# New Catalyst Paves the Path for Ethanol-powered Fuel Cells



## EVDL Archive (Jul 26, 2007)

The research team's electrocatalyst is capable of breaking carbon bonds at room temperature and efficiently oxidizing ethanol into carbon dioxide as the main reaction product.

More...


----------



## rsandberg (May 15, 2008)

Aren't we trying to reduce CO2 emmisions??? I love new technology, but we shouldn't forget the end-game.

Rick


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

CO2 are one thing if thats what you're worried about, but what about net efficiency and operating cost? It just doesn't add up when compared to an EV.

Not a fan of fuel cells....


----------



## Bottomfeeder (Jun 13, 2008)

Ethanol can be close to a carbon neutral fuel, since we get it out of rotting plants. Fuel cells aren't the silver bullet in solving our environmental woes, but unfortunately, neither are EVs. The solution will require lots and lots of small solutions that work together. Fuel cells + an EV make for a long range Electric Car with a non-fossil fuel. Seems like a decent idea to me.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Actually I do believe EVs could be a silver bullet if they are designed right. With technology available right now, they could be built to have nearly 1000 miles of range. I don't think a fuel cell vehicle has ever driven that far on one fillup. All we need is for the high end batteries to be released for mass production by high volume jobbers.

Having recharging infrastructure installed is a far less costly undertaking than petrol or hydrogen ever will be.


----------



## Bottomfeeder (Jun 13, 2008)

EVs run off of electricity, and to make electricity we'll need energy sources. Wind and Solar have limited growth capacity (currently). And projections for the industries are disappointing. We'll need to get our energy from somewhere and other sustainable sources will have to be found. As it is, EVs do a great job of increasing efficiency, but that's not the whole picture. Sustainabilty is the ultimate goal. Fuel cells can have a high efficiency as well, which is why they may become part of the solution. But once again, not the silver bullet.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

Bottomfeeder said:


> EVs run off of electricity, and to make electricity we'll need energy sources. .


I can't think of anything easier in the universe to get than electrons.

I believe, at least this is what I have heard... that a few milliliters of anti-protons could power the entire planet for a year. 

Yet the research budget for anti-matter is usually about 1/100,000th the size of the US welfare system.


----------



## Bottomfeeder (Jun 13, 2008)

Technologic said:


> I can't think of anything easier in the universe to get than electrons.


 Electricity isn't just electrons. It's _moving_ electrons. Making them move requires energy.




> I believe, at least this is what I have heard... that a few milliliters of anti-protons could power the entire planet for a year.
> 
> Yet the research budget for anti-matter is usually about 1/100,000th the size of the US welfare system.


Anti-matter doesn't exist naturally, not even in the exotic corners of the galaxy. We have to make it ourselves. And it always takes more energy to make them than you get out if annihilating them. Thermodynamics sure does cause a lot of frustration!


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

I often hear the argument that EVs need electricity and you need to get that power from somewhere (often a dirty fuel is mentioned). 

My question is, where does hydrogen come from? Ethanol isn't exactly low cost either.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

Bottomfeeder said:


> Electricity isn't just electrons. It's _moving_ electrons. Making them move requires energy.


Electrons are thought to move at the speed of light or near it at the temperate ranges we deal with here... they do this all around the atom



> Anti-matter doesn't exist naturally, not even in the exotic corners of the galaxy. We have to make it ourselves. And it always takes more energy to make them than you get out if annihilating them. Thermodynamics sure does cause a lot of frustration!


Thermodynamics does not apply to quantum mechanics or the special theory of realitivity.
Ie. claiming that you can't pull more energy out of something than you took to create it (ie. if you destroyed a hydrogen atom for it's protons, fission, you couldn't use said protons again to form anti-protons with little energy input).

Atomic theory is an interesting thing, and the fact that thermodynamics doesn't work with quantum/realitivity is the main reason our sun works so well.

The French fusion plant will output enough energy to power all of Europe, at least when it fires onto the fuel (which costs a mere $5 to charge the laser bank).

Photons are great. 
You technically could get more energy out of a single hydrogen atom than just from the anti-proton... forcing it to fission will release a huge amount of energy

There's a huge difference between conservation of energy, and the total destruction of matter into energy (fission then anti-matter collison)


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

david85 said:


> I often hear the argument that EVs need electricity and you need to get that power from somewhere (often a dirty fuel is mentioned).
> 
> My question is, where does hydrogen come from? Ethanol isn't exactly low cost either.


Hydrogen comes from Methane currently.

At least the stuff you can buy


----------



## Bottomfeeder (Jun 13, 2008)

Technologic said:


> Electrons are thought to move at the speed of light or near it at the temperate ranges we deal with here... they do this all around the atom


 Orbiting electrons aren't very useful for powering anything. Electrons flowing through conductors are what we need to power our lives.


> Thermodynamics does not apply to quantum mechanics or the special theory of realitivity.


I think you're mistaken.


> Ie. claiming that you can't pull more energy out of something than you took to create it (ie. if you destroyed a hydrogen atom for it's protons, fission, you couldn't use said protons again to form anti-protons with little energy input).


Creating anti-proton/proton pairs requires massive amounts of energy, unfortunately. There's no getting around it.



> Atomic theory is an interesting thing, and the fact that thermodynamics doesn't work with quantum/realitivity is the main reason our sun works so well.
> 
> The French fusion plant will output enough energy to power all of Europe, at least when it fires onto the fuel (which costs a mere $5 to charge the laser bank).
> 
> ...


You're not making much sense to me, sorry. Where are you getting your information? Can you provide links?


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

Bottomfeeder said:


> You're not making much sense to me, sorry. Where are you getting your information? Can you provide links?


Fusion plant in france here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

Energy input to charge the laser bank is roughly $5 per cycle.

Anti-protons, also appear to be what power some quasers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-proton

So in theory if you get a source that's 10 trillion K (roughly 10,000 times hotter than fusion) you can form anti-protons without additional energy.

This is where magnetic fields to shield the heat is necessary, IE you could fission hydrogen at say 1 billion K... then dump the output into another layer to super heat the matter to 10 trillion K again (releasing two forms of energy).

Collisons with anti-protons and matter is huge... it's like pocket fission that once colliding with regular matter often causes huge energy releases (many magnitudes higher than fusion)

The question of where that temp comes from is irrelevant, gravity produces a hell of a lot of heat (perhaps when the warping of space time is possible this will be completely free).

It seems possible to spin matter against itself at super super high velocites (using magnetism) to produce the excessive heat needed for anti-proton generation... the plasmated material at 1 billion K would be quite easily manipulated in that manner.

I think it's naive to assume that anti-protons require soft proton/anti-proton seperation to generate... who's to say neutrons can't be converted etc.

There's far too much about anti-matter no one even knows still. Neutrons certainly seem to have some major correlations to protons atomically.

Current iridium bombardment to produce anti-protons doesn't seem logically the only way to produce it, which is why it's so energy intense... it's technically taking 1 proton and producing another simply from energy... 

As with any leading edge, poorly funded science, there's no equations for me to even look at to see why conservation of energy would be in the negative from producing anti-protons out of raw protons falling to the earth (all the time) or from nuetron decay.


----------



## Bottomfeeder (Jun 13, 2008)

david85 said:


> I often hear the argument that EVs need electricity and you need to get that power from somewhere (often a dirty fuel is mentioned).
> 
> My question is, where does hydrogen come from? Ethanol isn't exactly low cost either.


Most of the USA's electricity comes from dirty sources, so they're not far off. The beautiful part about EVs is that it doesn't HAVE to come from dirty sources. I, for example, pay a little extra for wind power. And as more sustainable energy sources come online, everyone's power will get cleaner. Contrast this to ICEs which require one type of fuel.

Ethanol isn't a very good source of energy, you're right. We too often get ethanol from corn, which is only economical because of the massive farm subsidies we offer. But, other sources of ethanol aren't as demanding. Google switchgrass as an example. Ethanol _could_ be a sustainable fuel of the future. And new ways of catalyzing ethanol are a step in the right direction. But you're exactly right to be skeptical of claims.

I feel very strongly about Hydrogen as well. All of the hype seems to operate under the assumption that Hydrogen is clean and free. They couldn't be more wrong.


----------

