![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Currently this section of the article only talks about "proton exchange" fuel cells, and doesn't mention "oxygen ion exchange" fuel cells. Does anyone object to me adding a description of how these work? Any suggestions on how best to format it? I suggest having 2 subsections, to describe each type separately. I can also upload a diagram of such a fuel cell, to complement the picture of the PEM cell already there. Logicman1966 ( talk) 06:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
This section gives the impression it was only set up so the high school band and Ballard systems could be mentioned. If there has to be a trivia section, it needs a list of unbiased bullet pointed sentences, until then I think its best I remove it.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.18.239 ( talk) 22:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Recently the video file Image:ATA hydrogen fuel cell demo.ogg was added to the article. I personally several issues associated with this edit, which I will outline. These are by no means in order of importance.
User A1 ( talk) 13:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Someone wrote that it would be reduced to $30/kWh. If you read the reference closely, that's not what it actually says. I'll correct this, but I thought I'd note it here too.
I don't know when the above was written, but on a similar note, I was unable to find a point where the US DoE had stated that the cost had dropped to $73/kWe. At the end of April 2009, they were expecting the price to drop to $400/kWe. -- Grunkhead ( talk) 17:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
perhaps the hydropak can be mentioned. If it was to be refillable, it would be a perfect device —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.171.164 ( talk) 09:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
None of the information in this table is cited, which I would have thought was against Wikipedia policy? I have added a cost for PEMFC cells and mentioned my source the edit summary, but didn't put it in the main table as it would have been the only one. Would someone with the free time like to collect some citable data - or would all the references clutter up the table? Wogone ( talk) 11:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
"batteries store electrical energy chemically and hence represent a thermodynamically closed system." This is a bit misleading as when you go to use the battery it is now an open system, unless you include the circuit it powers, in which case the battery and circuit together can be approximated to a closed system. Maybe I'm wrong and or it's not such a big deal but I found it a bit confusing. TFJamMan ( talk) 09:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
There is mention in this article that researches from Monash university created cheap plastic catalyst which performs not worse than Platinum.Levels of currents comparable to Platinum had been obtained. I still didn't hear that somebody stop to use expensive Platinum in fuel cell production.A hoax? Stanley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.228.58 ( talk) 20:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
If you will read article itself to which is link in this wikipedia article you will find claims that PEDOT produces the same current densities as Platinum and work for long time without degradation.I'm a bit sceptical about that because it already would revolutionize the fuel cell industry.Stanley
I already read some of those articles but still have some douts.As I know what is making a periodic element a good catalyst is electronic properties of an atom.Therefore best catalyst is platinum after that is nickel and so forth.I think that rules of physics are unbeatable and it would be strange if some material for sports clothing or even "all-mighty" nanotubes will replace such a noble metal as Platinum. Also if only one thing what is needed to increase currents is to increase surface area why fuel cells still have such problems with power density?Can't they make something similar to microporous membrane and reduce their size to the size of a fuel filter?Stanley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.228.58 ( talk) 04:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
According to http://www.mwcog.org/uploads/committee-documents/v1ldW1s20060524145809.ppt, efficiency is 40-60% rather than 50% —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.243.178.120 ( talk) 05:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I was wandering if it would be alright to put observations that I have noticed while working on fuel cells myself with the DOE at Stark State College of Technology? I have noticed that in some of our fuel cells that we are seeing an increased amount of moisture on the anode side of our fuel cells under test that have a hydrogen source with a purity of 99.99995% purity. I believe that we are seeing O2 crossover from the cathode side of the fuel cell to the anode side at which point it reacts with the hydrogen already present on the anode side to produce H2O. Any input on this matter would be appreciated as I am still fairly new to editing on Wikipedia and can use all the help that I can get. andrew e0 2000 ( talk) 3:55, 1 July 2009 (EST)
I am also new to wikipedia and like you have experience with fuel cells. I would suggest that the information you want to add is very specific and perhaps doesn't belong on this article. You might want to consider posting this question on the discussion page for the article on the type of fuel cell your experiments concern (presumably PEMFC if you are using pure hydrogen?)
