Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Highest Density Fuel Cell: Violet Fuel Cell Stick
business wire ^ | 3/7/08 | uncited

Posted on 03/10/2008 8:49:33 AM PDT by dangerdoc

SAN DIEGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Today, green high-tech venture VioletTM Fuel Cell SticksTM www.violetfuelcellsticks.com announces it has achieved an extremely high, 15KW/Liter cell density with their Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) StickTM. Previous commercial fuel cells, including both SOFCs and PEMs, have struggled to meet a target of 2KW/Liter; and previous advanced concepts have struggled to achieve 4KW/Liter. The VioletTM StickTM has overcome the most significant hurdles facing fuel cells, and it resolves the technical limitations of existing technologies, such as sealing, cracking and manifolding problems, and poor volumetric density.

StickTM technology, created by VioletTM Fuel Cell SticksTM, offers a fundamental change to the physical structure of SOFCs that enables, for the first time, high density, low cost, mass produced solid state engines. The SOFC StickTM solves decades-old commercialization challenges for SOFC technology. The technology opens the door to mass production for numerous applications, such as: large-scale power generation, small-scale distributed power, auxiliary power units, mobile power generation, automotive, flight and advanced vehicle concepts.

“We believe that this is the highest density, scalable fuel cell in the world, and we are confident that we can quickly go much higher,” said co-founder Alan Devoe.

The development of the VioletTM StickTM is expected to have a significant impact on the US Fuel Cell market, which is estimated to be $1.1 billion US today and expected to grow to as much as $18.6 billion in 2013.

For a full description of the technology, visit www.violetfuelcellsticks.com.


TOPICS: Business/Economy
KEYWORDS: energy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-43 next last
To: dangerdoc

Oh, so your generators deliver power to the wheels do they? Maybe that’s why you need a new generator so bad.


21 posted on 03/10/2008 10:11:29 AM PDT by mamelukesabre (Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kidd

OK, thanks.... though it just takes us further away from getting any sense of how it compares, efficiency-wise, to a modern IC engine.


22 posted on 03/10/2008 10:15:14 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
To be honest, I don't really know what that power density rating actually means. Specifically, how much energy (power * time) does the number represent? How does one compare it to automotive fuel efficiency?

This is a bit confusing, because the "15 kW/liter" statement refers to the stack density, not the fuel efficiency. What this means is that a fuel cell powerful enough to run a car or truck would be quite small, while current fuel cells are quite large.

The fuel cell would still require a "gas" tank and an electric motor (or motors) to power the wheels, but the system should be 2-3 times more fuel efficient than internal combustion vehicles.

Of course, transformative technologies normally have obstacles to becoming practical, not the least of which is the likelihood of the technology not being real.

23 posted on 03/10/2008 10:24:41 AM PDT by 3niner (War is one game where the home team always loses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

The efficiency comparison is kind of difficult.

While an IC is limited to Carnot cycle efficiency, a fuel cell is not. That means that an IC engine cannot possibly be more that ~30% efficient.

A fuel cell is >90% efficient. Electical resistance and electric motor losses would drop its efficiency to ~75% (SWAG).


24 posted on 03/10/2008 10:37:28 AM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: kidd
I am not going to hold my breath.
25 posted on 03/10/2008 10:41:07 AM PDT by ANGGAPO (LayteGulf BeachClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre

Maybe I am dense.

What the heck are you talking about.

This may clarify things. The big locomotives you see have diesel generators, the train is driven by electric motors. Those locomotives have hundreds of millions of dollars of engineering to make them as efficient as humanly posible.

This will be about 25% more efficient.


26 posted on 03/10/2008 10:41:42 AM PDT by dangerdoc (dangerdoc (not actually dangerous any more))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: kidd

Your catalytic converter is made of ceramics. The barrier to automotive applications has primarily been related to power density.


27 posted on 03/10/2008 10:43:52 AM PDT by dangerdoc (dangerdoc (not actually dangerous any more))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Ping to you.


28 posted on 03/10/2008 11:29:28 AM PDT by ConservativeMind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind; Uncledave

Thanks! Pinging Uncle Dave!.........


29 posted on 03/10/2008 11:39:24 AM PDT by Red Badger ( We don't have science, but we do have consensus.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: All
If this could be made to work and at a competitive cost and safely and reliably, this IS the answer to automotive and standby power needs. I have long felt that an alternative power source to replace oil was the fuel cell. If the energy density can be more than quadrupled AND at the SAME time the FC stack can accept “non reformed” fuels, like gasoline, diesel, methanol and such—this would make a good power source for an auto.

About that “energy density/kw thing....

Yo do NOT need a “KW of storage” for every “KW of power” you produce in an automobile. As has been stated—any given IC engine is normally rated in PEAK, or “momentary” power output. IOW—a corvette MAY INDEED be able to produce 500 horsepower, for a FEW SECONDS..BUT—if you were to try and get that amount of power for ANY length of time, THREE things would happen: 1- you would destroy the engine in SHORT order, 2—you would burn through 20 gallons of gas in a few MINUTES and 3—you would be DEAD, as the car would be moving at above 200 MPH and most likely impaled into a tree or building somewhere.

So—auto engines are good for SHORT burst of power, for a short time and then, they typically produce maybe 15% of that power, for normal “driving”. Therefore—if a FC car had a 200HP motor, needing say, 150KW to run, it would NOT need a 150 KW fuel cell— a 30-40KW stack would suffice-so long as it could produce 150KW for a short time for acceleration.

