Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Power Science

Carbon-Coated Nickel Enables Fuel Cell Free of Precious Metals (eurekalert.org) 52

Posted by BeauHD from the enhanced-performance dept.
schwit1 shares a report from EurekAlert: A nitrogen doped carbon-coated nickel anode can catalyze an essential reaction in hydrogen fuel cells at a fraction of the cost of the precious metals currently used, Cornell University researchers have found. The new discovery could accelerate the widespread use of hydrogen fuel cells, which hold great promise as efficient, clean energy sources for vehicles and other applications. It's one of a string of discoveries for the Hector D. Abruna lab in their ongoing search for active, inexpensive, durable catalysts for use in alkaline fuel cells.

Recent experiments with nonprecious-metal HOR electrocatalysts needed to overcome two major challenges, the researchers wrote: low intrinsic activity from too strong a hydrogen binding energy, and poor durability due to rapid passivation from metal oxide formation. To overcome these challenges, the researchers designed a nickel-based electrocatalyst with a 2 nanometer shell made of nitrogen-doped carbon. Their hydrogen fuel cell has an anode (where hydrogen is oxidized) catalyst consisting of a solid nickel core surrounded by the carbon shell. When paired with a cobalt-manganese cathode (where oxygen is reduced), the resulting completely precious-metal-free hydrogen fuel cell outputs more than 200 milliwatts per square centimeter.

The presence of nickel oxide species on the surface of the nickel electrode slows the hydrogen oxidation reaction dramatically, Abruna said. The nitrogen-doped carbon coating serves as a protection layer and enhances the HOR kinetics, making the reaction quicker and much more efficient. In addition, the presence of the graphene coating on the nickel electrode prevents the formation of nickel oxides -- resulting in electrodes with dramatically enhanced lifetimes. These electrodes are also much more tolerant to carbon monoxide, which rapidly poisons platinum. The study has been published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Carbon-Coated Nickel Enables Fuel Cell Free of Precious Metals More

Carbon-Coated Nickel Enables Fuel Cell Free of Precious Metals

Comments Filter:
  • this oil-industry paid by article is a "let's double down our efforts" to pretend hydrogen is sustainable or green. Hydrogen is nat gas on lipstick. Mass and cheap production at industrial scale is done by using nat gas. Electrolysis is VERY EXPENSIVE. So no, it's just a trick to keep using nat gas. Plus fuel cells cars are expensive in operation (in contrast to BEV). Last but not least, hydrogen is a dangerous gas and its SAFE transport very difficult and expensive.
    • Someone better tell these guys that H2 via electrolysis using renewable is too expensive before they finished building their 4.5 tonne of hydrogen a day plant: https://epa.tas.gov.au/busines... [tas.gov.au]

      Also, no one plans to transport hydrogen directly, they'll do it by transportation of ammonia, which is a solved problem.

      And fuel cells appear to be way cheaper to manufacture than lithium batteries.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Tx ( 96709 )

      In order for renewables to replace fossil fuels as baseload, we need a massive amount of storage, and we are a million miles away from being able to build enough battery capacity, pumped storage etc. That is why hydrogen, despite its shortcomings, is viewed as part of the picture; short of utterly unfeasible amounts of battery capacity, hydrogen is the next best option. Yes, currently the majority of hydrogen is made from natural gas, but as build out of renewable generation continues, so will the productio

      • Not true.

        All peaker plants in planning stages have been shelved in USA. As of now 350 MW x 4 hour battery storage systems are being considered cost effective and competitive. These react in milli second time frames for the grid load.

        No new gas fired power plants will be built after 2027 or so. Some existing fully paid for and amortized gas fired plants will get paid to be on "stand-by" status by the utilities. Rest will be scrapped. Natural gas stored in salt caverns or tanks could be the long term ener

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by necro81 ( 917438 )
      Bravo. In the space of one first post paragraph you have conclusively invalidated the work of thousands of people, over decades of time, worth billions of dollars. Your insight positively proves that fuel cells will never have any utility, anywhere, and therefore we should all stop work on ever trying to make them or hydrogen production better.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gtall ( 79522 )

      Where is your evidence that this is oil industry sponsored research or are you just guessing. Hydrogen fuel cells can be used in more than vehicles. And it might be combined with other research for other kinds of fuel cells.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Junta ( 36770 )

      The fact of the matter is that while less efficient to energize, the capacity of hydrogen fuel cells per kg is a critical benefit in some applications.

      So while passenger vehicles may be ok with the inferior weight per unit energy for the benefit of flexible and easy charging, it's not as easy for aircraft, large vehicles, construction equipment, and so forth.

      Since we are a ways away from meeting many of those use cases with Lithium Ion (perhaps never being able to get there), the practical result is all tha

    • Electrolysis is VERY EXPENSIVE.

      Odd response to a discovery that will make it cheaper.

      Following on this story from a couple weeks ago: "Australian electrolyzer invention enables green hydrogen under US$1.5/kg by mid 2020s"

      https://www.pv-magazine.com/20... [pv-magazine.com]

      I still think batteries will dominate cars but we need a way to store and move massive amounts of energy and hydrogen could be it.