Campcounselor ( talk) 12:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
So that editors can better watch over this concern I have placed links at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard to both Talk:Solid oxide fuel cell and to this talk page. - 84user ( talk) 18:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard -- more people concerned with actually editing the article can work on this: Many of the references here, and at SOFC were from one single person. Wikipedia is not a self-advertisement company, should not be biased, and represent a fair view of technology all over the world. It appears that both sites have been used by a group around a Miller, A., to self-advertise. While the results are undoubtebdly good, the journals in which they are published are of lower quality, which hopefully was not the only reason for them to end up here. In SOFCs, out of 9 references, 8 were from that group. In a topic that is being researched by thousands of people, with significant impact institutes and major global corporations such as the DOE, Rolls Royce, and Siemens, findings from one single group cannot outweigh the findings of thousands others by a factor of 8:1. This was addressed by several users, but anyu editing effort is usually immediately reversed by some users (see history). Likewise, in Fuel_cell, while SOFCs should be mentioned, they should be referenced by a proper review article by a group of reknown. 22:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC) S.Nimanan
It seems that iron/sulpher aswell as stainless steel? is used as a replacement for platinum in fuel cells. However, it seems to me that these are no longer true (inorganic) fuel cells. As inorganic fuel cells could have benefits in some cases (the bacteria may be fragile in some environments, ...) perhaps that this article needs to foresee 2 articles:
Also, I already added the iron sulpher-alternative in the text at this page, yet I haven't yet implemented the stainless steel idea (see http://www.physorg.com/news154630043.html ) I'm not completely sure how this latter works, both methods need to be clarified better in the wikipedia articles, and perhaps schematics can be made.
Finally, I'm hoping that perhaps the articles I made earlier; notably
can be reimplemented again into wikipedia, possibly altered or reorganised to comply better with Wikipedia. These are relative to the fuel cell article as the "alternative ICE fuel generator included eg hydrogen generators (generating hydrogen for use in fuel cells).~The articles are still available at Appropedia ( http://www.appropedia.org/).
KVDP ( talk) 12:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I vote to change the intro to
A fuel cell is an electrochemical cell that produces electricity from a replenishable fuel tank. The electricity is generated trough the reaction, triggered in the presence of an electrolyte, between the fuel (on the anode side) and an oxidant (on the cathode side). The reactants flow into the cell, and the reaction products flow out of it, while the electrolyte remains within it. Fuel cells can operate virtually continuously as long as the necessary flows are maintained.
Fuel cells are different from conventional electrochemical cell batteries in that they consume reactant from an external source, which must be replenished[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.90.148 ( talk) 11:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Y'all Scientists -- Regarding the word "cell," I believe it's improper to use the word that you're defining in the definition. Without even getting past the first sentence of your article, the beginner is immediately forced to switch to someone else's article to find out what a "cell" is.
I might recommend simply using the synonym "battery" (if that might be accurate). If you want to be more elaborate, you might start with a quick definition of "cell," and then get more specific defining the fuel cell. Thanks, Nei1 ( talk) 00:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Aren't the "batteries" made by Mehran Keshe also fuel cells ? --> http://keshefoundation.com/powercells/ add in article 91.182.45.110 ( talk) 08:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
From a cursory look at the Keshe Foundation's website, it seems like they have a lot of new physics which if true would be all over PRL, Science, Nature, and the popular press. Since it isn't, I can only conclude that they're full of shit. eigenlambda ( talk) 01:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
"It is also important to take losses due to fuel production, transportation, and storage into account. Fuel cell vehicles running on compressed hydrogen may have a power-plant-to-wheel efficiency of 22% if the hydrogen is stored as high-pressure gas, and 17% if it is stored as liquid hydrogen.[29] In addition to the production losses, over 70% of US' electricity used for hydrogen production comes from thermal power, which only has an efficiency of 33% to 48%, resulting in a net increase in carbon dioxide production by using hydrogen in vehicles[citation needed]. However, more than 90% of all hydrogen is produced by steam methane reforming.[30]"
This passage uses several inconclusive points as evidence as drawbacks for the technology. "...hydrogen 'may' have a power-to-plant...", the information states numeric values that are not really given a true definition or contrast with current power-trains. An 'as high as xx% and as low as xx%" statement should be used to prevent non-neutral ambiguity.
