An anonymous reader writes "A safer and more practical way of storing and releasing hydrogen, discovered by two Arizona State University researchers, could lead to a new type of fuel cell capable of packing 10 times more energy. The key is apparently using the alkaline compound borohydride — 'a 30% solution of borohydride in water actually contains one-third more hydrogen than the same volume of liquid hydrogen.'"
This is still in the research/development phase as per the article
"Dr. Gervasio recognises that there are still many steps between his prototype and a competitively priced, off-the-shelf, battery-sized fuel cell. Nevertheless, he believes they could appear in power-hungry devices such as laptops, camcorders, and radios within five years."
So until then, I'll be using CnH2n+2 to mow my lawn. [watching-grass-grow.com]
Anhydrous ammonia has a hydrogen density of 0.12 gm/cm^3, compared to liquid hydrogen with a density of 0.07 gm/cm^3. In addition, ammonia is easy to reform for use in a fuel cell. Ammonia is already heavily distributed for agriculture, it volatilizes off as a lighter than air gas, it contains no carbon, and finding leaks is easy! The down side to either hydrogen-boride or ammonia is that they're not energy sources in themselves, but function (like a battery) as a convenient way to store energy.
Diesel fuel has a hydrogen density of about 0.23 gm/cm^3, is a stable liquid at room temperature, and is noncorrosive (both Sodium Borohydride and Ammonia are corrosive). Biodiesel is roughly the same properties with the added benefit of being sulphur-free, cleaner burning (it's a naturally "oxygenated" fuel), biodegradable and renewable.
The best, though, is that you can use any mixture of the two in existing vehicles with zero modifications* using the existing fuel storage, distribution and dispensing infrastructure.
(* Rich Biodiesel blends may require additives or fuel preheaters for cold weather climates to prevent clouding.) =Smidge=
On the other hand, if you are talking about fuel cell for laptop, you don't really want to use anhydrous ammonia. It is damned lethal esp in confined space (read: in aircraft)... Many people seem to overlook the danger of ammnonia because they've handled diluted (5-10%) ammnonia solution at home. But, in gaseous form, it is even more toxic than carbon monoxide. The concentration that is Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health (IDLH) for ammmonia is 500ppm [cdc.gov] whereas it is 1200ppm [cdc.gov] for carbon monoxide.
The only energy source there is for our planet is the sun. All other fuels are essentially batteries there is only a difference as to when it was charged.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go use some more electricity that was pushed onto the wires by the local power plant that runs on solar-powered uranium.
Currently, yes -- natural gas. There are many other ways to make hydrogen, however, and if vehicles start running on it, they'll certainly end up becoming dominant. These include efficient means such as direct thermolysis, and inefficient but scalable means such as bacterial hydrogen production. There are two goals of the hydrogen economy: to divorce ourselves from the *necessity* of oil, and to increase overall system efficiency. There's a long way to go, but things like this are definitely progress.
No one ever seems to mention this, but you can get some remarkably high energy capacity and relative stability (it's not going to blow up without a trigger) by using hydrogen-carbon compounds.
Maybe I'm just a kook, but some serious work ought to go towards that sort of research, I think.
You mean like the billions of dollars each year paid for by oil companies?
Well for one thing, Sodium borohydride the fuel we are discussing has a HIGHER energy capacity then hydrogen-carbon compounds and has a HIGHER stability - less likely to burn).
It is in most cases a far better fuel than hydrogen-carbon compounds like gasoline.
The only reason we use gasoline is that oil is, despite new issues, still very plentiful. As we use it up, that will change.
In the article, they state the energy density of this new fuel is 600 watt hours / litre, with the goal of eventually getting it up to 2200.
According to wikipedia, gasoline has an energy density of 32 megajoules per litre, which if I did the conversion right, comes out to about 8890 watt hours / litre. This sounds like a big difference until you consider that gas engines are typically somewhere around %20-30 efficient. It appears they may some day make a fuel that's roughly equivalent to gasoline.
You know, hydrogen injection does wonderful things for diesel motors.
Instead of going 100% hydrogen or 100% [fossil fuel], you get more power & lower emission by running a combination.
Right now there is at least one company that sells a kit for large diesels which electrolyzes hydrogen (from water) on the spot & injects it along with the diesel fuel.
That system provides relatively small amounts of hydrogen, but this researcher [abc.net.au] claims 60:40 hydrogen:diesel hits the sweet spot..
How does a mixture of Borohydride(not pure hydrogen) and Water(which is already only 2/3 hy drogen) end up being more hydrogen than Liquid Hydrogen? Isn't Liquid Hydrogen pure hydrogen?
