Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Hardware Technology

Fuel Cells Promised For Next Year 148

Posted by timothy from the how-about-a-fuel-cell-ogg-player dept.
An anonymous reader writes "According to an article in today's New York Times, fuel cells for portable consumer electronic devices will start appearing next year. First for laptops, and later for smaller devices like cellphones. Among the interesting benefits of fuel cells over batteries is the ability to swap cells without having to power down the device." The article mentions the Toshiba cells demonstrated at CeBit, and -- no surprise -- Japan is likely to be the first market for these tiny fuel cells.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fuel Cells Promised For Next Year More

Fuel Cells Promised For Next Year

Comments Filter:

  • First Post brought to you by... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 16, 2003 @03:59PM (#5524652)
    Fuelcell vaporware.

    W00T!

  • So... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Quaoar ( 614366 ) on Sunday March 16, 2003 @04:01PM (#5524661)
    When does Zippo release their laptop?

  • We heard that business-model before. :( (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 16, 2003 @04:04PM (#5524677)
    Is it just me or doesn't news about fuel cells imminent arrival pop up every year and have so for some years now?

    I just say no to that open source bussinessmodel!

    1: Write free software.
    2: ?
    3: Listen to more bullshit about fuel cells comming real-soon-now once again.
    4: Profit!
    • It worked for underpants gnomes...and really who are we to judge them. They had a whole lot of underpants.

      So, I think the business model can and DOES work, what I think is your steps are too complicated

      1: Write free software
      2: ???
      3: Profit!

      Your listen to more bullshit about fuel cells could fall in category 2. Along with lots of people using your free software, you not making any money from it whatsoever, and you working your ass off to improve the free software, losing your job, your car, and yo

  • I sent this off to the author (re ethanol) (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nweaver ( 113078 ) on Sunday March 16, 2003 @04:06PM (#5524686) Homepage

    There is one other very important aspect of micro-fuel-cells which, as far as I know, no company has latched onto at least in public.

    40% ethanol/60% water is a significantly less efficient fuel than methanol, but it is realily available (although heavily taxed) almost everywhere in the US as Vodka, as well as being much cheaper as denatured alcohol.

    The probable ideal fuel cell would be able to operate on denatured ethanol (for lower cost) as well as straight vodka. It would be incredibly useful for one to be able to refill the fuel cell using something readily available from most airline beverage services and hotel minibars.

    Improvements to allow impurities (eg, Tequila, Whisky) would be even better, as now the fuel cell can operate on a wide variety of commonly available fuels. Allowing the cell to operate over a wider range of alcohol as well (20%-80% ethanol) would now allow even more variety in fuels as well as using more dense (and more efficient) fuels.

    In 10 years, my personal bet is that most portable fuel cells will be ethanol powered, specifically for the fuel-availability convenience.

    • Re:I sent this off to the author (re ethanol) (Score:4, Interesting)

      by saskboy ( 600063 ) on Sunday March 16, 2003 @04:11PM (#5524704) Homepage Journal
      What happens to your laptop though when it is done guzzling the booze? Does it stumble home, and puke?

      Seriously though, what happens to the elements in the liquid that aren't Hydrogen? Is it drained, or evaporated?

    • I am Bender... (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      ...please insert liquor
    • Wow, that's a great theory, except what would those people under 21 in the US to refuel. "Yeah, I need some vodka, I SWEAR it's for my laptop." Sure, it's ok to sell denatured ethanol at computer stores, etc. But people under 21 would 1) have to wait until the fuel cells can handle these impurities, and 2) have to go out of their way to buy over-priced fuel for their laptops. Doesn't make much sense to me.
    • The trouble is that the manufacturers can make a lot more money keeping the fuel in a proprietary format, like inkjet printers.

      Now, if they were inventing the car, they would create special fuel bags that could only be bought from the maker of the car or somesuch.

      • Re:I sent this off to the author (re ethanol) (Score:4, Insightful)

        by nweaver ( 113078 ) on Sunday March 16, 2003 @04:21PM (#5524745) Homepage

        Exclusivity would only work until one manufacturer decided not to play that game.

        Refull Anywhere would be a powerful marketing and usability tool. Once one manufacturer doesn't go the inkjet (gouge on the ink) route, the others will have to follow or get left behind.