A citation is critical for the power grid origin for hydrogen production and does not state the efficiency of hydrogen production, only the efficiency of electricity production. This to say, if a 100,000 tonnes of hydrogen gas are produced for every KW/h consumed, the environmental impact swing in favor of Hydrogen. If only 1 Tonne of hydrogen is produced for every MW/h consumed then it is extremely inefficient.
On these grounds I am removing the section for lack of neutrality and requesting a fact check. I will post findings here, so lets get this article straightened out.
Daniellis89 ( talk) 21:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
when talking about solid oxide fuel cells the example used with methanol is actually proton exchange membrane fuel cell. I have come to this conclusion because the description suggests that after methanol is catalytically broken up the H+ produced transfers to react with oxygen to create water. Solid oxide fuel cells do not do this. They transfer O2- ions from the oxygen side to react with methanol, as it says both in this article and the main SOFC article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_oxide_fuel_cell
I would correct myself, but I don't know an appropriate example to replace this glaring error with and I don't want to cause any similar errors.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bassmansam ( talk • contribs) 14:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I found a lot of out-dated information in this section that I am going to update.
Power Section- The fuel cell market has expanded a lot in the last few years, and I am updated and expanding the information in this section to reflect these developments. Stationary fuel cells have also been used by many different companies in addition to Stuart Island, so I will add in more examples.
Combined Heat and Power- Information is out of date and there are few citations (many are broken or now re-directed), I am updating information and including more recent sources.
Hydrogen transportation and refueling- This title isn't very clear, I will change to Fuel Cell Transportation Vehicles and Hydrogen Refiling,
Land Vehicles- As there are many different types of fuel cell land vehicles I will change title to Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEVs) as this is the name the industry generally refers to when talking about cars. Most of the information in this section is not relevant to FCEVs and is out of date. I will take out old information and update the section with recent numbers from the Department of Energy. (DOE) There have also been a lot more FCEVs developed in the last few years, I will add more recent developments from major auto manufacturers.
Aircraft, Boats and Submarines- I will add to these section to include more recent developments
Fuel Cell Forklifts- One of the major Fuel Cell applications is Forklifts for the material handling industry, I will create a section that talks about forklifts.
Fueling Stations- A lot of this information is out of date with broken links, I will update and include more up-to-date sources.
Market Structure- I will take this section out of applications and combine it with Fuel Cell Economics as that seems to make more seance.
Briannabesch ( talk) 19:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
There are several pieces of information in this section of the Fuel Cell Wikipedia page that I found to be either out of date, not cited, or wrong. I would like to change these facts on the page.
Currently on Wikipedia: "In 2002, typical fuel cell systems cost US$1000 per kilowatt of electric power output." Correct statement: "In 2002 projected improvements in performance and operation on hydrogen led to an estimate of approximately $100/kW for the system cost" Source: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/tiax_cost_analysis_pres.pdf
Currently on Wikipedia: "In 2008 UTC Power has 400 kW stationary fuel cells for $1,000,000 per 400 kW installed costs" Correction: UTC does not list their prices, and there are many different payment options, tax incentives, etc. so I don't think we should include a price on the Wikipedia page. It is misleading.
Currently on Wikipedia: "The production costs of the PEM (proton exchange membrane). The Nafion membrane currently costs $566/m²" Correction: In 2005, NREL studies showed that with the average cost of Nafion at $80/lb, a Nafion membrane would cost about $23/m^2. The high end of membrane cost is about $27/m^2. Source: http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/pdfs/39104.pdf
LhamillFC ( talk) 19:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I have blocked LhamillFC ( talk · contribs), Briannabesch ( talk · contribs), and Pfchea ( talk · contribs) as confirmed socks of Connordfc ( talk · contribs). Keegan ( talk) 07:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
User:Pfchea, User:Connordfc, User:LhamillFC, and User:Briannabesch, thank you for the additions that you made to this entry last week. Please fill out the incomplete references that you have added to this entry with author names, article titles, publisher names, publication dates and, where available, page numbers. I have left notes on some of your talk pages about how to do this, and the relevant guideline is WP:CITE. Please let me know if you need more assistance. Thanks! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 15:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
and {{
cite web}}
for formatting references. It guarrentees consistency.
