Fuel Cell Hype Back Again
from the and-it'll-disappear-again-as-well dept
Every few years the press gets excited about the potential for fuel cell-powered laptops. And then the concept goes away. We wrote about in 2003, explaining why it wasn't a big deal, and again in 2005. So here we are in 2008 and, once again, we're hearing stories about new fuel cells for laptops that are going to be demoed (not, of course, actually put into production). The benefits of a fuel cell-powered laptop are that on a single cell, a laptop can last a lot longer (usually the estimate is about 10 hours). That sure beats the 3 to 5 hours most laptops get on traditional lithium-ion batteries today.But... there's a huge problem with fuel cells that almost never gets discussed in the press: you need to keep buying replacements and then you need to carry those replacement fuel cell cartridges with you. It's like back to the bad old days when your consumer electronics products all had non-rechargeable, disposable batteries. It was a huge pain. That's why everyone switched to rechargeable batteries. When you switch to disposable fuel cells, then you're adding an ongoing expense (much greater than electricity) and forcing users to keep carrying around spares. Yes, for some folks that ability to go for a longer time without plugging in will be worth it -- but for plenty of people it seems like the "cost" is a lot worse than the benefit.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: fuel cells, hype, laptops
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Use Both
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Use Both
I mean, why would you replace your chosen technology with a secondary technology...
And if you replace your "dead" lithium with a cell.... wouldn't you replace your very soon to be dead cell with a lithium anyways?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HHO can be generated on the fly from water. With a properly made cathode and anode, they will not oxidise and need replacing, so the only thing you would need to replace is a bit of water, and that should be once a week.
The electricity companies are desperately trying to turn something that is very simple, into something very complicated, as they are about to start losing allot of revenue due to new energy sources.
They want you to think that things need renewing, replacing, and paying for on a regular basis.
Fact is, people have made gearboxes that are so good, you can power your house by taking bike-ride every morning, storing the leccy you have produced in a battery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hell never mind individuals, the fitness companies would be making a fortune "Not only does our bike get you fit but it saves you hundreds on your energy bills - pays for itself in xx months"
Please show me I'm wrong and give some sort of reference? On this occasion i'd truly love to be wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
douche
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In response to your bike-ride electricity generator:
At a gym, a well-trained human can sustain output equal to a horsepower with an intense workout. Let's be generous and say that they can do this for a full hour, producing 745 watt-hours of energy.
Now, assume that on their bike ride to work, they produce this same output, it is an hour commute, and ALL energy they make is stored in this magic battery (forget about the energy it takes to actually move the bike). And, say they do it twice a day: that's a whopping 1.5 kW-h of energy per day. Please let me know what house you live in that only uses 1.5 kWh of energy per day.
It doesn't matter what kind of gearbox you put on a bike, a simple conservation of energy will tell you it's ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Besides, my estimate was extremely generous. Obviously most people cannot output a horsepower for an hour. And, most of your energy is put into moving the bike itself. So, a more realistic figure would be a few hundred watt-hours.
Sure, if you live in a house with candlelight and no HVAC system, why not. In fact, why not just get the whole family together and peddle on a bike array for 15 minutes to charge the batteries for the day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hydrogen is a class A explosive meaning it is very dangerous to use even for people skilled in its usage.
Natural gas can be used as a fuel if impurities can be removed by a reformer placed between the fuel cell and the fuel supply or fuel cells can be modified to accept impure gas. Reformer have not been made that will deliver pure gas with out impurities. Fuel Cells have not been made that will accept impure gas. Development is in process of both making fuel cells that will accept impure gas and reformers that will work.