If I am ignorant, educate me....but this sorta reminds me of the line from Anchorman:
Liquid hydrogen is of relatively low density. That's why it has to be under pressure to even be liquid. Water, on the other hand, is solid and fairly dense at room temperature.
I don't know the math behind it, but by starting from something that's naturally denser it seems at least possible to have more hydrogen in it. It'll probably weigh more.
Liquid hydrogen is of relatively low density. That's why it has to be under pressure to even be liquid.
Ignoring the solid-water gaffe (assuming your air-conditioning simply isn't turned down too low...)
Liquid hydrogen has to be cold. It's not like, say, propane or butane which will liquefy under pressure even at room temperature - liquid hydrogen's boiling point is sufficiently low that if you pressurise the gas at room temperature, all you get is a pressurised gas.
Although I am not familiar with the chemistry of this research, it is quite possible to pack inordinate amounts of compounds in a solution. For instance, 1 ml (1 g) of water can hold 99 g of the compound used to develop film. The space around molecules in a solution can vary quite a bit, and if the geometries of the solute and solvent match very well to the forces between them, the wasted space can be decreased, increasing the concentration of the solution.
How does a mixture of Borohydride(not pure hydrogen) and Water(which is already only 2/3 hy drogen) end up being more hydrogen than Liquid Hydrogen? Isn't Liquid Hydrogen pure hydrogen?
They're saying there's more Hydrogen in the mixture per unit volume then pure hydrogen. So I'm guessing (most likely incorrectly) that their substance has a higher density then liquid hydrogen. Higher density => More 'Stuff' per volume => More Hydrogen.
Liquid H2 is not very dense at all. It's density is.068 g/mL (compared to water, which is 1 g/mL). When the borohydride is added to water, you get NaBO2 and 4 H2 molecules.
They're probably figuring it on a volumetric basis. Liquid hydrogen is not very dense (71 g/l). I would imagine this solution would be greater than water (1000 g/l). In a mobile application the volume of the fuel would be very important, and storing LH2 is non-trivial due to the temperatures and pressures involved.
I'm not immediately familiar with the stuff in question, but I'n guessing it's a simple matter of densities. You're dumping a solid powder made up of slightly complicated molecules into a liquid made of very simple molecules. The density of that solid is likely quite a bit higher than that of water or liquid hydrogen.
Liquid Hydrogen is not very dense. The attractive forces that pull it together to form a liquid are weak and only effective a low temperatures. When hydrogen forms molecules its electron tends to migrate towards other atoms slightly increasing the size of that atom's electron shells. A hydrogen atom shrinks right down to its nucleus, not the next smaller shell, since there are no other elcetrons to form shells when it loses its elctron. It takes 779 ml of liquid oxygen and 1586 ml of liquid hydrogen to
How does a mixture of Borohydride(not pure hydrogen) and Water(which is already only 2/3 hy
drogen) end up being more hydrogen than Liquid Hydrogen? Isn't Liquid Hydrogen pure hydrogen?
This is actually a very interesting question. Let's see if I can get this right:
Each atom has positively charged nucleus and a bunch of electrons, so the whole thing is neutral. The more electrons we have the bigger the attraction force. Thus, while the diameter of the atom grows with element number it does so only slowl
Within a few years, laptops and other energy-guzzling portable devices could run on long-lasting, easily recharged fuel cells based on a safe and practical new way of storing and releasing hydrogen.
I assumed from the title that this article was about cars, but it turns out to be even more interesting because it's talking about laptops and portable devices instead.
"New Generation of Hydrogen Fuel Cells Powers Up" I read that first as a new ___ that generages Hydrogen Fuel Cells, and they are about to power it up for the first time! I guess I ought to try that coffee stuff, or maybe drink more of what comes out of fuel cells.
One of the major things that are holding Hydrogen Fuel Cells back is the fact that it takes more energy to extract the hyrogen from the envrionment then it produces in the fuel cell. So this makes hydrogen more expensive then fossil fuels, as well more of an inpact on the environment (assuming they are using non-green power generation)
It is possible to design nuclear plants to preform electrolysis on the off-hours when the load is low. What does a nuclear power plant do? Boils lots of water. When the load is low, they can run the extra current directly thru the water that was just boiled. Yes, it is not the most efficient power conversion, but we have so much nuclear fuel available why not use it? Sometime in the future we will figure out what to do with the waste. We are a smart race. Worse case we can just launch it into the sun or in a trajectory pointing away from our planet.
Is nuclear that bad? We have known the properties of the splitting atom for decades now... we should have a good understanding of how to utilize this abundant resource. The waste is manageable. Is the waste of a coal plant manageable? Once you spew all that C0_2 and other by-products into the atmosphere there is no (sane) way to recapture it.
