Fuel Cell Technology Turns The EV Corner

[toobfreak]

The idea for an electric car is attractive for many reasons, not the least of which is that an electric motor emits nothing short of a magnetic field. Better still and almost as important, it really only needs one moving part. With a wide range of high torque available, a transmission is not needed. The real bug in the hay are the stupid lithium EV batteries--- it doesn't take a Masters in EE to understand that charging batteries and carrying the stored power around is lame--- it is nowhere, man.

My favorite professor in school taught me long ago that the fuel cell was the thing. Well, now it looks like we may be there with MIT's new Sodium fuel cell with TRIPLE the energy density of lithium batteries, these new fuel cells may make the EV a practical reality; more than that, it might even bring practical electric transportation to things like buses, trucks, heavy equipment and even the airplane.

Its only downside, these new cells make your refrigerator smell nicer.

MIT's Sodium Fuel Cell Powers Planes, Captures Carbon, and Outruns Batteries

Sodium–air fuel cells could unlock electric flight and clean transit, capturing CO₂ and outperforming lithium batteries.

scitechdaily.com

 

[HikerGuy83]

Be very interesting to see.

 

[Kilroy2]

That is technology , as it should get better after time and people come up with new ideas for making it different than the original.

 

[scruffy]

Sodium is highly flammable, isn't it?

Does this fuel cell spontaneously light on fire like a lithium battery?

 

[HikerGuy83]

Sodium is highly flammable, isn't it?

Does this fuel cell spontaneously light on fire like a lithium battery?

Not by itself.

If you put it in water it liberates hydrogen and heat. This causes the hydrogen to ignite.

 

[toobfreak]

Sodium is highly flammable, isn't it?

Well, sure--- you must just keep any unwanted moisture away from the sodium. #1 on our list of things to do.

Does this fuel cell spontaneously light on fire like a lithium battery?

Well, in practice, a fuel cell should be a more compact, lighter, more manageable and therefore safer item than a storage battery. With a fuel cell, it is highly unlikely that all of the fuel should ignite at once since it is a chemical process, whereas, with a storage battery, the ever-present danger is in keeping the entire thing from just not suddenly shorting out because unlike the fuel cell where a state conversion takes place, you are holding all of the potential of the battery not as fuel but as raw energy already in electrical suspension ready to discharge.

 

[fncceo]

The first fuel cell was demonstrated in the 1839. An industrial alkaline version was built in the 1930s. NASA used them extensively in spacecraft of the 1960s and 1970s.

If they were a practical alternative for EVs I think we would have heard by now.

 

[toobfreak]

The first fuel cell was demonstrated in the 1839. An industrial alkaline version was built in the 1930s. NASA used them extensively in spacecraft of the 1960s and 1970s.

One could argue that the fail-safe hypergolic engine of the Moon's LEM ascent module was a type of fuel cell.

If they were a practical alternative for EVs I think we would have heard by now.

In other words, you ascribe to the advanced technologies first theory, for instance, that the bell telephone landline is not a practical idea otherwise, we would have heard about cellular phones first.

Actually, I've been hearing about the fuel cell since the 1970s--- back then, it was considered the realistic true direction for gas-free cars someday, not lithium storage batteries.

 

[scruffy]

Not by itself.

If you put it in water

Like... rain?

it liberates hydrogen and heat. This causes the hydrogen to ignite.

I'd hate to be in the car when that happens.

 

[wamose]

I just hope we're smart enough as a country to not suppress innovative technology advances because of some entrenched technologies.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Ram air through a turbine fueled with hot sodium.. try controlling the humidity while flying through clouds.. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Old Rocks]

The idea for an electric car is attractive for many reasons, not the least of which is that an electric motor emits nothing short of a magnetic field. Better still and almost as important, it really only needs one moving part. With a wide range of high torque available, a transmission is not needed. The real bug in the hay are the stupid lithium EV batteries--- it doesn't take a Masters in EE to understand that charging batteries and carrying the stored power around is lame--- it is nowhere, man.

My favorite professor in school taught me long ago that the fuel cell was the thing. Well, now it looks like we may be there with MIT's new Sodium fuel cell with TRIPLE the energy density of lithium batteries, these new fuel cells may make the EV a practical reality; more than that, it might even bring practical electric transportation to things like buses, trucks, heavy equipment and even the airplane.

Its only downside, these new cells make your refrigerator smell nicer.

MIT's Sodium Fuel Cell Powers Planes, Captures Carbon, and Outruns Batteries

Sodium–air fuel cells could unlock electric flight and clean transit, capturing CO₂ and outperforming lithium batteries.

scitechdaily.com

Interesting, but a long way from the lab to production. Same can be said for lithium-air batteries, or aluminum-air batteries. And both have far more potential than three times present lithium ion batteries.

 

[Old Rocks]

The first fuel cell was demonstrated in the 1839. An industrial alkaline version was built in the 1930s. NASA used them extensively in spacecraft of the 1960s and 1970s.

If they were a practical alternative for EVs I think we would have heard by now.

Not practical for a number of reasons. One is the cost of an infrastructure to deliver the hydrogen to where it is needed. Another is the nature of hydrogen itself. It like to leak and when it does and builds up to a certain point in the atmosphere, a spark, and boom. Even more so than natural gas. Then there is the energy loss in producing it. More efficient simply to put that energy in batteries.

 

[elektra]

Not practical for a number of reasons. One is the cost of an infrastructure to deliver the hydrogen to where it is needed. Another is the nature of hydrogen itself. It like to leak and when it does and builds up to a certain point in the atmosphere, a spark, and boom. Even more so than natural gas. Then there is the energy loss in producing it. More efficient simply to put that energy in batteries.

Hydrogen is a by-product of the oil and gas industry. It can be extremely cheap to produce

Democrats can not control people if they can afford energy, hence the democrats forcing us to live off expensive unaffordable throw away batteries instead of great cheap energy

 

[ReinyDays]

There's a Wikipedia article about this ...

Fuel cell vehicle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Hydrogen is made from natural gas ... so why not just burn the natural gas instead? ... if hydrogen was cheaper, we'd all have hydrogen grills and we'd be getting hydrogen from the gas people ... well, hydrogen is more expensive than hydrogen, so we have natural gas furnaces and natural gas trucks ...

Once you strip the natural gas molecule of it's hydrogen, we're left with carbon dioxide ... which means fuels cell are more carbon intensive than just burning the natural gas to begin with ... if you care about that ...

Research is always good ... I'm glad this is being pursued ... every little bit will help when the Great Oil Crisis happens and you know it will ... when these finite resources are gone, we'll need alternatives ...

 

[22lcidw]

Hydrogen is a by-product of the oil and gas industry. It can be extremely cheap to produce

Democrats can not control people if they can afford energy, hence the democrats forcing us to live off expensive unaffordable throw away batteries instead of great cheap energy

George W. was pushing hydrogen for vehicles. When the Progs returned to power, they 86'd it.

 

[toobfreak]

George W. was pushing hydrogen for vehicles. When the Progs returned to power, they 86'd it.

The biggest drawback to hydrogen is carrying the pressurized tank, but then, I've been around a lot of gas cylinders of many types and I've never known one to blow up on its own from being defective. But I'm interested in these newer designs using sodium and such--- sodium is so plentiful and cheap. Add to that, they actually pull carbon out of the air.