        Also, its not like methanol is really exclusive/exotic. You can pick it up at the hardware store for a paint thinner/solvent. It just isn't as widely available as ethanol.

        • Once one manufacturer doesn't go the inkjet (gouge on the ink) route, the others will have to follow or get left behind.

          Has that happened yet with inkjets? I must have missed it, I'm still buying expensive HP cartridges.

          If it hasn't happened to inkjets, what does that mean? Incredibly effective price-fixing strategies in the inkjet industry?

          Of course, the applications for fuel cells would be far more general than for ink, so maybe there would be more competitive pressure.

          • If it hasn't happened to inkjets, what does that mean? Incredibly effective price-fixing strategies in the inkjet industry?

            It doesn't mean anything - inkjets can get away with their lock-in model since a cheap and easy substitute isn't widely available. I guess you could try ink from pens, but the nozzle on an inkjet is far more prone to blockage than something like a fountain pen nib.

            I'm not sure refuelling from drinking alcohol will ever take off - all of the devices which are going to use fuel cell
            • It doesn't mean anything - inkjets can get away with their lock-in model since a cheap and easy substitute isn't widely available.

              I agree that this is true, but the interesting question is why. Why hasn't at least one manufacturer (maybe one that isn't doing as well as HP or Epson) decided to go for the enormous marketing advantage that cheap cartridges would give its products? This was the thrust of the parent post-- that as soon as one fuel cell manufacturer broke ranks with the industry and made refu

              • Why hasn't at least one manufacturer (maybe one that isn't doing as well as HP or Epson) decided to go for the enormous marketing advantage that cheap cartridges would give its products?

                Easy - because they all built their business model around "sell the printer cheaply, make it up on ink". They subsidise the design and manufacturing with the revenue they get back from ink sales, so typically the only people interested in re-fillable ink cartridges (or kits to do it) are people who don't sell printers. Pe

              • Of course, maybe it's not possible to manufacture these cartridges more cheaply, for some technical reason that I don't understand.

                The cartridge in your HP printer doesn't just hold ink, it also contains the inkjet print head. It's actually quite a high-tech achievement to spray miniscule ink droplets quickly and controllably. The nozzles are also prone to clogging from dust and dried ink. By including the print head on the ink jet cartridge, consumers end up simple replacing the critical component r

          • Yeah, but you don't carry your inkjet around with you. They don't sell inkjet cartiges in airports. "Refill anywhere" is a pretty poor marketing point for inkjets. It's much more important for laptops, though.
        • Probably but we won't see easily refuelable things straight away. If there are only a few companies they might decide to become a cartel and not do the easily refuelable models.
    • I have not kept up on the technology much, but somehow the idea being able to use vodka to fuel my laptop seems too good to be true to me.

    • OMG! Dude! (Score:5, Funny)

      by thatguywhoiam ( 524290 ) on Sunday March 16, 2003 @04:42PM (#5524825)
      The probable ideal fuel cell would be able to operate on denatured ethanol (for lower cost) as well as straight vodka... Improvements to allow impurities (eg, Tequila, Whisky) would be even better...

      You just invented the best expense-report loophole in history! Huzzah!

    • Re:I sent this off to the author (re ethanol) (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Tuxinatorium ( 463682 ) on Sunday March 16, 2003 @04:46PM (#5524837) Homepage
      Do you know how espensive that would be even if you got 50 miles to the gallon of whisky?
      • > Do you know how espensive that would be even if you got 50 miles to the gallon of whisky?

        The bottle of whiskey you buy in the store, priced somewhere near $20-- a fifth (or liter) costs maybe a dollar to make. The rest of the cost is tax. So figure it's $5.00 a gallon -- about what the folks in Europe pay.

        Make an undrinkable version of whiskey (e.g, it's not aged for years in expensive oak casks, the corn, wheat & other ingredients are the left-overs farmers won't feed to their cattle, etc.), th
    • You can bet your butt that car manufacturers and the petroleum industry will make certain that this is not going to happen anytime in the future or heavily proprietized. There would be no need for overprized gas stations anymore, if you could just get some ethanol-derivative from the grocery store. I'm almost certain that you won't find this used in larger style until oil becomes too rare and thus too expensive.

