Physicists Figure Out How To Make Cleaner Fuel Cells (eurekalert.org) 32
Mal-2 writes: An international group of scientists from Russia, France, and Germany have developed ion-exchange synthetic membranes based on amphiphilic compounds that are able to convert the energy of chemical reactions into electrical current. The new development described in the journal Physical Chemistry, Chemical Physics could potentially be used in fuel cells, and in separation and purification processes (abstract).
The molecules in question, with the working names A-Na and Azo-Na, are promising substances that are classified as benzenesulfonates. They are wedge-shaped and can independently assemble themselves into supramolecular structures — complex organized groups of multiple molecules. Depending on the conditions set by the scientists, the molecules form discs, which, in turn, form columns with ion channels inside.
The molecules in question, with the working names A-Na and Azo-Na, are promising substances that are classified as benzenesulfonates. They are wedge-shaped and can independently assemble themselves into supramolecular structures — complex organized groups of multiple molecules. Depending on the conditions set by the scientists, the molecules form discs, which, in turn, form columns with ion channels inside.
Re: (Score:2)
Water is one of the key Greenhouse gasses [noaa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Oh noes! This planet is 70% covered in water. We must contain the oceans!
Re: (Score:2)
What water vapor is though is a massive feedback loop. Raise the temps just a small bit via fossil fuels and other human caused sources and more vapor comes off the oceans causing more heating and more vapor, rinse, repeat.
But more importantly if hydrogen fuel cells were to become a serious industry, we'd be getting that hydrogen from....water (a
Re: (Score:2)
My question is does it increase mpg?
You can have a car that has cleaner exhaust and still only get 5mpg.
Anyone remember catalytic converters? Significantly cleaner exhaust. Slightly lower mpg.
Or more recently Diesel Exhaust Fluid. Significantly cleaner exhaust. Slightly lower mpg. And one more thing to regularly buy for the life of the vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems counter intuitive to burn more fuel to make less exhaust. I was really meaning to refer to the efficiency of the engine. A lot of manufactuers are just making the vehicles lighter and using the same old inefficient engines to raise mpg.
I have always assumed that a more efficient engine would be cleaner burning. I suppose that could be wrong tho.
My best understanding of the VW cheating scandal is that if the emissions software worked like it was supposed to the engine would have significantly less powe
Re: Cleaner fuel cells? (Score:2)
But as ive said before being Eco friendly is nice up to the point where things no longer function as they should.
Define 'should'. Continuing at cheating levels isn't reasonable. Lowering power by 10% but reducing emissions by 30% isn't counterintuitive, its physics of more efficiency. Whether from lower weightor whatever is irrelevant.
Scientific understatement of the decade (Score:2)
"and a number of improvements will need to be made to fuel cells themselves."
No mention of the high operating temperatures or precious metals required as catalysts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you mean the platinum that's in every First World car currently
FTFY.
How expensive would platinum be if it were in every Chinese, Indian, Mexican, car.
Advances are being made that will be able to use non-exotic materials in fuel cells.
Like there are advances in battery tech. Get back to us when they're actually in mass production.
How about just making fuel cells, period? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This would be a step towards that. Fuel cells aren't common because they require expensive catalysts like platinum. If you look carefully, there's no expensive molecules in this catalyst. It's all just organic chemistry, no expensive exotic molecules. If you can produce this stuff cheaply, it'd go a long way to producing inexpensive fuel cells.
Re: (Score:1)
Sure, here you go:
http://www.efoy-comfort.com/
Warning: They're largely disappointing and ridiculously expensive, and the price of the fuel will make you blush. The largest consumer unit generates a whopping 105 watts of power, weighs 19 lbs (just a few pounds lighter than an 800 watt ICE generator, I can't find an ICE generator that produces less power, sorry) and costs $6995. Fuel is consumed at just under 100 ml per hour (which sounds like very little, but consider how little power the unit has to offe
Re: (Score:1)
Truma had a propane based fuel cell, the VeGA, which was pitched for RV and marine use. Because most RVs had propane, it would help supplement the solar install and keep the batteries topped off without a generator. However, because the technology was so expensive, Truma killed the product a few years ago.
EFOY is still around, but their niche tends to be being able to have power for low consumption equipment in a remote area where solar panels would be too obvious, such as a weather station in a remote ar
Re: (Score:2)
The largest consumer unit generates a whopping 105 watts of power, weighs 19 lbs
So like a cell phone from the 80s. tech improves and gets better. Things have to start somewhere.
Cleaner? (Score:2)
The waste from the Space Shuttle fuel cells was water and the astronauts drank it. It's part of the reason some of the last shuttle missions to the station involved putting the water recycling system in. Before the recycling system the shuttle dumped its waste water into the station tanks, dumping the water into space was one of the reentry protocols anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
I couldn't see anything in the article about how these are any "cleaner" than any other kind of fuel cell.
I'm guessing that the new compounds used are "cleaner" to produce than the old ones, but that is just a guess.
Doesn't obey the laws of thermodyamics (Score:2)
Petrol and diesel generators are limited by thermodynamic laws (they do not allow an efficiency coefficient of more than 80% for example), but such laws do not apply to fuel cells.
OK, I know what the author was trying to say, but dang, if I had put that on paper in my thermo class, Dr Biritz would have run me through with a sword.
Re:Doesn't obey the laws of thermodyamics (Score:4, Funny)
Petrol and diesel generators are limited by thermodynamic laws (they do not allow an efficiency coefficient of more than 80% for example), but such laws do not apply to fuel cells.
OK, I know what the author was trying to say, but dang, if I had put that on paper in my thermo class, Dr Biritz would have run me through with a sword.
And, entropy would have increased thereby.
Re: (Score:2)
Re-read what you quoted. They didn't say the laws of thermodynamics don't apply, only that the specific laws that limit the efficiency of ICEs don't apply to fuel cells. This is true, as the fuel cells are not limited by the the maximum efficiency of the Carnot cycle that uses only temperature differences.
No. Just no.
All thermodynamic laws always apply.
If the author had said that fuel cells have a higher efficiency than internal combustion engines, I would have bought that simplification.
The author made no mention of any heat engine cycle, he just said that such thermodynamic laws don't apply. The laws do apply, the cycles are different.
All thermodynamic laws always apply.
Works on Ducks! (Score:2)