According to [Charles Q. Choi], a new study indicates that grooves in the hydrogen fuel cells used to power vehicles can improve their performance by up to 50%. Fuel cells are like batteries because they use chemical reactions to create electricity. Where they are different is that a battery reacts a certain amount of material, and then it is done unless you recharge it somehow. A fuel cell will use as much fuel as you give it. That allows it to continue creating electricity until the fuel runs out.
Common hydrogen fuel cells use a proton exchange membrane — a polymer membrane that conducts protons to separate the fuel and the oxidizer. You can think of it as an electrolyte. Common fuel cells use an electrode design that hasn’t changed in decades. The new research has catalyst ridges separated by empty grooves. This enhances oxygen flow and proton transport.
Conventional electrodes use an ion-conducting polymer and a platinum catalyst. Adding more polymer improves proton transport but inhibits oxygen flow. The grooved design allows for dense polymer on the ridges but allows oxygen to flow in the grooves. In technical terms, the proton transport resistance goes down, and there is little change in the oxygen transport resistance.
The grooves are between one and two nanometers wide, so don’t pull out your CNC mill. The researchers admit they had the idea for this some time ago, but it has taken several years to figure out how to fabricate the special electrodes.
I’ve seen that kind of nano-structures on Xiaomi self-disinfecting toilet seats. Apparently theyre quite efficient, better than using domestos.
“Common fuel cells use an electrode design that hasn’t changed in decades. ”
Once we figure out…
“The researchers admit they had the idea for this some time ago, but it has taken several years to figure out how to fabricate the special electrodes.”
I see the idea applied to other “separated by a membrane” applications.
In Canada at Blue-O Technology Inc., we have developed novel membrane electrode that flattened the decay with most commercial available materials. Our new fuel cell technology can provide over million miles running time with 90% more power output for much needed heavy duty vehicle application. De-climate change technology is here. http://Www.blue-o technology.com
> Common fuel cells use an electrode design that hasn’t changed in decades.
Common fuel cells use heavily overpriced Nafion proprietary and patented membrane or overpriced licensed replacements and it hasn’t changed in decades. In many cases, performance of regular electrodes is more than enough, but the price of Nafion completely ruins the whole idea. And unlike electrodes, that Nafion membrane degrades with usage, so have to be replaced from time to time.
So the problem with fuel cells is not in electrodes. It is in vendor lock. Why solve non-existing (for current state of matter, at least) problem facing much more important and disastrous for whole technology problem with monopoly on proton membranes?
Also, it is very strange and suspicious that I didn’t heard about any progress and improvements in much more practical and useable DMFC’s. Looks like that branch of fuel cells swiped under the carpet in favour of hydrogen ones. Why bother with hydrogen at all, if nobody still didn’t resolve a numerous problems with its storage? Methanol you could just pour into a bottle.
At Blue-O Technology, we have solved the decade of proton exchange membrane. It is the electrode performance issue for HDV application.
DMFC has substantial scientific problem of poisoning of catalysts in membrane electrodes. It is not what we wanted, but whether we have the scientific mean to utilize it.
Regarding hydrogen storage, this is not a huge issue if we consider it’s vast portability. 700 bar tanks can carry 10 kg H2 and it can provide ~1000 km.
BEV is secondary battery technology, and HFCEV is primary generator that will lead Zero emission vehicles in next 5-10 years.
700bar is about 10,500 psi (FREEDOM!).
That’s not crazy high, about equal to the maximum barrel pressure in a 22LR rifle. Not even close to a 30-06.
You drive that rolling bomb, not me.
I’ll be the dude passing you in a thumping V8.
Dont worry chicken little, its not as scary as you think.
https://youtu.be/jVeagFmmwA0
> we have solved the decade of proton exchange membrane.
So share with the class where to order a decent proton membrane for acceptable price. What is the price per square meter?
> DMFC has substantial scientific problem of poisoning of catalysts in membrane electrodes.
Why use Pt-based catalyst at all? To make fuel cell even less affordable? Ni,Ag,C+N based catalysts works too and have no poisoning problem. They are not perfect too, but unlike Pt/Pd they are dirt cheap.
> 700 bar tanks can carry 10 kg H2
What is the weight and price of such tank? How often should it be certified and what is the price of certification? Is there a possibility to quickly pour fuel from one tank to another? Is it possible to have a filled reserve tank in a garage for force majeur situations?
Not even talking about highly questionalbe idea to have such a bomb in a vehicle. Especially, when there exists methanol that is not any different from regular diesel/gas fuel from the handling point of view.
Looks like industry thoroughly discrediting excellent idea of fuel cell since the first commercial announcements 20 years ago. That proton membrane with insane price, using expensive Pt cat, proposing unuseable fuel and so on. 20 years of “Shure, next year there will be fuel cell replacements for laptop batteries on the market ” looks like weird mockery. May be I just not aware of some car giant or good startup that developing simple cheap DMFC for vehicles and home appliances, so may be somebody point me to something not extremely expensive and without that hydrogen insanity? Anybody?
DMFC and DEFC are improving. Ill be surprised if they arent mainstream primary tech eventually, especially given the advancements being made in supercritical water hydrolysis of lignocellulosic biowaste to simple sugars. Between waste paper/cardboard, and the inedible portions of crop plants, we have a nearly unlimited source for fermentation feedstock on the horizon.
Rumor has it Nissan is shifting their onboard reformer fuel cell development towards Direct Ethanol.
>What is the weight and price of such tank? How often should it be certified and what is the price of certification? Is there a possibility to quickly pour fuel from one tank to another? Is it possible to have a filled reserve tank in a garage for force majeur situations?
The Mirai tanks are 122 litres (27 imp gal; 32 US gal) combined, and store hydrogen at 70 MPa (10,000 psi). The tanks have a combined weight of 87.5 kg (193 lb), and 5 kg (11 lb) capacity. The Gen 1 mirai’s 2 tanks ($7k/ea) are certified for 15 years. No recertification.
I’m pleasantly surprised this comment section isn’t full of Battery EV vs Fuel Cell EV mud slinging…
I’m curious how reasonably the manufacturing challenges can be addressed at scale. People need to be able to afford the technology, after all.
Guessing it is public use vaporware
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/04/20150429-mirai.html
>Unlike conventional straight channel and porous metal flow fields, the new Toyota fuel cell uses a 3D fine-mesh flow field in the cathode. The 3D micro-lattice directs air toward the membrane electrode and gas diffusion layer assembly and promotes O2 diffusion to the catalyst layer. The designers optimized the geometry and surface wettability of the flow field to draw water generated by the MEGA to the back surface of the 3D flow field. For the anode, Toyota engineers used an integrated channel-based fine-pitch flow field structure with H2 flow on the front and coolant flow on the back. This creates a 2-turn, 3-step cascade microstructure in which the H2 and air flow in counter directions on either side of the membrane electrode assembly (MEA). Toyota also switched the separator material from stainless steel to titanium, reducing cell weight by 39%. Changing from a two-layer to a single-layer structure and halving the area of the compression plates reduced the size and weight of the stack compression structure. A stamped stack case was replaced by an aluminum casting and the number of compression parts was reduced by incorporating measures to increase structural strength of the case. As a result, the volume and weight of the case was reduced by 42% (from 64 to 37L and 108 to 56kg).