  • I'll believe it when I see it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by saskboy ( 600063 ) on Sunday March 16, 2003 @04:07PM (#5524690) Homepage Journal
    Fuel cells have been mentioned as becoming mainstream power sources for about 10 years now. My patience is being tried as a consumer to the point when it really does arrive I'll be skeptical about it.
    They have a long way to go in the marketing aspect of fuel cells, because we can already see the obligatory posts about fires and such. Power sources have the potential for fires and explosions, yes. I've heard ordinary computer power supplies blow up when the capacitors overheat, and we all know about lithium + water. For fuel cells it will be no different, so we'll just have to make sure that the designs are sound before welcoming them onto our laps and pockets.
    • I'm with you man. I;m in the auto industry and yes, its been over 10 years that fuel cells have been in the works. Its just being hyped this year for some reason, but no technology breakthroughs have occured.

      They must be trying to get around some government regulation by saying fuel cells are here, see! But they are just as they have been for the last 10 years...

  • Swap cells without powering down? (Score:4, Informative)

    by StandardCell ( 589682 ) on Sunday March 16, 2003 @04:09PM (#5524696)
    "Among the interesting benefits of fuel cells over batteries is the ability to swap cells without having to power down the device."

    This isn't a specific benefit of fuel cells. Anyone can have a diode-switched dual supply with the backup powered off a much smaller lower-capacity device like a small battery.

  • Heat, cost (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AndyChrist ( 161262 ) <andy_christ@yah[ ]com ['oo.' in gap]> on Sunday March 16, 2003 @04:11PM (#5524705) Homepage
    Now for high-end applications, this would no doubt be a godsend, no matter what the fuel cartridges would cost...but for general consumer use, even if they DO last 30 times as long as batteries, it's still going to be costing more, since chances are you won't be able to recharge them yourself. And as for standards...if they're going to replace As Cs and Ds, sure. But the article mainly talks about applications where the batteries people are already using are non-standard. We might end up seeing something akin to the ink/toner market, with something being made non-standard just so that it can be priced at some ungodly margin.

    Also, I'm no expert, and I don't even follow this topic very closely...but every article I'd read previously about fuel cells mentioned that they get pretty hot. I mean like broil a roast hot. How hot are these tiny little fuel cells going to get, and would that worsen the already tricky problem of heat dissipation in notebooks?

    • Re:Heat, cost (Score:2, Informative)

      by heliosnorf ( 658772 )
      First of all, from what I've heard, they *won't* last 30 times longer - more like twice as long max. Second, you mention "if they're going to replace As Cs and Ds..." but that's not the idea. On a fuel cell powered laptop, you wouldn't replace the "fuel cell," but rather, you'd refill the fuel tank, or replace a fuel cartridge. The cell itself (or stack of cells) is what processes the fuel - you don't replace it.

    • "B" size cells? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by smithmc ( 451373 )

      And as for standards...if they're going to replace As Cs and Ds, sure.

      Total non sequitur, but... whatever happened to "B" cells? Was there ever such a thing?

      • "A" and "B" cells were first developed for use in military radios sometime in the past (WW2 or before, I think). They needed to have two batteries for some reason, so they called them "A" and "B". Neither size is in use anymore - single-A cells were too strangely shaped to be useful, and B cells supplied some other voltage that wasn't commonly needed, so they faded out of demand (this is, of course, if memory serves me correctly - take it with a fist-sized grain of salt).
        • the "B" batteries were usd to suply plate voltage to the tubes in the "portable" radio. (transmit or recieve)

          they were around 45 volts and were carbon/zink (not re-chargeable). there were other batteries to suply voltage for the tube filiments.

          note: I'm not old, I just studied the roots of the trade.
    • You are correct about the heat problem. While fuel cells have a much higher energy density, allowing them to operate for much longer periods of time, thier efficiency is far less than that of batteries. While the energy lost to heat from a battery is just a few percent, the heat lost from a fuel cell can be as much as 50% of the total energy stored. However, since the energy density of hydrogen and methanol is more than twice that of batteries, you still get longer life. However, this does mean that as much
      • 50% efficient? If so, I'm impressed. Max theoretical from a carnot cycle engine is somewhere around 35% IIRC.

        • Re:Heat, cost (Score:3, Informative)

          by GospelHead821 ( 466923 )
          The maximum efficiency of a carnot-cycle engine is, indeed, 100%. Obviously, this is impractical, because such an efficiency requires either an infinite difference between the temperature of the source and the sink or for the temperature of the sink to be absolute zero.

          The equation for the efficiency of a carnot-cycle engine is 1 - (TL/TH), where TL is the temperature of the cold sink and TH is the temperature of the hot source, both measured in an absolute temperature scale. Because practical consideratio

    • Re:Heat, cost (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      But lithium ion laptop batteries only last approximately one year of regular use, and less for the average consumer that does not take proper care of the battery.

      If fuel cells cost less than a dollar or two per recharge, it would cost less than batteries, and offer much better convenience (if you're going on a long trip, just stock up on 20 fuel cartridges and you're set- no worrying about finding a place t recharge/extra batteries/ac adaptors, etc)

  • For those who can't bear to register... (Score:5, Informative)

    by falsified ( 638041 ) on Sunday March 16, 2003 @04:20PM (#5524743)
    AMERICANS may have to wait 20 years, if not longer, for cars powered by fuel cells to become a familiar sight. But much smaller forms of fuel cell technology may well power electronic devices like laptop computers, video cameras and cellphones by the end of this decade.
    Prototypes of long-lasting fuel cells that can replace batteries are being tested in laboratories in the United States and overseas. "Every big electronics company in the world is working on fuel cells in one way or another," said Jerry Hallmark, manager of Motorola's Energy Technology Lab in Phoenix. Some, like Intel, are going a step further and investing millions of dollars in start-up companies like PolyFuel and Neah Power Systems to accelerate development.
    "There are some applications that are getting very close to commercialization," said Mike Lynn, head of a unit at the 3M Company that makes fuel cell components.
    Mr. Lynn declined to be more specific, but many analysts expect fuel cells for consumer electronic devices to begin appearing next year in Japan. The betting is that the first to reach the market will be Toshiba, which is demonstrating a prototype of a methanol-powered cell this week at a trade show in Hanover, Germany. Toshiba says the cell could be sold next year with laptops.
    Some 200 million to 500 million of the small cells, sometimes called microcells, might be sold annually by 2011, according to Allied Business Intelligence, a market research company in Oyster Bay, N.Y., that tracks new technology. Annual revenue to the fuel cell companies could be as much as $5 billion, said Atakan Ozbek, Allied's director of energy research.
    But Mr. Ozbek and others said that despite the momentum of research and development, widespread microcell commercialization is not yet a sure thing.
    "People underestimate the complexity of the system, and start-up companies have been cavalier about the availability of all the components they will need," said Dr. Brian M. Barnett, director of the electromechanical systems practice at Tiax, a technology consulting and development company based in Cambridge, Mass.
    Like the fuel cells for cars promoted by President Bush and the even larger units being developed to provide electric power to factories and homes, most microcells generate electricity by chemically stripping hydrogen of its electrons. The electrons form a current running outside the cell while the positively charged ions left behind move through the cell. The ions and the electrons are recombined in a reaction with oxygen to form water, the only byproduct if pure hydrogen is used.
    The basic concept for fuel cells was discovered in 1839, but researchers differ on the most practical way to design them to generate the most energy in the least space.
    Fuel cells run most efficiently on pure hydrogen, but storing hydrogen compactly and safely is a huge hurdle. Many designers of large and small fuel cell systems are trying to get hydrogen from solid compounds that contain hydrogen or hydrocarbon fuels like methanol and ethanol, even though those fuels add other elements like carbon dioxide to the waste stream.
    MICROCELLS have several economic advantages over their bigger cousins in the race to commercialization. Energy experts expect to cut the smaller cells' production costs to be competitive with those of batteries long before larger cells can be manufactured at anything close to the cost of internal combustion engines.
    It should also be easier and less expensive to persuade retailers to sell fuel cells the size of battery packs than to transform the huge national infrastructure of gasoline stations.
    But the biggest reason the smaller cells are expected to become popular sooner is their appeal as a convenience -- something that consumers have shown a willingness to pay for -- and not as an answer to energy and environmental problems.
    Fuel cells that last far longer than do rechargeable batteries would free laptop computer users and television camera crews, for example, from the need to lug he

    • Re:For those who can't bear to register... (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "By contrast, the fuel to power internal combustion engines costs roughly $50 a kilowatt."

      Silly mistake. $50 is the price of a kilowatt of internal combustion engine, not that of a kilowatt of fuel. There is no such thing as a kilowatt of fuel.

  • Also covered on BBC News. (Score:3, Informative)

    by DJWillis ( 659518 ) on Sunday March 16, 2003 @04:22PM (#5524749) Homepage
    The same topic was covered by the BBC a few day's ago. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2847679.stm Some how I just have this feeling that this may not quite be all it's cracked up to be ;).

  • I want one that runs on odorized propane. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Ungrounded Lightning ( 62228 ) on Sunday March 16, 2003 @04:24PM (#5524758) Journal
    I want a fuel cell that runs on odorized propane. About 1/2 to 3 kilowatts average, with the model in the 1/2 to 1 kilowatt range fitting in about a cubic foot. Either water or air cooled is OK.

    • Hank Hill (Score:2, Funny)

      by payndz ( 589033 )
      I want a fuel cell that runs on odorized propane.

      Somewhere in Arlen, Texas, a bespectacled man rubs his hands with glee...

    • How about one that runs on methane? Imagine, an economy based on cow farts...

  • Sodium Borohydride to the rescue (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sssmashy ( 612587 ) on Sunday March 16, 2003 @04:26PM (#5524769)

    Hydrogen is the obvious fuel of choice for portable fuel cells - it packs more energy than any other (non-nuclear) fuel into a given amount of mass.

    The problem is finding a safe and efficient mechanism to transport the hydrogen. A fuel cell powered by a canister of highly compressed hydrogen gas could have the destructive power of a grenade if ignited... not something you'd want sitting next to you on a plane or subway. Meanwhile, the logistics of transporting liquid hydrogen (which must be kept cool at cryogenic temperatures) are such that it will probably never be used in portable fuel cells.

    Considering how important viable hydrogen storage is to our future economy, it's amazing how few research dollars have been directed at the problem. One possible solution is sodium borohydride [millenniumcell.com] in an aqueous solution. Hydrogen is released when the NaBH4(aq) is passed through a catalyst. The solution is completely stable and nontoxic at room temperature, yet stores more hydrogen per liter than liquid H2.

    • Assuming that we use hydrogen, this pretty much guarantees that it would come in the form of disposable cartridges. If you have to use a new cartridge every 10 hours or so, this seems like it would generate a fair amount of waste. Imagine millions of people throwing their cartridges out every few days.

      Therefore, it seems that some sort of recycling program would have to be initiated in order to use hydrogen cartridges. Perhaps this is a good reason to stick with liquid fuels for laptops - assuming tha
    • The solution is completely stable and nontoxic at room temperature, yet stores more hydrogen per liter than liquid H2.

      My Chemistry may be a little shaky, but how can a liquid that's partly made up of H2 store more H2 per liter than liquid H2?

      • Re:Sodium Borohydride to the rescue (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Natalie's Hot Grits ( 241348 ) on Sunday March 16, 2003 @06:41PM (#5525271) Homepage
        The molecular structure of the liquid he mentions is such that when packed into a liquid, it takes up less volume than liquid hydrogen. Its like the puzzel pieces fit together more nicely.

        I do not know if this particular compound he mentioned is like this, and I'm not a chemist. But I remember in chemistry class we mixed 1/2 cup rubbing alcohol with 1/2 cup some other liquid, and out came ~3/4 cup liquid, not a full cup like expected. The reason for this is as I have described above.

      • Re:Sodium Borohydride to the rescue (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Sodium borohydride stores more hydrogen per liter because it is more dense than pure hydrogen. It is because of the way that Sodium Borohydride packs in the liquid state. Hyrdogen molecules are unable to pack as well, because they are non-polar and therefore cannot attract one another so that they can pack into a regular pattern...
  • Lets just hope that "the fuel" doesn't go the way of printer ink, highly over priced just for the tech market and warrently invalidating if you use a generic product.
  • But we won't really see the effects of this new technology until all battery-operated products are replaced with the fuel cell products. Would consumers really want to go through the added expense? Batteries, for the most part, are reasonably priced, and fuel cells aren't exactly perfect. I know I would want to have a fuel cell-powered x, but who else does?

    I also wonder if the battery industry might start lobbying Congress like the oil/auto industries do. Or maybe they'll be smart and get in on the innovat

    • American businesses might make money by buying legislation, but we can't be stuck with old tech forever. If the US doesn't develop fuel cells, someone else out of the range of US 'protect the president's friends' laws will.

  • Uhhh. . . (Score:2, Funny)

    by alernon ( 91859 )
    Among the interesting benefits of fuel cells over batteries is the ability to swap cells without having to power down the device.


    You mean like my 3 year old mac laptop?

  • Solve Fusion, let the free market sort the rest. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 16, 2003 @04:30PM (#5524784)
    The future of power is mostly about power, not about the minutia of which energy storage device will be used. Fuel cells are good and fine, but not much use without one hell of a lot of extra electricity production. Hydrogen is expensive to make, store and use. And sure, we could spend a lot of time and money and probably crack some of those nuts, but the time and money would be much better spent on simply making more electricity.

    Moving everything to hydrogen fuel cells requires that hydrogen, a product that needs to be made with lots of electricity, be pulled from the already taxed US grid. The only answer to that new problem is having to build a whole hell of a lot more power plants. And the truth is, that NIMBY (not in my back yard) will largely prevent any new nuclear reactors from being built in the US. So in order to move to fuel cells on a large scale, or even a modest percentage of the nations automotive fleet, we'll have to at least double the existing number of fossil fuel burning power plants. These will mostly be built out in the countryside where NIMBY isn't as much of a problem, pumping electricty into the cities to make all this hydrogen.

    So all that's accomplished by quickly adopting hydrogen fuel cells is moving existing pollution from the cities and into the countryside, remote emissions at it's finest.

    I have long suggested spending big money on fusion power research. Because once you crack the fusion nut, the little matters of localized power storage for automobiles and laptops and everything else will mostly solve themselves. Because if electricity is as cheap as air and doesn't pollute, who's going to want to pay for petrochemicals? Sure, fusion may not be quite that cheap, but compared on an environmental cost and given the benefits of near total energy self sufficiency, fusion would be so very much cheaper.

    Solve the power problem and the free market will figure out the best storage devices, maybe it will be fuel cells, maybe not.
    • The results so far? Phfft. More energy in than out.

    • Most fusion reactions generate radioactive waste through neutron capture. So, it's not the clean, unlimited energy supply you think.

      But we do have a clean source of fusion-based energy. We don't need any new technologies to take advantage of it either--with current technologies, we could build hydrogen-generating plants in the Sahara (near the ocean) and ship the hydrogen anywhere in the world, safely. It's not quite as cheap as digging oil out of the ground if you just go by drilling costs, but it's a

  • Why "power down the device"? (Score:3, Informative)

    by patrickoehlinger ( 445411 ) <patrickoehlinger@gmx.net> on Sunday March 16, 2003 @04:31PM (#5524787) Homepage Journal
    "Among the interesting benefits of fuel cells over batteries is the ability to swap cells without having to power down the device."

    Since years (at least with Apple Notebooks) you can change the battery without powering down the device.

  • Fuel Cells for telecommunications (Score:5, Insightful)

    by KD7JZ ( 161218 ) on Sunday March 16, 2003 @04:36PM (#5524807)
    I work for a small rural telephone company. I can't wait until fuel cells are economically feasible.

    We often have to spend $10-20k to get the power company to run power to our cabinets that use less than a kW of power. It would be great to have a fuel cell generator and a 500 gallon propane tank to power sites like this.

    I don't believe most of the 'digital divide' propaganda, but to the extent such a thing exists being able to have power where we need it (inexpensively) could make a difference.

    • Re:Fuel Cells for telecommunications (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      With corporate buyouts and changes it is unclear when this will be out, but Coleman was to offer this industrial fuel cell delivering 1Kw for about $5000: http://www.airgen.com/airgenindustrial.shtml

      The entire system was bought out by Ballard who is notoriously slow to deliver anything; maybe this will be an exception: http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/030219/192127_1.html

      While most slashdot posters appear to be luddites, a good source of info on fuelcells is: http://www.h2fc.com/news.html
      Just remember to wear your
  • All new technologies seem to originate in Japan, appear simultanously or shortly thereafter in Europe, and then after up to a decade finally make it to the US.

    And why do a lot of people in the US seem to think we are the vanguard of scientific research and development. Sure, some things apear first but many, but as I said many things are developed elsewhere first.

