[kublikhan]

Pretty cool discovery. Not only did they manage to replace the expensive platinum in the fuel cell with a cheap graphene compound, but the new material actually performs better than platinum.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')esearchers from South Korea, Case Western Reserve University and University of North Texas have discovered an inexpensive and easily produced catalyst that performs better than platinum in oxygen-reduction reactions. The finding, detailed in Nature’s Scientific Reports online today, is a step toward eliminating what industry regards as the largest obstacle to large-scale commercialization of fuel cell technology.

Fuel cells can be more efficient than internal combustion engines, silent, and at least one type produces zero greenhouse emissions at the tail pipe. Car and bus manufacturers as well as makers of residential and small-business-sized generators have been testing and developing different forms of fuel cells for more than a decade but the high cost and insufficiencies of platinum catalysts have been the Achilles heel.

“We made metal-free catalysts using an affordable and scalable process,” said Liming Dai, the Kent Hale Smith Professor of macromolecular science and engineering at Case Western Reserve and one of the report’s authors. “The catalysts are more stable than platinum catalysts and tolerate carbon monoxide poisoning and methanol crossover.”
And, in their initial tests, a cathode coated with one form of catalyst—graphene nanoparticles edged with iodine—proved more efficient in the oxygen reduction reaction, generating 33 percent more current than a commercial cathode coated with platinum generated.

In a test of durability, electrodes coated with the nanoplatelets maintained 85.6 percent to 87.4 percent of their initial current after 10,000 cycles while the platinum electrodes maintained only 62.5 percent. Carbon monoxide was added to replicate the poisoning that many scientists blame for the poor performance of platinum at the cathode. The performance of the graphene-based catalysts was unaffected.

“This initial research proves such catalysts work better than platinum,” Baek said. “We are working now to optimize the materials.”

[Ron Patterson]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')uel cells can be more efficient than internal combustion engines,

[dissident]

It's true that hydrogen is a poor energy storage medium. But fuel cells are more efficient burning CH4, NH3 or any other combustible compared to the internal combustion engine.

At the end of the day all of this fuel cell technology is a day late and a dollar short. We need to seriously reduce CO2 emissions and even more efficient use of fossil fuel energy is not the right path. Massive electrification based on nuclear, solar and wind is the way to go. People can keep their cars but they will have to be pure EVs and the gasoline stations will have to be battery swap stations. Cars and trucks should not be driving from one end of the country to the other. An electrified rail network has to be established for long range transport. In this regard European countries are quite advanced.

[kuidaskassikaeb]

I vote for kind of cool.

Hydrogen fuel cells have lots of problems, but I think these are for solid oxide fuel cells, which can burn methane and just about anything else. Basically these would be used on waste methane which now goes into the environment from land fills, and manure pits, etc. They would be a good addition to the doomstead with a few cows.

I don't really know how they would work on transportation or as utility generation

[Ron Patterson]

Kuid, the solid oxide fuel cell won't burn "just about anything else". They burn methane, propane or butane. Check it out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_oxide_fuel_cell

You might capture a small amount of methane from landfills, perhaps enough to power one vehicle per landfill. And I have no idea where you would find a manure pit. I thought manure was a valuable fertilizer and was not disposed of in pits. But if one does exist, then that is one more vehicle that can be powered if you can managed to capture the vapor it gives off, then separate the methane from everything else.

Basically the solid oxide fuel cell burns fossil fuels. You know, the stuff that is peaking or soon will peak.

[kuidaskassikaeb]

Solid oxide fuel cells use oxygen ions as the charge carrier, and will therefore develop a voltage if the oxygen partial pressure differs across the electrolite. The oxygen sensor in your car is one. You are probably correct that they will mainly burn methane and propane, but that is to avoid ash. You could burn wood if you wanted to.


Also burning methane from landfills and manure piles is not a small thing. Methane is a major greenhouse gas, it is swamp gas after all.

From the EPA website


http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.htm

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')Agriculture. Domestic livestock such as cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, and camels produce large amounts of CH4 as part of their normal digestive process. Also, when animals' manure is stored or managed in lagoons or holding tanks, CH4 is produced. Because humans raise these animals for food, the emissions are considered human-related. Globally, the Agriculture sector is the primary source of CH4 emissions. For more information, see the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks Agriculture chapter.
Waste from Homes and Businesses. Methane is generated in landfills as waste decomposes and in the treatment of wastewater. Landfills are the third largest source of CH4 emissions in the United States. For more information see the U.S. Inventory's Waste chapter.

[kuidaskassikaeb]

I see the gas flares every time I take the bus to St. Louis. There is a lot more there than it seems to you. The landfill in Angelica NY is producing enough for several houses. Reducing methane emissions is the low hanging fruit of global warming.

But you're right, although It seems like a good idea,to me. The reasons there is so much money in research for these is people want to run cars on them.

[kuidaskassikaeb]

anyway here's a link to the EPA's landfill program

http://www.epa.gov/statelocalclimate/do ... zation.pdf

[kuidaskassikaeb]

Anyway I though I would waste some time with another calculation. I guess the reason they want to make cars with these is pretty clear.

If you assume a 50% efficiency, which seems reasonable that is using an available electric car 517 miles per million BTU of methane, which costs $10.00 delivered. This leads to a fuel cost of 1.9 cents per mile vs. something like 17 cents per mile for the fleet average car at $4.00 a gallon for gas. The carbon emissions per mile drop are only 26% of a gas powered internal combustion engine, which is not good enough for global warming, but it will be sold that way. The cars should also be cheap since you have two electric motors and a computer. You probably won't even have to change the oil.

[Rune]

OilPrice.com

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he Cube – New Breakthrough Set to Alter the Energy Landscape Forever

Redox Power Systems has signed a partnership deal with researchers at the University of Maryland in order to develop and bring to commercial market a new distributed electricity generation technology that could change the relationship that many consumers have with the energy market and national grid.

Based on the research of Eric Wachsman, the director of the University of Maryland’s Energy Research Centre, by 2014 Redox will introduce a new fuel cell that is one-tenth the size, and one-tenth the cost of all other fuel cells available on the market.

The new solid oxide fuel cell will provide safe, efficient, reliable power, to households or businesses, both local, and remote, all at prices that are competitive with current energy prices.

Warren Citrin, the CEO and director of Redox, told Forbes that “every business or home should be able to safely generate its own energy. We currently rely upon a vulnerable electrical grid. The best way to decrease that vulnerability is through distributed energy, that is, by making your own energy on-site. We are building systems to do that, with an emphasis on efficiency and affordability. These should be common appliances.”

[Beery1]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Rune', ':')-D OilPrice.com

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'b')y 2014 Redox will introduce a new fuel cell that is one-tenth the size, and one-tenth the cost of all other fuel cells available on the market.

The new solid oxide fuel cell will provide safe, efficient, reliable power, to households or businesses, both local, and remote, all at prices that are competitive with current energy prices.

[Rune]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Beery1', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Rune', ':')-D OilPrice.com

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'b')y 2014 Redox will introduce a new fuel cell that is one-tenth the size, and one-tenth the cost of all other fuel cells available on the market.

The new solid oxide fuel cell will provide safe, efficient, reliable power, to households or businesses, both local, and remote, all at prices that are competitive with current energy prices.

[diemos]

Neat!

... and what do we do after we run out of the fossil carbon to run them?

[Rune]

That won't be for a very, very long time.

[Rune]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Rune', 'T')hat won't be for a very, very long time.

[Rune]

My opinion on global energy supplies is this:

As oil becomes more difficult to pull out of the ground, as it becomes more expensive and problematic, there will be a great deal of innovation. It is only natural. Its just plain economics.

So when oil settled around $100 +/- $20, that created a whole lot of room for other energy technologies to be researched and made practical. it created a great deal of impetus forefficiencies. Therefore, it would be interesting to watch some of these emerging technologies, emerging innovations - even emerging basic science.

And so I post on these topics. Biut they are very unpopular on PO.com.

It is very unpopular here to opine that science, technology, innovation will change the future in ways that are impossible to predict. But these things never stand still. In fact, they are advancing so rapidly and there are so many of them that the idea of a peak oiul cataclysm based on holding science, technology and innovation constant and unchanging is simply ridiculous.

Most of the 50 people or so who post here have a mental model of the future that holds science and technology constant, as if they were unchanging factors and did not influence the world and its future. That's simply ridiculous.

These innovations happen - regularly.

The title of article at OilPrice.com is "The Cube - New Breakthrough Seto Alter The Energy Landscape Forever"

Well, that says it all.

In other words, "Alters The Future"

I know you guys must hate it because it interferes with your cluster**** of doom, but these are real things. Innovations are unexpected by definition. They happen.

That's why it is silly to predict an energy cataclysm decades out.

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'm')aking your own energy on-site
...
The system is very efficient, operating at 80% efficiency when used to create electricity and heat, and produces virtually no polluting substances, and far less CO2 than other energy sources.