Post by thread:[EE] Methanol Fuel Cells

I would like to purchase a methanol powered fuel cell of approximately 50 watts at 12V that could run for approximately 3 days given sufficient fuel. Is there a commercially viable product that would get this done? Any enlightenment will be appreciated. Vic -- *____________________________________________________________________________________________* *Victor Fraenckel KC2GUI victorf ATSIGN windreader DOT com** *

> I would like to purchase a methanol powered fuel cell of > approximately > 50 watts at 12V that could run for approximately 3 days > given sufficient > fuel. Is there a commercially viable product that would > get this done? Yes, for some values of "viable". One of a number of suppliers is Fuel Cell Store http://www.fuelcellstore.com/cgi-bin/tornado/view=NavPage/cat=1051 I'm sure they will be VERY pleased to take your money. just what you asked for: 12v 65W $4900 http://www.fuelcellstore.com/cgi-bin/tornado/view=Item/cat=1045/product=1055 Some smaller 12v & 24V units. http://www.fuelcellstore.com/cgi-bin/tornado/view=NavPage/cat=1045 > Any enlightenment will be appreciated. Enlightenment: "Wise man will avoid using fuel cells if at all possible at this stage in their development due to cost". 3 days @ 50 W = 3600 Wh One of these will provide 9000 Wh for only $US95. http://www.fuelcellstore.com/cgi-bin/tornado/view=Item/cat=1045/product=1178 If you want to ship that within the US the hazardous shipping charges will add about $US100. If you can get a long enough power cord (may need to be verrrrrrrry long) you can reduce the energy cost to about 30 cents. If you can use a diesel gen set you can reduce energy costs to about $US1. Russell E&OE. Brain still not fully working after several low sleep days in Hong Kong en route from Beijing en route from Quingdao, and a return cattle-class flight.

Apptech wrote: > 3 days @ 50 W = 3600 Wh > One of these will provide 9000 Wh for only $US95. > > http://www.fuelcellstore.com/cgi-bin/tornado/view=Item/cat=1045/product=1178 > > If you want to ship that within the US the hazardous > shipping charges will add about $US100. > > I would never, ever, spend $200 on 10 liters of methanol, regardless of how "approved" it is. The fact that it's "capacity" is "9000 Wh or 760Ah" solidifies the fact that it's a waste of money. - MK

On 11/27/07, Martin K <spam_OUTmartinTakeThisOuTnnytech.net> wrote: > I would never, ever, spend $200 on 10 liters of methanol, regardless of > how "approved" it is. > > The fact that it's "capacity" is "9000 Wh or 760Ah" solidifies the fact > that it's a waste of money. Despite all the hype, fuel cell technology is not for prime time yet. That being said, alternative energy related technology is now getting hot now. Solar cells and wind power are all gaining momentum. http://www.sedb.com/edb/sg/en_uk/index/news_room/news/20060/renewable_energy_corporation.html Xiaofan

> Apptech wrote: >> 3 days @ 50 W = 3600 Wh >> One of these will provide 9000 Wh for only $US95. >> >> >> www.fuelcellstore.com/cgi-bin/tornado/view=Item/cat=1045/product=1178 >> >> If you want to ship that within the US the hazardous >> shipping charges will add about $US100. MK respondit: > I would never, ever, spend $200 on 10 liters of methanol, > regardless of > how "approved" it is. > > The fact that it's "capacity" is "9000 Wh or 760Ah" > solidifies the fact > that it's a waste of money. I might. Just possibly. I agree that it's an utter ripoff, and that the price is perhaps an order of magnitude or so above what is reasonable. But, what they are guaranteeing is that you won't poison your fuel cell with low level contaminants. IF you have the ability to filter or otherwise purify your water and Methanol from other sources to requisite purity levels then it would probably be cheaper to do so. It happens that I have a paper-only so far project where that price is bearable, albeit it would be nice if it were far lower. If you consider the fuel cell and 10l of fuel you get about 18 kg and 9 kWh or about 0.5 kWh/kg. That's right up with the top LiIon primary cells. And the incremental energy from adding more fuel is 900 Wh/kg. If you can strip the fuel cell down to its barest basic you can probably take several kg off the 7.6 kg figure. IF you can use concentrated Methanol and a local water supply then better again. Obviously my so far theoretical application is a fairly specialised one :-) - it requires a man-portable (or keen woman) energy source in a location where an IC engine of any sort (with its far superior energy output per mass) is almost certainly not going to be viable. I'm also looking at a specialist form of Stirling engine, and that's liable to be better again. One of these days I may even get to build it :-) Russell

DMFC and other type of fuel cell has been used by NASA back to the 60s. For automotive industry, the PEM fuel cell is more popular. Delphi used to invest lots of money on the SOFC with BMW, the project terminated for a while after 2002, then got funding from NASA again. GM moved most of their Fuel cell research facility from upstate New York back to Detroit recently. So far, no one announce any big progress yet. All seem waiting for big government fund including Ballard. Funny N. New Bedford, MA http://www.AuElectronics.selfip.com {Original Message removed}

