By Steven HunterPosted Friday 16th May 2008 13:24 GMT
The reason is that it takes like 10-20 seconds to refuel a power cell versus 4-6 bloody hours to recharge a fully drained Lithium Ion battery. Also, depending on the way the fuel is produced, it *might* be more environmentally friendly than Lithium as well.
By Peter FordPosted Friday 16th May 2008 13:55 GMT
Nope, it's designed to run on methanol, which is not the same as Meths (or methylated spirit) - Meths is just a contaminated/unpurified mixture of ethanol (CH3CH2OH, like in Vodka) and other stuff, whereas methanol is CH3OH and *much* more volatile - no way you'd get that on a plane. In fact you would not really want to carry methanol around anywhere in great quantities.
Meths, and ethanol, are liquid up to about 78 celsius, and burn fairly slowly and with a relatively cool flame (ouch hot, but not metal-melting hot). Methanol boils on a warm day and will form an explosive vapour very easily in air.
I don't think this is really practical until it can work with ethanol, or paraffin or something a bit less volatile.
We're all indoctrinated now to the burning laptop battery. So now it will really "burn"! Can't wait to hear about sony batteries buring up or better yet, blowing up!
I'm sure the point is that whilst a battery is the preferred method for storing and transporting electricity, the fuel cell will provide an extra battery life "boost" alongside the traditional storage methods, for long journeys and extended stays in areas without electricity.
At least, that's what I've always thought, and indeed how it would be most useful... right? Fuel cells would be impractical for everyday use, but would excel in the situations i mentioned above.
At the end of Back to the Future Doc has replaced his U-235 guzzling reactor with a houshold waste munching one. Given that methanol can be made by partial oxidation of biomass could this be Docs new power plant? Shove your potato peelings and tea bags in one end, get CO2, water and juice out the other!
Meths does contain methanol, it's three quarters ethanol (drinking alcohol) and a quarter methanol (wood alcohol) plus a few additives to try to stop you drinking it/give it that lovely purple colour. Methanol is fairly toxic and very flammable, doubt they'd let you take it on a plane, something that ran on butane (lighter gas) would be nice, easily available, easy to refuel
Tiny, tiny power cells ... with tiny, tiny exhaust pipes #
By John SykesPosted Monday 19th May 2008 09:01 GMT
Never mind laptops and PDAs, surely this development could revolutionise power cells for electric vehicles. Much smaller and lighter than at present; less weight to lug around, so better economy; easily replaced - buy them in Halfords when needed. It's about time that a true break-through product such as this was produced. I'm really excited ...
Surely you're not suggesting they'd let you board a plane with a cannister of butane to refuel your laptop?
How about an industry-standard 'refuelling valve' and a gadget on-board (and in the terminal, and on trains, and in shops) that'll refuel your battery for a small fee?
sure hydrogen is more flamable in bulk ,BUT, these units only convert and use tiny amounts at a time compared to the far higher amouts required in carrying Methanol canisters...
and at a pinch you can make your own distilled water for use in these water PEM very easlly.
perhaps it comes down to no margins in it for the distributers, as per petrol there needs to be a profit in it perhaps.
OC in this single PEM case, your average users might not mind paying a premium in less expensive distilled water, as apposed more expensive methanol fuel cell tech running costs.
Comments on: Sharp claims record mobile fuel cell power density
Great on long plane journeys #
By Steve Posted Friday 16th May 2008 10:53 GMT
Laptops? #
By Jack Harrer Posted Friday 16th May 2008 11:01 GMT
Useful Biproducts? #
By Anonymous Coward Posted Friday 16th May 2008 11:10 GMT
Meths actually #
By Anonymous Coward Posted Friday 16th May 2008 12:04 GMT
Why on earth.... #
By Tony Barnes Posted Friday 16th May 2008 12:42 GMT
Why on Earth indeed! #
By Steven Hunter Posted Friday 16th May 2008 13:24 GMT
Re: Meths actually #
By Peter Ford Posted Friday 16th May 2008 13:55 GMT
Sony will love this #
By me Posted Friday 16th May 2008 14:39 GMT
RE; "Why on earth...." - missing the point #
By Adam Posted Friday 16th May 2008 15:18 GMT
Back to the Future? #
By Ross Posted Friday 16th May 2008 16:26 GMT
Make it ethanol and rewrite the song #
By Captain DaFt Posted Friday 16th May 2008 16:26 GMT
reminds me of a quote from a webcomic #
By Rick Brasche Posted Friday 16th May 2008 16:34 GMT
re: Re: Meths actually #
By chris Posted Monday 19th May 2008 08:53 GMT
Tiny, tiny power cells ... with tiny, tiny exhaust pipes #
By John Sykes Posted Monday 19th May 2008 09:01 GMT
So they give off CO2? #
By Richard Chambers Posted Monday 19th May 2008 09:18 GMT
@chris #
By Edwin Posted Tuesday 20th May 2008 11:33 GMT
Transporting Methanol... #
By Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 20th May 2008 12:22 GMT
why not distilled water hydrogen PEM fuel cell tech ? #
By Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 20th May 2008 21:43 GMT