    Is it regulation, funding (or lack of), or is the US not a good testbed for new technologies? Or is it all of them? I can see many madical things being developed or used overseas because of FDA regulations, and common sense tells me the average American needs help turning on a computer, let alone figuring out one of those newfangled (read: oldfangled :]) 3-G cell phones.

    • Re:Why do new technologies emerge East to West? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by praksys ( 246544 ) on Sunday March 16, 2003 @04:57PM (#5524872)
      All new technologies seem to originate in Japan, appear simultanously or shortly thereafter in Europe, and then after up to a decade finally make it to the US. And why do a lot of people in the US seem to think we are the vanguard of scientific research and development.

      Several factors are at work.

      One is just the effect of anecdotal evidence. If you already suspect that technology is moving faster in other places then you will notice stories that confirm your belief, and discount stories that dis-confirm your belief. If you want to gret real evidence one way or the other then you need to look at the relevant statistics on R&D expenditure, and patent applications (both of which show the US way out in front on basic research, and product development).

      Another factor is the difference in markets. Japan has a very high proportion of early adopters, so new technologies tend to do far better in Japan, and have a much better chance of getting established there, than anywhere else. I don't know whether the same can be said for Europe. In any case, this is a matter of where technolgies first go to market, not a matter of where they get developed, or whether the initial research was done.

      A third factor may just be the particular market you are looking at. Japanese companies dominate the consumer electronics market, so if you are looking at consumer electronics to judge the pace of technological development then of course Japan will appear to be leading. If you look at other technology markets then the picture looks quite different.
      • If you already suspect that technology is moving faster in other places then you will notice stories that confirm your belief, and discount stories that dis-confirm your belief.

        I'd go even further than this, and say that the stories reported in the media will confirm this. Assuming you read mainly American news, they'll usually report when a product will first be available, and then when it will be available in the US. If the two are the same, they won't bother mentioning it. So, they might say "this w

    • The US is still the vanguard of research and development. Even when these things come from Japanese companies, they're most often developed in the US, by Americans.

      I don't know who designs Toshiba's fuel cells specifically, or where, but almost all Toshiba's other engineering is done in Irvine, CA -- by people from all over, but usually Americans. Almost all are graduates of American univerisities, though.
    • All new technologies seem to originate in Japan, appear simultanously or shortly thereafter in Europe, and then after up to a decade finally make it to the US.

      Some technologies apear this way while other technologies/toys appear here first:

      VS Japan, we get the following first

      Medical drugs - AIDS, cancer and Biotech drugs
      Most high-tech mountain climbing gear - stoves, tents, ski's
      Recreational drugs - Crack, cheap Meth.
      Apple computers.
      SGI computers.
      Corvettes.
      Cadillacs.
      New procedures for making hot chick
      • "Medical drugs - AIDS, cancer and Biotech drugs"

        Actually, this is not entirely true. While the US is the leader in medical R&D, many drugs are released overseas first -- some recent examples include the cancer drug Iressa and the erectile dysfunction drug Levitra. Clinical trials are cheaper overseas, and recruitment of patients is often easier. Plus, most countries are not as litigious than the US, so companies can test market a drug with less financial risk.

        A final reason is that the FDA has a w
    • One answer: LotR "The Two Towers" was only released two weeks ago in Japan.
  • Perhaps these fuel cells will power my freakish dual-headed laptop [slashdot.org] for more than 18 minutes.
  • A small pressurised canister of explosive liquid... I wonder what the FAA will say about taking these things on airplanes.

    There's a key brokenon my laptop. I'm sure you can figure out which one.

  • Oh no... (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by Bendebecker ( 633126 )
    Now I have to worrry about my laptop exploding when I drop it...
  • Swapping cells is useless. You need to be able to refill them in place.
    • I think that is the idea, except that at least initially, you won't dump fuel into the preexisting tank, but take out a used up canister of fuel and replace it with a full canister.

      Nice and clean, easy, stuff like that...

  • Fuel cells powered by the same oil used to cool down 802.11 infrastructures? [slashdot.org]

  • Automotive industry brought out...again (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Yet another prime example of the automotive industry being paid to ignore a new technology. Who could possibly believe that we can get battery-sized fuel cells with all their issues (power-to-weight, sufficient storage, complex systems for byproduct management, power management for spike loading) but not get car-sized engines for another decade?