WP:wikicite makes life easier for you too. Cheers.
Stepho
talk
23:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)The Efficiency section is a pure copy paste from another source and may be a product of original research, suggest complete rewrite to conform to wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniellis89 ( talk • contribs) 22:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I would like to insert the following chart from the Department of Energy's, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Fuel Cell Technology Program as I found that it offered a clear explanation of the different efficiencies of fuel cells, and may help clarify some of the other text in this section I found difficult to get though. Any advice on how best to size it?
BBfchea 16:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briannabesch ( talk • contribs)
You need a key defining all the terms used in the chart. You can find many of them here: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/glossary.html -- Ssilvers ( talk) 23:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
This is a great section, but there are certain areas that need more explanation.
Currently on Wikipedia: "A major disadvantage of the SOFC, as a result of the high heat, is that it 'places considerable constraints on the materials which can be used for interconnections'." The source for this fact is out of date... There is much research being conducted on SOFCs that are dealing with these problems, so a source from 2010 (11 years ago) does not seem like it should be included.
Currently on Wikipedia: "Another disadvantage of running the cell at such a high temperature is that other unwanted reactions may occur inside the fuel cell. It is common for carbon dust (graphite) to build up on the anode, preventing the fuel from reaching the catalyst." Again... there is much research being done on SOFCs including research that addresses this problem. I think that this information: "The anode or fuel side electrode typically is composed of a cermet-containing YSZ and Ni metal. The Ni metal acts as a catalyst for the oxidation of the fuel. Among the problems faced with a Ni cermet anode is Ni metal coarsening (sintering) during use, as well as the buildup of carbon deposits on the surface (coking) during internal reforming of the fuel. Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania have shown that the use of copper (Cu)-based cermets dramatically reduces coking and loss of performance during service due to coking." should be included Source: http://www.ceramicindustry.com/Articles/Feature_Article/10637442bbac7010VgnVCM100000f932a8c0____
Currently on Wikipedia: "Much research is currently being done to find alternatives to YSZ that will carry ions at a lower temperature." There is also research being done to reduce the temperature while still using YSZ. Source: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378775308002243
LhamillFC ( talk) 20:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Not only is there research being done to find alternatives to YSZ, but there are also alternatives currently being used in fuel cell systems being sold today. Ceres Power's SOFC that they sell uses CGO (cerium gadolinium oxide) as the electrolyte instead of YSZ, allowing operating temperature to drop to 500-600 degrees C. I would like to add this into the section. LhamillFC ( talk) 13:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
This section explains a fundamental aspect of how MCFCs work. I think it makes it seem like a problem that needs to be sorted out "somehow". The DOE has a good explanation of this, and I think it should replace what is currently on Wikipedia.
"Because the electrolyte loses carbonate in the oxidation reaction, the carbonate must be replenished through some means. This is often performed by recirculating the carbon dioxide from the oxidation products into the cathode where it reacts with the incoming air and reforms carbonate."
DOE explanation: "At the anode, hydrogen reacts with the carbonate ions to produce water, carbon dioxide, and electrons. The electrons travel through an external circuit creating electricity and return to the cathode. There, oxygen from the air and carbon dioxide recycled from the anode react with the electrons to form carbonate ions that replenish the electrolyte and provide ionic conduction through the electrolyte, completing the circuit."