The idiots that believe that there will be hydrogen fuel stations like current gas stations have NO idea of the magnitude of what a hydrogen explosion is like or how likely one is with hundreds of fuel installations period much less millions per day by unskilled people. Mankind has been to the moon and mankind has developed a few hydrogen power cars but neither in the first part of the 21st century are feasible for the masses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seems California is already making it 'for the masses.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: (Anonymous Coward)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: (Anonymous Coward)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: (Anonymous Coward)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: (Anonymous Coward)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster
And the Hindenburg burned. It was not a confined explosion like a fuel tank would be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: (Anonymous Coward)
** Mythbusters are usually little more than retards with measuring sticks who like to blow things up but they do get some things right from time to time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: (Anonymous Coward)
http://www.cnn.com/US/9904/08/power.plant.blast.01/index.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In order to make gasoline react anywhere as readily as hydrogen you'd need a good amount of heat, pressure, and/or an oxidizer other than just air. Internal combustion engines depend on plenty of heat and pressure to make the gasoline explode. Gasoline derived explosives require an oxidizer like ammonium nitrate to make gasoline explode. Hydrogen just needs an ignition source.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: by Anonymous Coward
Gasoline is far, far, far more dangerous than hydrogen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: by Anonymous Coward
You've got that backwards. Hydrogen is FAR more explosive than Gasoline. Beyond the fact that Hydrogen burns faster making explosions more violent than any standard gasoline, Hydrogen also ignites much easier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HHO from Water...
I thought that the whole point of (hydrogen) fuel cells, was to make it so that this reaction could be done requiring a lot less/no energy at the time - (i.e. apart from the energy required to make the fuel cell in the first place) - and to bypass the carrier (H&HHO)) and produce electricity directly instead, again with just water as the byproduct - (hopefully being more efficient).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HHO from Water...
You're wrong about the whole point of fuel cells. The whole point is to provide an energy storage mechanism that has far more power than batteries of the same size or weight. For the methanol fuel cells Mike is talking about, the comparison is 24 hour charge for the fuel cell vs. a 2-5 hour charge for the battery - all in a unit of the same size and less weight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: HHO from Water...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: HHO from Water...
Charging a lithium ion battery OTOH can be over of 99% efficient depending on the charging method. What would you rather; loosing 50 joules of energy, or less than 1?
But this is about methanol fuel cells which will have a greater net efficiency than either since methanol can be made directly from energy sources such as wood pulp. H2O electrolysis and charging batteries require electricity production and transmission, both of which involve a good number of losses.
And no, fuel cells aren't always about energy-to-size ratios. They are about quick (instantaneous) recharge times and relatively clean operation. Hydrogen gas for example takes up a large amount of volume for a relatively little amount of energy simply because it's a gas. In this case though, methanol, being a liquid, is very energy dense per volume making it a good choice here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Um, what? Who said I support change for change's sake? I support market driven change, and in this case, it seems like a product ripe for market failure.
What's so contradictory about that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Methanol fuel cells in production
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Methanol fuel cells in production
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's going on one BIG assumption that people who can buy it will WANT to handle it properly. Some may well desire to find other 'uses' for it, like anything else - it'll be abused, of course.
And accidents do happen - there is a specific reason Hydrogen isn't used in Blimps anymore - the Hindenburg was quite an example of what can go wrong.
Sure, the people who work with it and such are cautious and all, just like the guy who drives a Gasoline Tanker truck - but there are those who don't seek to use various substances for good reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A 10 hour battery for a specific laptop... Lets just guess how much they will charge. Maybe hmmm $50.00
If I just purchase two regular rechargables for lets say $90 I will have about 7 hours of battery life. That is if I buy the good rechargeable not the bottom line models. Then I won't need to keep buying Fuel cell batteries and have to find a place to recycle them.
No Thanks, I'll just buy two good rechargeable laptop batteries and run with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad old days was not that bad
New is not always better, it sometimes help to go dig around in the past and see what we have forgotten.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pedal power
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pedal power
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: Micro fuel cell killer
The best fuel cell company you've never seen
http://www.cleantechblog.com/2008/04/best-fuel-cell-company-youve-never-seen.html
Micro Fuel Cell Killer
http://www.cleantechblog.com/2007/06/micro-fuel-cell-killer-whats-next.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Welcome to the Dog & Pony Show
The Oil Companies said it would support it, and put in 4,000 to 5,000 CNG fueling stations in the country. *Just like how they supported Hydrogen sales at current gas stations for Fuel Cells*
As far as I'm concerned, there is $150 Trillion worth of oil in the earth's crust, and that means $150 Trillion (Today's dollars) of business that is still to be conducted. Why Change? But they have to make environmentalists happy.
This is just the same bullshit we saw in the 1990s to show Congress something is being done... Trust us, we're oilmen!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
True! If people want 10 hour battery life and don't mind carrying extra batteries around, they can already do it with Lithium batteries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]