Nuclear is our future. Give in to our nuclear overlords.
You just described every enegery storage mechanism ever created INCLUDING oil (Oil does not create energy, it simply stores solar energy collected from the sun a while back.).
The act of storing, transporting or using energy in any way involves waste (heat).
Oil & coal happen to be pretty decent storage mechanisms--relatively little waste while in storage, but somewhat difficult to recharge and creating it is quite wasteful.
So, if you are just talking about "Consuming" the energy, hydrogen is much more efficient and clean than oil. If you take into account the production of the energy as well, that's a different story. We'll have to set up some bogs and find some dinasours and wait a while before we can compare.
Oil & coal happen to be pretty decent storage mechanisms--relatively little waste while in storage, but somewhat difficult to recharge and creating it is quite wasteful.
Wasteful compared to what? With a variety of thermal chemical conversion processes, it is quite possible to convert biomass into crude oil quickly (hours) and efficiently - 85% or more of the potential energy in the biomass comes out as useful fuel, with the remainder going to sustain the process and to losses. =Smidge=
One of the major things that are holding Hydrogen Fuel Cells back is the fact that it takes more energy to extract the hyrogen from the envrionment then it produces in the fuel cell.
That may be one of the major things, but I'd say the biggest is that with existing fuel cells, you're required to have pure hydrogen as a fuel. I don't know about you, but I'd rather not have something that is likely to explode around me. This will really help out in that respect.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the capacity to go boom almost innate in any form of chemical fuel storage? Gasoline is always a spark away from exploding-- would hydrogen be any worse?
Who cares about how much hydrogen you can get into a given volume. It should be all about energy per volume. It will be great when someone notices the energy density of hydrogen atoms attached to carbon chains - i.e. hydrocarbons. Oh wait...
Look up (MCEL) Millenium Cell, They've been doing this for awhile. I believe the chemistry for this has been around a while too lazy to look it up tho.
Platinum Catylitic mesh, and Borohydride
The fuelcellstore has a nice little generator [fuelcellstore.com]
--G
I believe this article is talking about the technology described here: http://tinyurl.com/fa3oj [tinyurl.com] (Science Direct)
The original research paper states "The proposed fuel-cell system offers applications longevity owing to its more concentrated (up to 10 wt% H2) hydrogen storage than found with H2 stored under common tank pressures or in typical metal hydrides."
Is the storage of liquid hydrogen considered a "common tank pressure"? I wouldn't think so. The big deal about this technology is that it stores the hydrog
When combined with water, NaBH4 produces 4H and NaBO2. How difficult is NaBO2 to deal with, and can it be dangerous/toxic? Any chemistry people want to share any info on this byproduct?
a new type of fuel cell capable of packing 10 times more energy. [...] a [...] solution of borohydride in water [...] contains one-third more hydrogen than the same volume of liquid hydrogen.
So, it contains 33% more hydrogen but it ends up being 1000% more energy?
having a volume that's 33% larger doesn't mean it contains 33% more hydrogen. The solution of borohydride and water probably has a greater density of hydrogen then liquid hydrogen.
They may be glossing over an important detail, something like "10 times as much usable energy when you take into account that you're not wasting energy on pressurization or cooling."
...should the day Dell announce another battery recall [theinquirer.net] on their new hydrogen-powered [wikipedia.org] laptops ever arrive, I'll be the first to run for the hills.
It uses ruthenium. Ruthenium runs about 175 USD/ounce. Ruthenium is a member the cateogry called "precious metals". It's a rather limited supply item. Given it's other uses I wouldn't expect to see these things be inexpensive. Also menas it will be unlikely to be viable for larger scale applications such as automotive, residential, or commercial power requirements. Still, it is kinda cool.
There is also the question of lifespan and cycling. While the liter of fluid requirement can be worked around, long term issues such as cleanliness of the proces with regards to catalyst maintenance. I'd be cautios about using the phrase "halfway there" just becuase they are using half the percentage of solution they are looking for. While they are at 15% vs 30%, they are also at 600Wh versus the 2200 claimed in the article. Granted, that's theortical maximum, but the effective use of 30% solution is also theoretical.
So I'm curious: After reading about this stuff on Wikipedia, it says: "Borax can be hydrogenated back into borohydride fuel by several different techniques, some of which require nothing more than water and electricity or heat. These techniques are still in active development."
It seems that when the Borohydride fuel is used up, you are left with Borax, which you can buy at the grocery store.