Case in point.

The GM EV1 electric car, had a battery stack of less than 20KW and a motor of about 100KW. That stack was able to provide that motor with the FULL 100KW of power needed for normal needs, for about 75 miles or so. BUT—since that stack was a “storage” medium and NOT a “generation” medium, RANGE was SEVERLY limited—which ultimately put an end to GM’s electric car.

With a FC the “storage” is in the FUEL TANK—and so, driving range is only limited by the amount of FUEL one can carry—JUST like a “normal car”.

Properly done, a fully developed FC car would be as easy to refuel as a normal car—and probably the EXCAT SAME way!!

30 posted on 03/10/2008 12:27:44 PM PDT by Rca2000 (I am VERY fearful for the future of this nation......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Rca2000

That is why I find this so exciting. SOFC works, there are multiple small stacks working now, the problem is that a 5 kW stack is the size of a refridgerator.

They are not announcing a technology that would allow 15 kW in one liter at some future time. They are predicting higher densities, but have 15 kW working now.

15 kW is enough to propel a car down the road at highway speed. With a battery to recapture braking energy and allow for large burst of power, you would not need much more power output unless you live in the mountains.

30 kW would be better and fit comfortably in a small engine compartment along with the electronics and a couple of kWh in lithium batteries.

A couple of 50 kW motors and a very light vehicle would make for a very nimble and fun car to drive.


31 posted on 03/10/2008 12:52:01 PM PDT by dangerdoc (dangerdoc (not actually dangerous any more))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: dangerdoc

bmflr


32 posted on 03/10/2008 3:02:33 PM PDT by Kevmo (SURFRINAGWIASS : Shut Up RINOs. Free Republic is not a GOP Website. It’s a SOCON Site.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangerdoc

When Harley’s lineage goes

flathead panhead knucklehead shovelhead evo twincam THEN

Sparkee? Thunderhead? Buzzy? Electro?

Somehow, assuming the safety fascists allow personal transportation vehicles, the “harley davidson whirr” will not be the same feeling.


33 posted on 03/10/2008 3:20:58 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

I don’t think you need to worry about your Harley. In fact the fact that SOFCs can burn gasoline tends to guarantee a fuel supply far into the future.

Assuming the technology comes to fruition, you can expect the following transition.

Semi and heavy trucks will be the first to move. The cost of equipment vs fuel cost is the smallest. Even modest gains in efficiency would save a lot of money.

Pickup trucks would be next, they burn alot of fuel per mile and have alot of space in the engine compartment to work with.

Commuter cars would be last.

Performance cars and motorcycles would unlikely see a change. There is a combination of space issues and lifestyle issues that will embrace the IC engine. After all, the IC engine has been around for more than a hundred years and people still ride horses. It is not because horses are the best transportation, it is because people like to ride horses. The same will hold true for IC engines.

Athough an electric super car would not sound great, the torque would be outstanding.


34 posted on 03/10/2008 4:30:02 PM PDT by dangerdoc (dangerdoc (not actually dangerous any more))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: dangerdoc

I think I agree with you...on the first part.


35 posted on 03/10/2008 4:36:57 PM PDT by mamelukesabre (Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre

OK,

I guess were done here.


36 posted on 03/10/2008 5:02:52 PM PDT by dangerdoc (dangerdoc (not actually dangerous any more))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: dangerdoc

If you really needed a generator that runs on propane so bad, you could’ve and would’ve had one by now...just in ICE form.

The only reason ICE gen sets are lower efficiency is the waste heat that goes out the exhaust and the cooling system. There are devices that recover that heat. So your efficiency numbers are no good.

THere. Now we’re done here.


37 posted on 03/10/2008 5:16:57 PM PDT by mamelukesabre (Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: appeal2
Will it fit into my car’s usb slot?

They still have some bugs to work out:


38 posted on 03/10/2008 5:20:09 PM PDT by Brett66 (Where government advances, and it advances relentlessly , freedom is imperiled -Janice Rogers Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dangerdoc

Yeah, another turd in a candy wrapper.

(the promise, not you) 8>)


39 posted on 03/11/2008 3:42:44 PM PDT by DonnerT (To compromise integrity is to loose it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: DonnerT

I don’t think so. I’ve been following SOFC for about 5 years.

The science has gone from the bench to products that you can buy and are out in the field working.

Over the last few years, I started thinking that it would do well in the stationary market but they just weren’t having much success in getting the form factor small enough for mobile use.

I’ve had the benefit of seeing their white paper but they have solved almost all of the problems. They have solved seal problems, they have designed a built in counter current heat excanger which allow them to use inexpensive materials, the design allows automatic fabrication rather than hand building like most cells.

The most interesting thing is that the theoretical power density for tube and planar cells is lower than what these people have working now. Their design allows for a theoritical power density of 50 kW/liter. I doubt they will hit that mark for mass manufacture but there is a lot of room for improvement. Even at 15 kW/ liter is fine for current vehicles. 50 kW/liters would allow for a complete redesine of the auto. The entire powerplant could be tucked into a bumper.

If you want to talk about a turds...

The hydrogen economy.
Unrealistic CAFE standards.
Fuel made from food.
Carbon tax.
Kioto.

This is pretty cool.


40 posted on 03/11/2008 6:06:27 PM PDT by dangerdoc (dangerdoc (not actually dangerous any more))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-43 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson