The Focus Fusion Society Forums Focus Fusion Cafe Energy Storage in fuel-cell/super-electrolyzer combo

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #925
    Brian H
    Participant

    MIT claims to have developed a nickel-borate catalyst 200X (20,000%) more efficient than platinum for a potent electrolyzer+fuel cell combination. Take power from anywhere (solar, fusion, whatever) and produce hydrogen with the electrolyzer, then turn it back into power with a fuel cell whenever you need it.

    http://www.gizmag.com/new-catalyst-makes-electrolyzers-more-efficient/16112/

    Before anyone considers this a super-competitor to FF, I’d like to point out that installing (as suggested in the article) solar panels to feed the fuel cell rig costs about 50X as much per watt of capacity as FF, and even the maintenance costs of this system are likely to exceed the cost per kwh of FF-produced power.

    Nevertheless, a super-electrolyzer is a major discovery.

    #8063
    Dr_Barnowl
    Participant

    Indeed… it could even be damaging, overall.

    I see anything promoting the “Hydrogen Economy” as potentially problematic, mostly because the number one source of hydrogen right now is still fossil fuels. This technology is great in the context of storing energy from non-fossil origins, but it may remove the a barrier to widespread adoption of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, the sheer cost of the platinum catalyst. While an improved electricity / hydrogen / electricity cycle might actually make hydrogen vehicles more practical (currently, they look a bit sick next to battery electric vehicles), it also opens the door to fossil-sourced hydrogen, which I don’t view as being progress.

    #8065
    Tulse
    Participant

    I don’t see hydrogen vehicles as ever being competitive with pure electric or electric-hybrid, largely because the distribution network for hydrogen would have to be created from scratch. It is much cheaper and simpler to use existing powerlines to “fuel” a car rather than have to put in a totally new infrastructure. Hydrogen may have a future as a storage technology for installed intermittent renewable energy sources (such as wind and solar), where it would be produced on-site and then used in a fuel cell, but I can’t see it as a widely distributed fuel itself.

    #8066
    Brian H
    Participant

    Tulse wrote: I don’t see hydrogen vehicles as ever being competitive with pure electric or electric-hybrid, largely because the distribution network for hydrogen would have to be created from scratch. It is much cheaper and simpler to use existing powerlines to “fuel” a car rather than have to put in a totally new infrastructure. Hydrogen may have a future as a storage technology for installed intermittent renewable energy sources (such as wind and solar), where it would be produced on-site and then used in a fuel cell, but I can’t see it as a widely distributed fuel itself.

    Yes, that’s the gist of the article, and about as far as the inventors are willing to go (project). But as I noted, the all-in cost of such a rig would make it a money-hole compared to just buying FF-sourced power, were it available. Consider that $100 would buy about 40,000 kwh of FF-power … enough to power the average household for 10-15 years or so. Or, for that matter, fully recharge a Tesla Motors Roadster 600 times or so (240 miles per charge), also about 10 years of expected use.

    #8068
    AaronB
    Participant

    In my ideal world, we would shift from gasoline/diesel to ammonia (NH3). It’s carbon-free, powerful, relatively safe, and there’s already a distribution network established. There’s a guy named John Holbrook at NHThree who has developed a solid-state, reverse fuel cell for making ammonia. If you have heat and electricity and add water and air, you get ammonia and oxygen out of the other side. It just so happens that if our fusion generator works, it would produce heat and electricity. If you strap these two technologies together, you’d have an instant gas station that could produce tons of liquid fuel for very little cost.

    Ammonia will burn pretty well in standard car engines, but if you had a super-efficient ammonia-burning fuel cell in your car (with a small capacitor for acceleration and regenerative braking), you could have all of the advantages of electric motors, ammonia fuel, and carbon-free power. That’s my vision anyway.

    #8069
    JShell
    Participant

    Using NH3 sounds like a great idea, especially if the energy density is enough for cars and trucks to maintain something close to their current range . . .with FF, it could make for some inspiring goals!

    #8070
    Brian H
    Participant

    AaronB wrote: In my ideal world, we would shift from gasoline/diesel to ammonia (NH3). It’s carbon-free, powerful, relatively safe, and there’s already a distribution network established. There’s a guy named John Holbrook at NHThree who has developed a solid-state, reverse fuel cell for making ammonia. If you have heat and electricity and add water and air, you get ammonia and oxygen out of the other side. It just so happens that if our fusion generator works, it would produce heat and electricity. If you strap these two technologies together, you’d have an instant gas station that could produce tons of liquid fuel for very little cost.

    Ammonia will burn pretty well in standard car engines, but if you had a super-efficient ammonia-burning fuel cell in your car (with a small capacitor for acceleration and regenerative braking), you could have all of the advantages of electric motors, ammonia fuel, and carbon-free power. That’s my vision anyway.

    Yoiks! A small fuel spill of chemically pure ammonia would make the air unbreathable for a 100-yd diameter. A big one would clear city blocks! Mass anosmia would be the probable result. 😉

    I prefer the 10X higher energy density batteries that nano-electrode and other near-term technologies promise. Electrons don’t stink!

    #8072
    AaronB
    Participant

    Brian H wrote: Yoiks! A small fuel spill of chemically pure ammonia would make the air unbreathable for a 100-yd diameter. A big one would clear city blocks! Mass anosmia would be the probable result. 😉 I prefer the 10X higher energy density batteries that nano-electrode and other near-term technologies promise. Electrons don’t stink!

    While olfactory irritation is no laughing matter, and definitely nothing to sneeze at, I would point your attention to this study.

    If scientists and engineers can come up with batteries with the energy density and weight of liquid fuels, I’d be willing to go that route. I’m also concerned that if every car was to be converted/manufactured to use battery power, there wouldn’t be enough battery-making material in the world to do the job. The price of batteries would be astronomical for those who could get them. It’s fine if only a small percentage of vehicles are battery powered, but I don’t know how well it will scale up.

    One option for Focus Fusion generators would be to run at constant output, exceeding the maximum daily electrical demands for an area, and any excess power could be converted to NH3. At night when demand was low, a lot of NH3 would be produced and stored for filling up gas tanks the following day. That way, one or more FF power plants could provide all the electricity and fuel for a town or neighborhood.

    Hmmm, if Wal-Mart bought licenses and installed FF power plants at all of their locations, they could become the nation’s largest electrical utility and fuel producer. That would be interesting.

    #8074
    Breakable
    Keymaster

    I think the main problem with current energy storage methods is not energy density, but cost.
    If FF golden age brings the cost of most materials and manufacturing down, we will not have storage problem anymore.
    If you want to you can make liquid fuels from air co2 and run internal combustion engines off that, where the FF generators do not work.
    Still for those who are betting on non-near-fusion future, storage technologies should look like a an attractive investment.

    #8077
    Aeronaut
    Participant

    AaronB wrote:

    Hmmm, if Wal-Mart bought licenses and installed FF power plants at all of their locations, they could become the nation’s largest electrical utility and fuel producer. That would be interesting.

    Wal Mart, McDonalds, and Burger King would make a trifecta.

    #8078
    Tulse
    Participant

    Don’t forget Starbucks. “I’ll have a double skinny caramel macchiato and a pB11 pinch, please!”

    #8081
    KeithPickering
    Participant

    Methane is less toxic than ammonia, and there already is a large scale existing infrastructure. And you can power your car on methane with very simple modifications. All you need is a way to make methane from renewables, or from FF.

    But there is such a way already … if you grow methanogenic archaea in an electrolytic cell and add 1 volt, they make methane like gangbusters. About 80% efficient in initial lab tests, which is better than electrolysis of hydrogen. And they haven’t even started selective breeding of the little critters yet.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090330111257.htm

    #8084
    Brian H
    Participant

    AaronB wrote:

    Yoiks! A small fuel spill of chemically pure ammonia would make the air unbreathable for a 100-yd diameter. A big one would clear city blocks! Mass anosmia would be the probable result. 😉 I prefer the 10X higher energy density batteries that nano-electrode and other near-term technologies promise. Electrons don’t stink!

    While olfactory irritation is no laughing matter, and definitely nothing to sneeze at, I would point your attention to this study.

    If scientists and engineers can come up with batteries with the energy density and weight of liquid fuels, I’d be willing to go that route. I’m also concerned that if every car was to be converted/manufactured to use battery power, there wouldn’t be enough battery-making material in the world to do the job. The price of batteries would be astronomical for those who could get them. It’s fine if only a small percentage of vehicles are battery powered, but I don’t know how well it will scale up.

    One option for Focus Fusion generators would be to run at constant output, exceeding the maximum daily electrical demands for an area, and any excess power could be converted to NH3. At night when demand was low, a lot of NH3 would be produced and stored for filling up gas tanks the following day. That way, one or more FF power plants could provide all the electricity and fuel for a town or neighborhood.

    Hmmm, if Wal-Mart bought licenses and installed FF power plants at all of their locations, they could become the nation’s largest electrical utility and fuel producer. That would be interesting.
    Even for LiIon batteries, there is plenty available; it is not used up. The lithium is 100% re-cycled. And numerous other materials are being developed as electrolytes.

    The energy-density comparison of batteries to fuel is illegitimate; the batteries are storage, and substitute, with the very light (~120 lb) motor, for the total mass of ICE engine, gas tank, and fuel. (And most of the transmission; there is no gearbox in a Roadster, just a single reduction gear.) Or, in the case of a fuel-cell as you describe, for cell and liquid and tank.

    The addition of a fuel-cell + liquid storage and so on to the simple battery + motor setup multiplies complexity and thus chance of failure, and requirement for maintenance. The Tesla EV AC motor has one moving part: the rotor. Maintenance is limited to brakes (rare, with most slowing accomplished by regen motor drag), and tire replacement. And maybe shocks, wipers, and minor accessory replacements after years of use.

    #8085
    Brian H
    Participant

    AaronB wrote:

    While olfactory irritation is no laughing matter, and definitely nothing to sneeze at, I would point your attention to this study.

    ” NH3 is detectable by odor at concentrations much less than those necessary to cause harm. This allows persons who smell the gas to escape.” Nice that escape is likely!
    I note that in table 3-7 the ONLY fuel alternative with serious toxic dangers is ammonia, by a huge factor.

    In view of which, this quote seems illogical:
    ” Thus, it can be concluded that the fuel used to power a motor vehicle does not contribute significantly to
    the fatality rate of motor-vehicle accidents. It appears that the fuel, by itself, is not a significant factor in
    the fatality rates. This conclusion is based on a simple review of the available NSC data and would be
    expected to be true if anhydrous ammonia were the automotive fuel since anhydrous ammonia would be
    carried in a pressure vessel similar to LPG. “

    That’s apples and oranges; ammonia is far more toxic and volitile. Per 6-9, it’s safer in tanker accidents than LPG, but that’s not saying much!

    The study seems like a promotional piece. I wonder who funded Quest Consultants to perform it.

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.