So how exactly does one hyrdogenate Borax to turn it back into Borohydride fuel? Because it would be way cool if my c
if I can't take bottled water through security, they sure as hell aren't going to allow this.
That's the problem, actually. Your bottled water contains hydrogen combined with oxygen! That's a really dangerous combination and could explode under the right conditions.
Chemical info on Borohydride (Score:5, Informative)
This is still in the research/development phase as per the article "Dr. Gervasio recognises that there are still many steps between his prototype and a competitively priced, off-the-shelf, battery-sized fuel cell. Nevertheless, he believes they could appear in power-hungry devices such as laptops, camcorders, and radios within five years." So until then, I'll be using CnH2n+2 to mow my lawn. [watching-grass-grow.com]
Re:Chemical info on Borohydride (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Chemical info on Borohydride (Score:5, Informative)
The best, though, is that you can use any mixture of the two in existing vehicles with zero modifications* using the existing fuel storage, distribution and dispensing infrastructure.
(* Rich Biodiesel blends may require additives or fuel preheaters for cold weather climates to prevent clouding.)
=Smidge=
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/
"biodiesel can reduce the carcinogenic properties of diesel fuel by 94%"
Biodiesel exhaust != Diesel exhaust.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Chemical info on Borohydride (Score:4, Informative)
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go use some more electricity that was pushed onto the wires by the local power plant that runs on solar-powered uranium.
Parent
In other news (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are two goals of the hydrogen economy: to divorce ourselves from the *necessity* of oil, and to increase overall system efficiency. There's a long way to go, but things like this are definitely progress.
Carbon (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe I'm just a kook, but some serious work ought to go towards that sort of research, I think.
Re:Carbon (Score:5, Interesting)
Well for one thing, Sodium borohydride the fuel we are discussing has a HIGHER energy capacity then hydrogen-carbon compounds and has a HIGHER stability - less likely to burn).
It is in most cases a far better fuel than hydrogen-carbon compounds like gasoline.
The only reason we use gasoline is that oil is, despite new issues, still very plentiful. As we use it up, that will change.
Parent
Energy density (Score:5, Interesting)
In the article, they state the energy density of this new fuel is 600 watt hours / litre, with the goal of eventually getting it up to 2200.
According to wikipedia, gasoline has an energy density of 32 megajoules per litre, which if I did the conversion right, comes out to about 8890 watt hours / litre. This sounds like a big difference until you consider that gas engines are typically somewhere around %20-30 efficient. It appears they may some day make a fuel that's roughly equivalent to gasoline.
Parent
Re:Energy density (Score:4, Interesting)
Instead of going 100% hydrogen or 100% [fossil fuel], you get more power & lower emission by running a combination.
Right now there is at least one company that sells a kit for large diesels which electrolyzes hydrogen (from water) on the spot & injects it along with the diesel fuel.
That system provides relatively small amounts of hydrogen, but this researcher [abc.net.au] claims 60:40 hydrogen:diesel hits the sweet spot..
Parent
Huh? Help out an under educated ignorant, please (Score:3, Insightful)
How does a mixture of Borohydride(not pure hydrogen) and Water(which is already only 2/3 hy
drogen) end up being more hydrogen than Liquid Hydrogen? Isn't Liquid Hydrogen pure hydrogen?
If I am ignorant, educate me....but this sorta reminds me of the line from Anchorman:
"60% of the time it works 100% of the time"
Help me understand.
dimes
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know the math behind it, but by starting from something that's naturally denser it seems at least possible to have more hydrogen in it. It'll probably weigh more.
Can anyone spot-check this for sanity?
Re:Huh? Help out an under educated ignorant, pleas (Score:5, Funny)
Can anyone spot-check this for sanity?
I dont know about you, but room temperature around here is a bit more then 0C, so 'round here our water is in it's liquid form at room temperature.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Ignoring the solid-water gaffe (assuming your air-conditioning simply isn't turned down too low...)
Liquid hydrogen has to be cold. It's not like, say, propane or butane which will liquefy under pressure even at room temperature - liquid hydrogen's boiling point is sufficiently low that if you pressurise the gas at room temperature, all you get is a pressurised gas.
Useful for storing smaller quantities of h
Re:Huh? Help out an under educated ignorant, pleas (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Huh? Help out an under educated ignorant, pleas (Score:2)
drogen) end up being more hydrogen than Liquid Hydrogen? Isn't Liquid Hydrogen pure hydrogen?
They're saying there's more Hydrogen in the mixture per unit volume then pure hydrogen. So I'm guessing (most likely incorrectly) that their substance has a higher density then liquid hydrogen. Higher density => More 'Stuff' per volume => More Hydrogen.
Course I could be wrong.
Re:Huh? Help out an under educated ignorant, pleas (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Huh? Help out an under educated ignorant, pleas (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Huh? Help out an under educated ignorant, pleas (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
This is actually a very interesting question. Let's see if I can get this right:
Each atom has positively charged nucleus and a bunch of electrons, so the whole thing is neutral. The more electrons we have the bigger the attraction force. Thus, while the diameter of the atom grows with element number it does so only slowl
Not Cars, But Laptops (Score:2)
I assumed from the title that this article was about cars, but it turns out to be even more interesting because it's talking about laptops and portable devices instead.
Title confused me (Score:2)
I read that first as a new ___ that generages Hydrogen Fuel Cells, and they are about to power it up for the first time! I guess I ought to try that coffee stuff, or maybe drink more of what comes out of fuel cells.
For the non-fuel cell people. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Give in to our nuclear overlords. (Score:5, Insightful)
Is nuclear that bad? We have known the properties of the splitting atom for decades now... we should have a good understanding of how to utilize this abundant resource. The waste is manageable. Is the waste of a coal plant manageable? Once you spew all that C0_2 and other by-products into the atmosphere there is no (sane) way to recapture it.
Nuclear is our future. Give in to our nuclear overlords.
Parent
Re:For the non-fuel cell people. (Score:5, Funny)
The act of storing, transporting or using energy in any way involves waste (heat).
Oil & coal happen to be pretty decent storage mechanisms--relatively little waste while in storage, but somewhat difficult to recharge and creating it is quite wasteful.
So, if you are just talking about "Consuming" the energy, hydrogen is much more efficient and clean than oil. If you take into account the production of the energy as well, that's a different story. We'll have to set up some bogs and find some dinasours and wait a while before we can compare.
Parent
Re:For the non-fuel cell people. (Score:4, Funny)
Might I suggest looking in our various legislative bodies?
KFG
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Wasteful compared to what? With a variety of thermal chemical conversion processes, it is quite possible to convert biomass into crude oil quickly (hours) and efficiently - 85% or more of the potential energy in the biomass comes out as useful fuel, with the remainder going to sustain the process and to losses.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That may be one of the major things, but I'd say the biggest is that with existing fuel cells, you're required to have pure hydrogen as a fuel. I don't know about you, but I'd rather not have something that is likely to explode around me. This will really help out in that respect.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Energy density (Score:3, Funny)
Not New (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not sure that's right (Score:2)
http://tinyurl.com/fa3oj [tinyurl.com] (Science Direct)
The original research paper states "The proposed fuel-cell system offers applications longevity owing to its more concentrated (up to 10 wt% H2) hydrogen storage than found with H2 stored under common tank pressures or in typical metal hydrides."
Is the storage of liquid hydrogen considered a "common tank pressure"? I wouldn't think so. The big deal about this technology is that it stores the hydrog
Nuts and Volts for Nerds (Score:2)
"The researchers can now run the hydrogen generator on a 15% solution of borohydride, half-way to their goal of a truly power-packed 30% solution."
Half a solution? Not 10X but would disrupt LiOn market at the promising 10X potential.
Anyone want to explain the difference between this apparent wet technology and LiOn dry storage technology?
NaBO2 - Is it dangerous? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How difficult is NaBO2 to deal with, and can it be dangerous/toxic?
From Batteries Digest [batteriesdigest.com]:
The only other reaction product, sodium metaborate (analogous to borax), is water-soluble and environmentally benign.
Bad math? (Score:2)
So, it contains 33% more hydrogen but it ends up being 1000% more energy?
I don't get it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds good, but (Score:2, Funny)
New generation? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmmm ... (Score:5, Interesting)
There is also the question of lifespan and cycling. While the liter of fluid requirement can be worked around, long term issues such as cleanliness of the proces with regards to catalyst maintenance. I'd be cautios about using the phrase "halfway there" just becuase they are using half the percentage of solution they are looking for. While they are at 15% vs 30%, they are also at 600Wh versus the 2200 claimed in the article. Granted, that's theortical maximum, but the effective use of 30% solution is also theoretical.
How to hydrogenate borax? (Score:2)
"Borax can be hydrogenated back into borohydride fuel by several different techniques, some of which require nothing more than water and electricity or heat. These techniques are still in active development."
It seems that when the Borohydride fuel is used up, you are left with Borax, which you can buy at the grocery store.
So how exactly does one hyrdogenate Borax to turn it back into Borohydride fuel? Because it would be way cool if my c
Re:yawn..... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
For that matter.... (Score:2)
{...shhh!, not everybody got that....}