    • Methanol is the sweet spot. George Olah invented the needed catalyst twenty years ago.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      Electrolysis isn't expensive. Burning natural gas to get electricity to use to electrolyze water is more expensive than just making hydrogen from the natural gas, which is why we do the latter. A Joule of hydrogen made from renewable electricity costs about as much as a Joule of diesel not made from renewables. The price has been falling pretty quickly though, and is expected to continue to do so. Also, you can get quite a bit more useable energy out of the hydrogen than you can the diesel, using fuel cells

    • Hydrogen is nat gas on lipstick. Mass and cheap production at industrial scale is done by using nat gas...Last but not least, hydrogen is a dangerous gas and its SAFE transport very difficult and expensive.

      I agree, I'm not optimistic hydrogen will ever be a viable vehicle fuel. Too hard to handle and the energy density is too low.

      Back in ancient times (2001?), people were working on fuel cells which directly used hydrocarbons or alcohol as an input. I wonder if this system could do that? One could imagine a system which runs the fuel cell on natural gas producing electricity, water, and soot. Bury the soot and you've got the makings of a new coal bed!

      OTOH, you're also losing a ton of energy not oxidizing the

    • this oil-industry paid by article is a "let's double down our efforts" to pretend hydrogen is sustainable or green.

      To mod this ignorance down.

    • Yeah, I'm not going to complain about people trying to make cars that run on hydrogen. If it works, great! If it doesn't, then now we know.

  • Another technology breakthrough that points to Hydrogen as being more viable in terms of cost, that's a good thing. If we can get the cost of cracking Hydrogen down it could make it more viable for everyday energy storage vs. batteries. It may happen based on projections. [desmog.com]

    FYI just for comparison:
    As of 3/29 closing Nickel was trading at $33,100/mt, Cobalt is at $82,000/mt, Lithium Carbonate is at $62,500/mt, and Gold is at $61.44M/mt. Geopolitical forces have driven these all up substantially this year.

    • Nope. All these metal prices will come down, as the tension eases and we find more ores and improve extraction.

      So many of these metals were too cheap, and uneconomical to recover and so they have been left behind in slag heaps, tilings and other waste of extracting other metals.

      Just remember, when oil was struck in PA [wikipedia.org] in 1859, no one ever imagined there will be oil in Arabia.

      Here you are confidently predicting what these metal prices/supply/source/demand will be when batteries go mainstream.

      We have

      • You're correct about the likelihood of many other exploitable sources for these materials.

        We have not scratched the surface.

        The price of Lithium Carbonate is currently 1/1000th of the price of gold.

        Lithium Carbonate is at $62,500/mt, and Gold is at $61.44M/mt.

      • Well, financial analysts are predicting over $60K/mt for Lithium [seekingalpha.com], we'll see if your predictions hold true. Also in 1859, the world population was about 1.2 billion.

        • Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"

          This is demonstrably untrue. It is clear that the number of criticisms always exceeds the number of actions.

          • The speed with which criticisms rise can exceed the velocity of light.

            But it would not violate the Theory of Relativity. The relativistic upper bound of velocity applies to matter. Most criticisms are immaterial, lacking substance. So they can, and do, exceed the velocity of light.

            • But wouldn't that mean that as criticisms approach the speed of light they'd also slow down as well?
              I do agree since they have zero mass they could theoretically exceed the speed of light but we'd need a research grant and staff to hone the theory, or we could just tweet it and see.

    • If we can get the cost of cracking Hydrogen down...

      Not going to happen.
      There are three ways to make large amounts of H2:

      1. From natural gas: you start of with the price of natural gas, spend energy to split it, end up with a fraction of the natural gas as H2. Maybe it is simpler to use the natural gas directly?
      2. Electrolysis: uses expensive electricity that can be used for other more profitable stuff or directly for motion.
      3. Thermal hydrolysis in nuclear reactors. This is technically possible and the only option that has a remote chance to make any economi

      • Electrolysis: uses expensive electricity that can be used for other more profitable stuff or directly for motion.

        Not any more:

        https://www.pv-magazine.com/20... [pv-magazine.com]

        Of course it still uses electricity but that is not expensive when the conversion is 95% efficient.

        • And electricity is not expensive if the plant can shave peaks off of windy, sunny days.

        • I hadn't seen that, thanks for the article. So, a projected $1.50/kg is definitely a game-changer but I do question one thing in the article:

          The Hysata electrolyzer consumes 40.4kWh of energy for every kilogram of hydrogen it produces.

          Not considering wholesale electricity costs, the average US rate is 13.5 cents/kWh [saveonenergy.com] which comes out to $5.45/kg, Still, that's not too bad; I hope they're commercially successful.

  • The article talks of an alkaline fuel cell, but later specifies it is an alkaline membrane fuel cell. The difference is significant: (membraneless) AFC are intolerant to CO2, as it precipitates as carbonate in the liquid electrolyte they have instead of a membrane. They were cheap, but could not use atmospheric oxygen. Almost no one works with them now as there is no market.

    AMFCs, on the other hand, are the new wave - they still have significant lifetime problems for their membrane, which does not live more

  • ... the resulting completely precious-metal-free hydrogen fuel cell outputs more than 200 milliwatts per square centimeter.

    Am I missing something, or is power-per-unit-area a pretty much meaningless spec? If they're talking about the material having that much power, they need to specify the thickness. And if they really meant "per cubic centimetre", then that seems to me to be a pretty low power density.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dargaud ( 518470 )
      I think it's important as a unit for the efficiency of an electrode. As for how does that translate to the volume of the battery, I have no idea.

Slashdot Top Deals

E = MC ** 2 +- 3db

Close