    Really, is there no one in the industrial world with the brass balls to just say no to oil money? - or is it a case that if you say no then they just pay the govern
  • How will this affect the, already determined, radiation levels that the cell phones give off? After all, they are claiming if fuel cell were to be used in a car right now.. if the car were to be in some sort of a devastating accident, the explosion would expand to a distant radius..
    • I'm sure that's what the oil companies are telling you, just like they're calling electric cars unsafe.

      Gasoline, that highly flammable, highly explosive liquid is nice and safe though. Especially in Ford Pintos.
  • I want too see little nuclear reacters in mobile devices. then you would never have to replace it.

  • horsepower wars (Score:2, Interesting)

    by zogger ( 617870 )
    --the "state of the art" now in mobile computing reminds me of that late 60's horsepower wars. There's the same basic mistake. Instead of making the engine more efficient, they basically increased the displacement to ridiculous levels. sure they started having fuel injection, but that's about it, it was just "bigger", less efficient, necessitating "more fuel" to accomplish the same tasks of basically transportation.

    The better bet (maybe, this is my general question really) right now with fuel cells versus
    • I'm not so naive to say that we're not ever going to need fuel cells, but there seems to be a point under the current paradigm where all-day computing will be a minimum, and battery life, like basic CPU processing power, will be assumed. Will we need fuel cells at that point?

      I also understand that the market tends to use devices to and beyond their apparent potential (case in point: hard drives, which at one point were assumed to have WAY too much capacity, but now are used to store digital video).

      I guess
    • You're right. I am a coder and so are several of my friends. When I started, it was absolutely essential to write efficient, small code that used as few kb of ram as possible (it were ye olde dos days).

      Nowadays you find yourself wondering if it's ok to use a 64mb buffer for some data and you don't even really think about it, you just think ah well memory is so cheap now.... and that's not all.

      In the old days, people wrote whole functions in assembler, just to speed things up and to avoid the redundant c
  • If I had to refill something just to run my laptop i would be VERY resistant to it! My laptop is not a bloody car. If the duration of the 'charge' (fuel? or what would you call that in relation to a fuel cell?) is a very long time such as a week or two of continuous operation then it wouldn't be nearly as bad (assuming you didn't have to pay an arm and a leg - btw, how much does it cost to refill a standard laptop battery in electricity?)
    • HUH? You already do this by plugging it in... what is so different about 'plugging in' a fuel cartridge? In fact being able to carry the fuel cartridge with you is much better than relying upon having a 'grid port' for recharge.

      Separately: will we be able to 'refuel' at the same stations as the cars when it all comes around?

      I mean, when cars also use methanol, a much cheaper and more abundant supply of fuel, to supply our hydrogen fuel cells with hydrocarbons, will we be able to also 're-fuel' our laptop
  • right now i take my segway to work, passing a few gas stations which one day might be hydrogen stations. when i get to work, i plug my laptop in which gets 4-5 hours of battery life (at least). i also plug my segway in. this cuts out a middle man, no additional things to buy, no pumping, no replacement cells. battery life will get better as it always does. my other laptop, a tablet pc gets like 6 hours of juice. i like being able to be more "free" this way. power plants get better over time, the pollution t
  • Will the airlines allow these fuelcells on their planes? All flammable liquids are currently banned, why wouldn't these be?

    -Eric

  • They're here now (Score:2, Informative)

    by w42w42 ( 538630 )
    kind of... Coleman has their fuel cell generators [airgen.com], though 'refills' are what might be termed expensive. I believe the above is actually a Coleman branded unit from Ballard Power, Vancouver B.C.

  • the first application (Score:3, Funny)

    by briancnorton ( 586947 ) on Sunday March 16, 2003 @08:30PM (#5525765) Homepage
    Fuel Cells will premiere next year...In Duke Nukem Forever as the new pipe bomb. We of course will never have to worry about this.
  • 10yrs ago, there was an article about how the battery makers and laptop ppl were coming together to define a battery standard. Laptops from the next year on would use these sizes. Instead of worrying how long your internal would last, or buying a spare rechargable you only use twice a year, you'd just buy a disposable like you buy AA batteries.

    This was going to happen. They had just about finished the standard. 10yrs ago. Has anyone seen any?

Slashdot Top Deals

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

Close