company who built a hybrid car which used a shoe-box sized turbine engine and a small flywheel. They designed both components from scratch and debugged it to the point where they drove the car across country. I don't even think it broke down once (unlike that fuelcell car that just made it's trip x-country and broke down many times).

      http://www.awl.com/englishpages/tech_talking_har dw are.htm
      http://www.columbia.edu/cu/business/botli ne/fall97 /9_25/Benrosen.html

      there were more links a couple of years ago but now many are no longer posted. There used to be a good one with illustrations and pictures. Anyway, none of the Big Three would buy into their design so they closed shop. Capstone still makes compact turbine engines though.....

      Could be a good time to auction off the car on ebay?

      LoB
      • Appreciate the links. It's a good idea, but maybe they didn't go far enough.

        They say they simply used unleaded fuel to turn the turbine, but why? With a turbine, you don't need the high grade fuels that you do with a piston engine. They could have used any flamable liquid (or any combination of liquids) to generate power.

        It would be a good transition vehicle. You fill it up with clean fuel XYZ when you are at a station which carries it, but can just as well use gasoline when you don't have the option. The fact that less refining would be needed would drop fuel prices to dirt-cheap.

        That's just the beginning. A turbine really doesn't have anything that could break down, so your car could (possibly) run practically forever without maitenance. In addition, since the type of fuel can be anything, you might have fuel competitions! So much for bombing middle-eastern countries...

        Umm, did I mention I am an engineer? I've never designed a vehicle before, but a turbine-driven car has great potential (to get someone assinated by the 'powers that be' anyhow). I might just consider doing some more with this idea.
        • I think they used unleaded fuel because it was readily available and showed how you could still use the existing infrastructure. I like your idea of a multi-fuel system though. Mainly because of the competitive nature of it.

          Capstone is still in business and if you are REALLY interested, you might still find someone there willing to work with you on it.

          Also, I recall reading up on how they built the flywheel and it really looked like most of the R&D time/effort went into the flywheel. With shock absorbsion, floating bearings, explosion capturing, etc.

          I'm still of the mind that fuelcells and flywheels belong in the home power system FIRST and not in automobiles. I think the competition in the auto industry makes it more "approachable". Kinda like in the computer industry where you have to see if there is even a snow balls chance in hell that Microsoft would be interested in your product. If they are, there's no/little future for YOU to make a profit. Other than purely selling out for less than what it's worth.

          Didn't the oil industry purchase the patent on NiMH batteries????? I thought I remember hearing Toyota and Panasonic were being sued over the SHAPE of the NiMH batteries in the Prius.... Ah, progress. ;/

          LoB
    • So, are we completely giving up on flywheels?

      That will happen the same day there are stickers on your laptop telling you not to move it.

      It may make sense for a UPS, as someone else mentioned. And there was a story a while back on using it to store energy coming off the third rail in NYC subways. The problem is that you can't completely cancel out that bicycle effect. Though it would be ultra cool to hold up your powerbook with one finger on one of the corners, it's not so practical to have a laptop where reorienting it drains half the "battery"
      • gyroscopic effect, kthxbye~~
      • It's very problematic doing anything with automobiles if not for the engineering but also because of the lawyers who love blaming things like 'clients running into light poles while drunk and sueing the light pole manufacturer and installation crew for negligence'.

        BUT, why not use some of these new ideas in safer places? Like putting flywheels in subway stations to help stop incoming trains AND starting them off. The flywheel is stationary and there's always energy to put into it and very soon a need for that energy. And it could be purely mechanical or mechanical on braking and use as electrical energy on starting by adding shunting into the existing elecrical system.

        Modern electronics can now control secondary braking systems if the flywheel system isn't effective or fails.

        LoB
    • I heard a story about a french guy who put a fly wheel in his luggage before taking it on a plane. The thing with all that momentum is that you can't very easily turn the luggage, and if you succeed, it will turn at 90 degrees from the direction you actually applied your torque. This would also be true of any mobile flywheel. You can use them for static devices, but not mobile ones.
    • A few facts about flywheels for you morons posting stupid replies.

      First, you could use a lightweight material, and simply have it spinning much faster. Doubling the weight may double the power, but doubling the speed quadruples the power... Think fast, not heavy.

      Second, even if it is so poorly designed that it is a common occurance that they shatter, a kevlar jacket could be put around each one, or a group of them...

      As far as a battery for your laptop... What the hell are you talking about?! Flywheels wouldn't work too well in a light-weight object that needs lots of power. But we were talking about fuel cells. Most people aren't going to be too happy using a fuel cell, since it will leak a great deal of water while in use.

      As for applications... There was a slashdot story some time ago that flywheels were going to be put to use in the international space station. No place on earth would it be as dangerous to have the risk of projectiles, so NASA apparently seems to think the risk isn't very high.

  • So Where Are The Fuel Cells? (Score:4, Funny)

    by skydude_20 ( 307538 ) on Sunday September 01, 2002 @01:50AM (#4179542) Journal
    in that crater over there with the dead scientists...

    remember kids, don't play with presurized hydrogen!

  • One Question.. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by grant+harris ( 603582 )

    What happens to the byproducts created by these laptop cells (water, water vapor). Is it stored for later removal?

    I don't know about you but I would not want water dripping from my laptop

  • Micro fuel cells may not be allowed on airplanes because the hydrogen-based devices use a highly flammable gas, while the methanol-based devices include an inflammable liquid.

    That's an interesting observation, yet planes are routinely filled with highly flammable liquids that make them go.

    I suppose it will be interesting as to how they implement a fully-insulated cell.

    • That's an interesting observation, yet planes are routinely filled with highly flammable liquids that make them go.

      The technical meaning of the term flammble under most safety regulations is a material that can be ignited at a temperature less than 100 F. Methanol and hydrogen are certainly flammable, however jet fuel which is really just kerosene does not ignite at temperatures below 140 F. So strictly speaking jet fuel is NOT flammable.

      You can take a bowl, fill it with jet fuel and hold a match to it and it will not ignite until you heat it up to 140+ F.

  • I just don't see that fuel cells have any major advantages in common consumer applications like laptops and cell phones.

    Remember that a fuel cell is just a battery that stores its fuel externally. Also, fuel cells are seldom designed to be reversible, i.e., you can't apply electricity and produce fuel.

    The usual proposal is to store the fuel in some sort of cartridge that you replace when it's used up. Presumably you'd have to go to the local store to buy these cartridges.

    But isn't that what you already do now with devices that use primary (non-rechargeable) batteries? This is exactly why secondary (rechargeable) batteries are so popular. It's a lot more convenient to just plug your depleted batteries into a charger where they'll be ready by morning. No store trip required.

    So the only advantage I can see for the fuel cell is when the device requires so much energy that conventional (primary or secondary) batteries are too heavy or bulky, and you don't have frequent access to external power for recharging. This may be the case for some laptop users, but is it really that hard to carry a few spare batteries and swap them out as needed?

    Sure, I'd like to see a safe, inexpensive consumer fuel cell on the market. But it will have to compete more with primary (nonrechargeable) batteries than with secondary (rechargeable) batteries. And primary battery chemistries (e.g., lithium) are already available that have much higher energy densities than any secondary battery. So unless those fuel cartridges are a lot cheaper (and no less safe) than alkaline or lithium batteries, they won't have much of a market.

  • The problem with batteries.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by macpeep ( 36699 ) on Sunday September 01, 2002 @04:38AM (#4179816)
    .. is not that they last only two-four hours with laptop use. The real problem is that they only last two years before they are totally worn out and you can toss them away. Not too long ago, my dad had to get a new cellular phone because he couldn't find batteries to his Nokia 8110 anymore. The phone was perfectly good for his use and the only reason why he had to get a new phone was because the battery would only last 15 minutes. That's how dead it has gotten in three years. Most of the 2+ year old laptops I've seen have the same problem. PDA's, CD and MD players, same thing. They get a lifespan of 2-3 years simply because their batteries will go dead in that time and you won't find replacements because the stores and factories have moved on to new products.
    • So find yourself a shop that rebuilds battery packs. Everybattery.com [everybattery.com] has franchise stores in several big (and not so big) cities, and those franchises will rebuild damn near any battery pack you bring in.

      Also, go to a library and look in a QST magazine - there will be scadloads of places that will rebuild battery packs for you.

      The only question is, "Is it worth it to have this pack rebuilt, or should I just buy a new whatever?"
  • Just think... the just fill 'er up and long duration flights of glow plug engines without the mess and noise, with the the quietness and (hopefully) cleanness of electric motors, without having to worry about having four charged battery sets because you've only got 5 minutes flight time/ battery...
  • ...I meant obscelesence. As someone who has recently gone through the painful process of cleaning up a flooded basement due to hot water heater giving out, it's quite clear. Devices have built in obscelesence otherwise people woudl not purchase more. Batteries die in a given amount of time and people run to the store to buy more. Where is the incentive for Energizer or Duracel to make their batteries 10x more efficient? Cares with 100mpg have been built but the patents have been bought by the big three and locked away. Look what happened to Tucker and his automobiles. I'm not condoning this practice but obscelesence is a common factor in a capitalistic society.
    • Where is the incentive for Energizer or Duracel to make their batteries 10x more efficient?

      Easy: They could charge up to 10x as much for them. Which would you rather buy: 4 AA batteries for $3 that will power your digital camera for an hour, or 4 AA batteries for $25 that will power your camera for 10 hours?


      As long as they didn't cost 10x as much to produce, the battery manufacturers would come out ahead. Especially if one of them was able to patent it and lock the other out of the battery macket for 17 years.

    • Where is the incentive for Energizer or Duracel to make their batteries 10x more efficient?

      I think the computer industry would be more than interested. Just because such tech might not wind up in AA batteries doesn't mean battery companies aren't interested.

      [Cars] with 100mpg have been built but the patents have been bought by the big three and locked away.

      But Ford doesn't sell gasoline, so why not build a hypothetical "super efficient" car and trounce the competition? The reason, of course, is such cars are just urban legends whose existence relies more on conspiracy theory than engineering theory.

      Back to the realities at hand, a fuel cell car with fewer mechanical parts would actually be more disposable and less polluting than existing cars. Still, I think an infrastucture and "proof of concept" are still necessary before we start seeing them in showrooms. But if they take off, the initial investors stand to make a ton of cash on a revolutionary automotive idea (if they take off)

  • have not hit the market? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Sunday September 01, 2002 @08:16AM (#4180046) Homepage
    I can walk into any Riders Hobby shop and pick up a fuel cell. They are in the educational kits section. It has both a way to generate your own hydrogen+oxygen from a solar cell and then you can run the fuel cell from the gasses you just created to spin a motor.

    Granted HIGH power fuel cells and an abundance of hydrogen and a safe way to transport it are not here... but I can buy fuel cells at a regular store all day long.

  • Problems will be solved.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pacc ( 163090 ) on Sunday September 01, 2002 @08:52AM (#4180086) Homepage

    After all Li-ion isn't the safest technology, When Lithium Ion batteries were first released 4 years ago(Sic!) they were actually banned from transportation on aircraft. Unsolved problems with batteries exploding violently resulted in the ban. [transair.com] Let's hope that some lessons has been learned and this won't happen this time around. Though, Li-ion batteries are still used today because of better safety regulations [nec-tokin.net] and even built in microprocessors to protect from overcharging. Lithium will still explode or overheat if charged at a too high voltage and if it catches fire, don't try to put it out with water!



    The advantages of Li-ion obviously outweight the hazards and since fuel-cells don't seem any worse they will probably get accepted too. Apart from
    better performance they might find a niche already because of normal batteries abysmal heat specifications. My laptop battery is not to be operated at temperatures higher than 35 degrees celcius, which really is impossible to achieve if you are using the computer standing on a desk. Not considering people in hotter countries or scientists at the southpole...



    [extremetech.com]
    Look here for a more balanced story on battery technology

  • Applied in practice by BMW. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by chris_7d0h ( 216090 ) on Sunday September 01, 2002 @09:15AM (#4180132) Journal
    I get the quarterly (is it?) magazine, sent out by a european car manufacturer [bmw.com], to it's customers. A few months ago, there was a rather interesting piece regarding fuel cells and where the company was regarding this. As it appeared they already had models which they could start produce today, however, what was holding them back was the lack of "recharge stations". I'd be pretty disappointed myself if after 500Km, the car run out of juice and I'd have to transport the car to Germany for a refill. Anyway, as it currently stands, said manufacturer is having a dialogue with the Swedish government regarding an action plan for getting recharge stations out around the country. How this turn out in the end, I have no idea, as I believe gas stations such as Q8, Statoil etc. wouldn't be too keen on letting an alternative fuel form (not coming from the oil industry) become available at their own stations.

    As for the use of fuel cells for simply powering electronics, the bmw group seem to offer that in a special version of their 7-series [autointell.com], where the electronics is getting the juice from fuel cells.

  • Easy Enough .... (Score:3, Informative)

    by StormyMonday ( 163372 ) on Sunday September 01, 2002 @10:39AM (#4180334) Homepage
    First, the battery and internal-combustion engine people have a line of experience that goes back more than a hundred years. They don't like the thought of anything that will challenge their little worlds. One result is that, to get anywhere, any new battery or engine technology has to be better than what we have now. No slack; no development cycle.

    There are also technical problems. Fuel cells can be made to run on anything directly (I've seen reports of prototype fuel cells running on coal) but the non-hydrogen cells run at a high temperature (up to 1000 degrees C) which supposedly makes them unsuitable for small or portable applications. Nobody would wait 2 minutes for their car to warm up, of course.

    If you run on hydrogen, you can run at room temperature and use cheap plastic membranes. However, then you have to generate hydrogen. Hydrogen, even when liquid, is very light. You have to carry a large volume to have any advantage over a battery.

    There are ways of doing it. I have seen some storage densities using carbon nanotubes that are mind-boggling --put these in your SUV and have a 3000km (!) range. I haven't seen anything lately -- either the research was somehow bogus or the patent lawyers have clamped down on publications.

    Currently, the best way to store hydrogen is as some kind of hydrocarbon. Methanol is popular. Unfortunately, you have to use a "reformer" to get the hydrogen out to where you could use it. This adds a lot of conmplexity and brings the thermal efficiency down to about the same level as a good internal combustion engine. In other words, if you don't need electricity directly, you might as well just burn the methanol.

    Anyway, it looks like we may see laptop and cellphone fuel cells in a couple of years, although it may take a couple of years after that for their safety to be well enough established for the airlines to let them on board.

    Automotive fuel cells are more problematical. I expect the car makers to do a NASA and agree on an ambitious, technically risky, and expensive plan, work on it for a few years, and then have it totally fail. They will then announce that the whole concept is flawed and stop all work. Remember, for automotive fuel cells to work, there have to be a lot of them -- otherwise, it's not practical to do filling stations.

    If I were going to start a fuel cell company, I'd work on methane or fuel oil fueled high temperature cells, and work on residential power backup generators.
  • And that's a limited resource on planes, isn't it? What happens when you get 10-20 of these things going at once, and start using more O2 than was designed for? Or am I missing something fundamental? (like planes recycle air, or take air in from the atmosphere, and presurize it?)

  • Mind you, it is a solar charger that will peak at 2 watts, so running a laptop would be somewhat excessive. You are able to daisy-chain these devices to get more power. Information on the iSun is here [isunpower.com].

    At least you don't worry about having consumables with you. I'd imagine that on a long trip, you'd probably want to carry extra fuel for a fuel cell, which probably wouldn't go over well with the airlines.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close