> DMFC and other type of fuel cell has been used by NASA > back to the 60s. NASA still use high power (by most standards) fuel cells in the Shuttle. They have the GREAT advantage of a large and proximate supply of Oxygen and Hydrogen as that is what the RCS system runs on (not to mention the Main Engines). Progress in direct Methanol cells is pleasing but but lightning fast. When you can safely pour in reasonably pure 'off the shelf' Methanl or, better still, Ethanol, they will have arrived. You can buy some very large units now if you are willing to pay. Mini-challenge: Suggest a more practical [wo]man-portable 'operates on the go' energy source with say 100W output continuous and a 5 to 10 kWh capacity before refueling or whatever (ie 50 to 100 hours at 100 W). Has to be no heavier, robust, operate in any conceivable outdoors condition on earth, be more reliable cheaper, cheaper to run and weigh less than the fuel cell system I mentioned recently. Near silent operation and non hydro-carbon polluting desirable. CO2 or heat pollution are fine. Ability to run at higher powers for shorter peiods at no more weight a distinct bonus. Must be super reliable. Example of typical applications: NOT the one I have in mind - - Powers a 100 W electronics package while the user treks on foot to the South Pole from McMurdo. - Powers a personal airconditioner while the bearer crosses the Sahara in mid-Summer. ... A Lithium primary battery system is a good competitor - less so for longer periods. A very small diesel motor is a potential competitor but may not meet noise, ruggedness and pollution constraints. A Stirling engine plus thermal energy source may do well. Russell

On 11/27/07, Funny NYPD <.....funnynypdKILLspam@spam@yahoo.com> wrote: > DMFC and other type of fuel cell has been used by > NASA back to the 60s. > > For automotive industry, the PEM fuel cell is more popular. > Delphi used to invest lots of money on the SOFC with > BMW, the project terminated for a while after 2002, then > got funding from NASA again. > > GM moved most of their Fuel cell research facility from > upstate New York back to Detroit recently. > > So far, no one announce any big progress yet. All seem > waiting for big government fund including Ballard. I know there are a lot of research activities on this front. In fact I've been two research facilities during my one year study in UC Irvine. 1. National Fuel Cell Research Center , UC Irvine http://www.nfcrc.uci.edu/ 2. GM Advance Research Center in Torrance, California They are doing some pretty cool stuff. Huge power, huge heat sink, DSP, advanced power control, etc. The problem is to scale down to real life applications (simple as notebook or cell phone power) in reasonable price. There are actually many technical challenges unsolved. Xiaofan

Subterranean? - MK Apptech wrote: {Quote hidden}> > Obviously my so far theoretical application is a fairly > specialised one :-) - it requires a man-portable (or keen > woman) energy source in a location where an IC engine of any > sort (with its far superior energy output per mass) is > almost certainly not going to be viable. I'm also looking at > a specialist form of Stirling engine, and that's liable to > be better again. One of these days I may even get to build > it :-) > > > Russell > > > >

I was thinking submarine - lightweight, low noise. But human portable isn't a dinstinctly submarine trait, so... -Adam On 11/27/07, Martin <martinKILLspamnnytech.net> wrote: {Quote hidden}> Subterranean? > - > MK > > Apptech wrote: > > > > Obviously my so far theoretical application is a fairly > > specialised one :-) - it requires a man-portable (or keen > > woman) energy source in a location where an IC engine of any > > sort (with its far superior energy output per mass) is > > almost certainly not going to be viable. I'm also looking at > > a specialist form of Stirling engine, and that's liable to > > be better again. One of these days I may even get to build > > it :-) > > > > > > Russell > > > > > > > > > > -

But a submersable drive unit might fit? RP On 28/11/2007, M. Adam Davis <.....stienmanKILLspam.....gmail.com> wrote: {Quote hidden}> > I was thinking submarine - lightweight, low noise. But human portable > isn't a dinstinctly submarine trait, so... > > -Adam > > On 11/27/07, Martin <EraseMEmartinspam_OUTTakeThisOuTnnytech.net> wrote: > > Subterranean? > > - > > MK > > > > Apptech wrote: > > > > > > Obviously my so far theoretical application is a fairly > > > specialised one :-) - it requires a man-portable (or keen > > > woman) energy source in a location where an IC engine of any > > > sort (with its far superior energy output per mass) is > > > almost certainly not going to be viable. I'm also looking at > > > a specialist form of Stirling engine, and that's liable to > > > be better again. One of these days I may even get to build > > > it :-) > > > > > > > > > Russell > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --

"Apptech" <apptechspam_OUTparadise.net.nz> wrote in message news:009601c830b0$3a0b3710$e701a8c0@y2k... >> DMFC and other type of fuel cell has been used by NASA >> back to the 60s. > > NASA still use high power (by most standards) fuel cells in > the Shuttle. > They have the GREAT advantage of a large and proximate > supply of Oxygen and Hydrogen as that is what the RCS system > runs on (not to mention the Main Engines). Actually, the shuttle RCS and OMS systems use hypergolic (really nasty toxic) propellants, not H2 and O2. Also, the SSME's get all of their LOX and LH2 from the external tank, which is dropped before reaching orbit. The fuel cells use H2 and O2 carried in spherical tanks underneath the payload bay. Jeff -- A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein