What is the potential of fuel cells for the long term?

[NewJeffCT]

And, also the short term? I'm just intrigued after I read a bit about them. How far off is this technology from being adapted on a small scale and then bigger?

Thanks

[The Doctor.]

1. A bit expensive to implement anytime soon...

but the future is definitely nuclear fusion and hydrogen.

(love Shriekback)

[phantom power]

2. It's more likely to move from "big" to "small"

It's expensive to make a fuel cell small enough and powerful enough to run an automobile. They are more economical for larger applications, like auxiliary power for industry.

Making them affordable for vehicles depends on future technology improvements, which are hard to forecast. But the fuel cells themselves are only part of the story. The other part is the fuel infrastructure. You have to make hydrogen, store it, transport it, get it into the equivalent of a local gas station. H2 is a very small, very volatile molecule. Handling it safely is difficult and also expensive.

If we're going to manufacture fuels (and we will have to), I'd prefer to manufacture something more practical, like synthetic diesel, where the carbon is taken from CO2 out of the atmosphere, and energy from nuclear power (or wind, if that is feasible). Doing it that way, we can use our existing fuel infrastructure, and even keep internal combustion engines. What matters is that the fuel cycle is carbon-neutral: Burn diesel (or some other hydrocarbon), release CO2, take that CO2 back out of the atmosphere to generate more diesel. The cycle is driven by clean energy source, like nuclear.

[electropop]

3. They are in long-term use in space.

Properly fueled and maintained, they are very durable and efficient. The big problem is cost, and from what I've seen, there is good work going on to address that problem. The next biggest problem is hydrogen, the best fuel. How are you going to make, distribute, and store it? You can make it from oil (boo), coal-fired electric plants (boo), or renewable electric sources (yay). Of course the last of those is the farthest from cost-effectiveness and wide availability, but seems entirely do-able to me. In fact, hydrogen might be a byproduct of, say, a wind farm. You run the farm 24/7, but the wind blows when it blows. Take the excess peak power and make hydrogen, then use that to fill in the calm times, from fuel cells. Sell off the excess not needed for grid electricity. It's long-term stuff, but doable with current technology, and practical with some realistic cost reductions.

[Trillo]

4. Have you seen these?

http://www.hionsolar.com/n-hion96.htm
http://www.unsw.edu.au/news/adv/articles/2004/aug/Solar_hydrogen.html

[electropop]

9. Both are intriguing

Though both are pretty far off as well. The solar-thermal assisted process is still about 1/10th as efficient as standard photovoltaic. The new ceramic is 7 years away. As near as I can tell, the ceramic would be an improved material for the solar-thermal assisted process.

[NewJeffCT]

5. I thought I had read there are alternatives to hydrogen?

But, just not as efficient as hydrogen.

[phantom power]

6. We can manufacture pretty much any fuel we choose to.

The big policy question would be, which fuel (or fuels) will be the most practical. There are many dimension to consider, like how clean it will burn (H2 is unbeatable here, which is why it gets all the airplay), does it require a whole new infrastructure (H2 loses big here), how efficient are the best-known industrial chemical reactions to manufacture the fuel (I'm very ignorant of those specifics). I'm sure there are others I've never considered. But I think that when you take *all* of these factors into account, H2 doesn't really stack up that well, especially in the near-to-mid term. With eventual improvements in technology, it's really anybody's guess, but I don't think we have time to wait for hypothetical technology improvements.

[Salviati]

7. A little post I wrote a while ago, that may be helpful to some readers...

I don't know if anyone here has this problem, but in any discussion about energy, it's helpful to point this out, for the benefit of any people reading who are still fuzzy about this...



Whenever the media talks about energy, they blur the lines between energy sources, storage, and usage, thus making any real conversation really hard.

Fuel cells are like a new kind of engine, they take fuel in and convert it to effort, in this case, they take hydrogen, methanol, etc and turn it into electricity. When you see the media asking if fuel cells can solve the energy crisis, this makes about as much sense as asking if the internal combustion engine can solve it. These things are energy consumers, not energy sources.

Hydrogen. Far from what the popular press may lead you to believe, hydrogen is not the savior of the upcoming energy supply crisis. In fact hydrogen is not an energy source at all, it is just an energy storage medium, like a battery. One cannot go and "mine" molecular hydrogen any more than one can go and mine batteries. Hydrogen must be made through various processes, such as electrolysis (splitting water in to H2 + O) or stripping the hydrogen from other molecules, like methane. These processes all take more energy to use than can be extracted by using the hydrogen in a fuel cell or any other type of engine. So why do it then, if we're going to lose energy? Because it can put the energy into a form that's easy to carry around, same as why you use rechargeable batteries instead of really long extension cords.

Oil. This is what it all comes down to, energy supplies. Right now oil is one of our most important energy supplies. Why? Because for the moment it is cheap and plentiful, and it packs an incredible energy density (by carrying a little oil around, you get a lot of energy). The comparisons in the media between an oil economy and a hydrogen economy are a bit disingenuous, because you're comparing a energy source to energy storage. The real alternatives to oil and other fossil fuels like natural gas and coal are things like solar, wind power, hydro power, nuclear fission and (maybe someday) fusion, biomass, and geothermal, to name but a few. If we are going to retool our transportation to use fuel cells in order to stop suckling at the teat of oil, it is these sources that are going to make the hydrogen that will be used. And looking at the big energy picture, transportation only accounts for about 10% of the energy used in the US, the bulk of it is used in areas like industry and electrifying and heating peoples homes.

In order to stave off any crisis about the availability of petro fuels (not to mention the environmental costs of continuing to dump all that CO2 into the air), there must be a revolution in where we get our energy from, alternative energy sources must be developed, the blurring of the lines between these categories of sources, storage, and usage make having conversations about this issue very difficult.

[phantom power]

8. One reason for the confusion is

that for the last 100 years or so, we've been treating oil and natural gas as both energy source *and* storage medium (fuel). This coincidence has been so ingrained in our economy, for so long, that nobody makes the distinction.

It's too bad, since that confusion is making it impossible for 99% of people to even frame the problem correctly, forget working out a good solution.

[electropop]

10. Thanks, that clarifies

the unease I have felt, but not articulated. I would also add that the reason Bushco favors hydrogen is that they intend to make it from their oil.

[Massacure]

12. gasoline and alcohol are energy storage mechanisms too.

They just store the Earth's energy.

[Maple]

11. Quite doable...and on the road

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7064975

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5842076