Source: http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/fuelcells/fuelcells_moltencarb.html LhamillFC ( talk) 21:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi all, I wanted to to combine the "Market Structure" section under "Fuel Cell Applications" with the Economics section as that seemed to fit better under economics then applications, and then would change the "economics" title to "Fuel Cell Markets and Economics". The first sentence under the current "Market Structure" section is not cited, and the second has a broken link, I would like to take this sentence out unless someone ells knows where this information can be found and cited (let me know and I'll put it in!). I felt the second sentence of the "Economics" section, "A fuel cell and electric motor combination is not directly limited by the Carnot efficiency of an internal combustion engine." should be taken out as this point is addressed in the "efficiency" section of the page. I also wanted to add in more infomration about the current fuel cell market around the world, so the first paragraph would then read:
"In 2010, fuel cell industry revenues exceeded a $750 million market value [1] and 0.14 million unit shipments, with a average annual growth rate of 115%. [2] Aproximately 50% of fuel cell shipments in 2010 were stationary fuel cells, up from about a third in 2009. [3] The "Big Four" players in the Fuel Cell Industry remain the United States, Germany, Japan and South Korea. [4] Current stationary fuel cells can generate power at approximately $724 to $775 per kilowatt installed. [5] Translated to a consumer, this means stationary fuel cells can generate power at 9-11 cents per kilowatt-hour, including the price of fuel, maintenance, and hardware. [6] A typical stationary fuel cell will meet its return on investment in 3-5 years. [7] Hydrogen is a candidate as a storage mechanism and can help ease the integration of renewable energy generation into our existing grid. We can produce hydrogen though distributed electrolysis generation wherever and whenever excess electricity is produced. This hydrogen can then be distributed to where it is needed, to be turned back into electricity to meet peak demand or even power FCEVs. In this way hydrogen becomes a keystone in the creation of an alternative energy future and a hydrogen economy.
I'll leave this up here for a day before changing- let me know what you think!BBfchea 16:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briannabesch ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for your comments, two heads are always better than one. Below I have posted the new first paragraph, but I first wanted to address a couple of things SSilvers had said.
-I have now formatted sources to be more consistent with the articles previous sources. Several of the sources do not have authors, but I included as much information as I could find.
-About Pike Research, they are a market research firm, not a marketing firm- their mission statement is
I actually found the numbers and facts I cite from Pike Research ($750 million market value, 50% stationary fuel cell shipments, Germany, Japan, USA and South Korea as the countries with the largest market shares) in the paragraph on a number of news sources first, and though it was most responsible to cite the original published study. As such I consider it a WP:Reliable Source.
-I’m sorry about the confusing wording with “can”, I have changed it to reflect that fuel cells do generate power at $724-$775 per kW installed and 9-11 cents per kW consumer price. I also put in that Bloom Energy stationary fuel cells achieve a 3-5 year payback.
-Hydrogen is also being looked at as a storage mechanism, I significantly revised this section to take into account your comments. I can continue to look to update the sources as well. I would also be ok moving this last section to the "application section" if people feel that that would work better.
This is the revised paragraph I would like to put in.
In 2010, fuel cell industry revenues exceeded a $750 million market value worldwide [8]. There were 0.14 million fuel cell stacks shipped globally in 2010, up from 11 thousand shipments in 2007; in 2010 worldwide fuel cell shipments had an annual growth rate of 115%. [9] Approximately 50% of fuel cell shipments in 2010 were stationary fuel cells, up from about a third in 2009. [10] The "Big Four" players in the Fuel Cell Industry remain the United States, Germany, Japan and South Korea. [11] The Department of Energy Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance found that, as of January 2011, stationary fuel cells generated power at approximately $724 to $775 per kilowatt installed. [12] Bloom Energy, a major fuel cell supplier, says its fuel cells will meet a return on investment in 3-5 years, translated to a consumer, this means stationary fuel cells generate power at 9-11 cents per kilowatt-hour, including the price of fuel, maintenance, and hardware. [13] [14]
Another emerging market for hydrogen is a mechanism to store energy, particularly excess energy from intermittent renewable energy sources like solar and wind farms. [15] As most renewable energy sources are intermittent, storage mechanisms must be devised to provide reliable power (see Grid energy storage). The National Renewable Energy Laboratory is conducting the wind-to-hydrogen project: this project is testing ways to use the electricity produced by wind mills or solar panels when electricity demand is low to electrolyze water and form hydrogen. [16] That hydrogen can then be stored, and turned back into electricity via a fuel cell when electricity demand is high. [17] This application is particularly important for places hoping to rely on intermittent renewable power.
BBfchea 21:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briannabesch ( talk • contribs)
As people haven't commented on this in the last 36 hours I'm going to go ahead and add this section in now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briannabesch ( talk • contribs) 13:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I found that the introduction to the article was rather confusing and technical. I wrote an alternative that I tried to make more straight foreword and accessible to the common reader. Thoughts?
A fuel cell is a device that produces electricity through an electrochemical process. It converts the chemical energy stored in a fuel into electricity through a chemical reaction with an oxidizing agent, usually oxygen. Hydrogen is the most common fuel, but hydrocarbons such as natural gas and alcohols like methanol are also used. In addition to direct current electricity fuel cells produce water, heat and, depending on the fuel source, sometimes carbon dioxide. Fuel Cells are different from batteries in that they require a constant source of fuel and oxidizing agent to run, but can produce electricity continually for as long as these inputs are supplied.
Welsh Physicist William Grove developed the first crude fuel cell, based off a concept developed by his fellow scientist and friend Christian Friedrich Schonbein in 1939. The first commercial use of fuel cells was in NASA space programs to generate power for probes, satellites and shuttles. [1] Since then fuel cells have been used in many other applications. Fuel cells are used to power buildings, many different types vehicles, and to charge smaller electronic devices like laptops and smartphones.
There are many types of fuel cells, and they are each classified by the fuel cell’s electrolyte, the substance that allows charges to move within the fuel cell. Fuel cells come in a variety of sizes. Individual fuel cells only produce very small amounts of electricity, so cells are ‘stacked’, or placed in series, to increases the voltage output to meet application’s power generation requirements. BBfchea ( talk) 17:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
A fuel cell is a device that converts the chemical energy stored in a fuel into electricity through a chemical reaction with oxygen or another oxidizing agent. Hydrogen is the most common fuel, but hydrocarbons such as natural gas and alcohols like methanol are sometimes used. Fuel Cells are different from batteries in that they require a constant source of fuel and oxygen to run, but they can produce electricity continually for as long as these inputs are supplied. Welsh Physicist William Grove developed the first crude fuel cells in 1839. The first commercial use of fuel cells was in NASA space programs to generate power for probes, satellites and space capsules. Since then, fuel cells have been used in many other applications. Fuel cells are used to power buildings, many different types of vehicles, and to charge smaller electronic devices like laptops and smartphones.
There are many types of fuel cells, which are classified by the fuel cell's electrolyte, the substance that allows charges to move within the fuel cell. Fuel cells come in a variety of sizes. Individual fuel cells only produce very small amounts of electricity, so cells are "stacked", or placed in series, to increases the voltage output to meet application’s power generation requirements. In addition to electricity, fuel cells produce water, heat and, depending on the fuel source, sometimes carbon dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and very small amounts of other emissions.
A fuel cell is a device that converts the chemical energy stored in a fuel into electricity through a chemical reaction with oxygen or another oxidizing agent. Hydrogen is the most common fuel, but hydrocarbons such as natural gas and alcohols like methanol are sometimes used. Fuel Cells are different from batteries in that they require a constant source of fuel and oxygen to run, but they can produce electricity continually for as long as these inputs are supplied.
Welsh Physicist William Grove developed the first crude fuel cells in 1839. The first commercial use of fuel cells was in NASA space programs to generate power for probes, satellites and space capsules. Since then, fuel cells have been used in many other applications. Fuel cells are used to generate primary and backup power for commercial, industrial and residential applications as well as for remote and or inaccessible areas. They are used to power fuel cell vehicles, including automobiles, busses, forklifts, airplanes, boats, motorcycles and submarines.
There are many types of fuel cells, but they all consist of an anode (negative side), cathode (positive side) and electrolyte that allows charges to move between the two sides. Charges are pushed from the anode to the cathode, though an external circuit which creates usable direct current electricity. As the main difference between fuel cells types is the electrolyte, fuel cells are classified by the type of electrolyte they use. Fuel cells come in a variety of sizes. Individual fuel cells only produce very small amounts of electricity, about 0.7V, so cells are "stacked", or placed in series or parallel circuits, to increase the voltage and current output to meet an application’s power generation requirements. [2] In addition to electricity, fuel cells produce water, heat and, depending on the fuel source, sometimes carbon dioxide, and very small amounts of nitrogen dioxide and other emissions. The energy efficiency of a fuel cell is generally between 40-60%, 85% effcient if waste heat is captured for use, [3] which is significantly greater than a typical combustion power generation process. [4] [5]
www1.eere.energy.gov
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).So I am trying to tackle the information that is written in the efficiency section. The current sections of "Theory" and "In Practice" I found difficult to understand, out of date, not well referenced and occasionally factually wrong. I attempted to re-write the Theory section, keeping in as best I could the information that was cited (and the links weren't dead) and making it sound more accessible. This is what I came up with- let me know what you think!
I'll be working on the "in practice" section next BBfchea ( talk) 21:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Also: Under the "In practice" section it was posted that "the overall efficiency (electricity to hydrogen and back to electricity) of such plants (known as round-trip efficiency) is between 30 and 50%, depending on conditions." However the source cited- a NASA Study entitled Round Trip Energy Efficiency of NASA Glenn Regenerative Fuel Cell System says "NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) has recently demonstrated a Polymer Electrolyte Membrane (PEM) based hydrogen/oxygen regenerative fuel cell system (RFCS) that operated for a charge/discharge cycle with round trip efficiency (RTE) greater than 50 percent." There is no mention of 30% anywhere I found- I would propose taking this out unless the 30% can be shown to be taken from elsewhere BBfchea ( talk) 21:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Since it has been about 24 hours I'm going to go ahead and post this- let me know if you have any questions BBfchea ( talk) 21:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
www1.eere.energy.gov
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I agree that the high temperature section is not organized very well, too technical and sometimes even false (see "SOFC contradiction" above). I have rewritten the SOFC section and will post it here for comments.
LhamillFC ( talk) 14:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
This looks good. I made some minor copy edits to the section. Nicely done! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 17:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
A couple of edits for the fuel cell vehicles section. I would like to propose the removal of the last paragraph of the Fuel Cell Vehicle section, below, as it does not relate to fuel cell vehicles. This paragraph would maybe fit under an article on the history of hydrogen, or on the full fuel cell vehicle page under history, but to me doesn't seem to fit in the "applications" section of the Fuel Cell page.
I would also like to change the third paragraph.
74.82.102.4 ( talk) 18:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC) BBfchea ( talk) 21:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
The George Bush paragraph is an essential part of the history. Please do not delete it, although it could be streamlined. Also, I think the Ulf Bossel material is correct in context. The point being made has nothing to do with the method of production. You must clearly state all assumptions made, when you discuss technology development and studies. Punctuation always must go before the ref tags, not afterwards. Other changes will be reviewed and revised when they are added to the article. Make sure that the changes do not try to whitewash the criticism of this technology. Are you one of the editors from the
Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association? You forgot to log in. All the best, --
Ssilvers (
talk)
19:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I've streamlined the paragraph. The reason I put it with the Automobile section is that it is about cars. It doesn't affect the other parts of the article. But it is, I think, essential here. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Meyers1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).As I did with the SOFC section, I have rewritten the MCFC section to make it more comprehensive. I plan to write a section on each type of fuel cell using the same structure as I did with the SOFC and MCFC section. My hope is to create uniformity and make it easier for people to pick out specific information about fuel cells and compare information among the different types of fuel cells. Below is my MCFC draft - edits are welcome before I post it on the page.
LhamillFC ( talk) 17:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good. Try to combine the short little paragraphs together (putting related ideas together in the same paragraph), so that the section is just a few longer paragraphs. That makes it read more smoothly and look nicer. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
This talk page now makes me smile. This is the sort of collaboration that Wikipedia is built upon. Keegan ( talk) 06:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello all I am User:Benfchea. I am new to WP so please excuse, and feel free to comment/correct any formatting errors I may make as I get used to the site. That being said, I hope to provide reputable, verifiable contributions to this topic and others related to fuel cells and hydrogen. In reference to the discussion on fuel cell vehicles, I think that the conversation has slightly veered off course. As a general encyclopedia, the aim should be to provide an unbiased, comprehensive overview of the topic, not a public debate. As a first step towards resolution, I propose that all personal quotes that are not taken from scientific research be removed. This would include the quote by Secretary Chu, the rebutal by Mary Nichols and the quote from the GM CEO. While these are absolutely very important and powerful individuals, the quotes contain opinion, not fact. We can certainly discuss some of the ideas contained in the quotes, ie. issues with infrastructure, cost, and deployment, but I do not believe that the quotes themselves should be used. Of particular problem is the work "asserted" preceeding Secretary Chu's quote. Asserted is a word that conveys conviction and authority, and is too aggressive to be used in such a context. Not to mention, we are quoting a POLITICAL appointee, which is dubious. The quote by the GM CEO is also incredibly weak and misleading. The first half of the quote from the actual article states that they have made great advancements in the technology in the last 2 years alone, so what is there really does not provide the proper conext, not to mention a quote that contains "I dont know" is not particularly reputable. I have to go for today, but Ill be back tomorrow to provide some ideas about how we could alter this section to be more beneficial to the readers. Benfchea ( talk) 21:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I appreceiate the feedback from both of you. I dont think that I was able to fully develop my thought in my previous post so let me reinforce that my propositions were meant to be neutral. I should have also discussed my issues with the quote by Mary Nichols instead of focusing on those that challenge fuel cell development. I also should not have proposed deleting something without proposing what would take its place. My intention was to eliminate the role of opinion in what should be a topic grounded in research and firm conclusions. I think that we can agree that there are at least 2 sides of this discussion, and the discussion page is the place where we can present and discuss those views. When it comes to placing information on the actual page (and I admit this a longer term goal because it will invole significant time and effort) I think we could make the entire page more neutral. I think there can be a way to support both sides, without involving ourselves literally in a game of "he said, she said". In that context, I challenge all of us to seek out the underlying knowledge behind the opinions expressed by those quoted on this page, and use that as our basis for new additions or reformatting. In response to SSilvers, my first goal after joining WP was to update the Market and Economy portion of the page, but after sitting down and thinking about how to tackle it, I realized that I would need to compile alot more information before getting started. So I just jumped in at what seemed to be the most recent discussion which was on the vehicle page. Long story short, I look forward to working with all of you to develop the page in the most accurate way possible. Benfchea ( talk) 16:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Currently this section of the article only talks about "proton exchange" fuel cells, and doesn't mention "oxygen ion exchange" fuel cells. Does anyone object to me adding a description of how these work? Any suggestions on how best to format it? I suggest having 2 subsections, to describe each type separately. I can also upload a diagram of such a fuel cell, to complement the picture of the PEM cell already there. Logicman1966 ( talk) 06:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
This section gives the impression it was only set up so the high school band and Ballard systems could be mentioned. If there has to be a trivia section, it needs a list of unbiased bullet pointed sentences, until then I think its best I remove it.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.18.239 ( talk) 22:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Recently the video file Image:ATA hydrogen fuel cell demo.ogg was added to the article. I personally several issues associated with this edit, which I will outline. These are by no means in order of importance.
User A1 ( talk) 13:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Someone wrote that it would be reduced to $30/kWh. If you read the reference closely, that's not what it actually says. I'll correct this, but I thought I'd note it here too.
I don't know when the above was written, but on a similar note, I was unable to find a point where the US DoE had stated that the cost had dropped to $73/kWe. At the end of April 2009, they were expecting the price to drop to $400/kWe. -- Grunkhead ( talk) 17:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
perhaps the hydropak can be mentioned. If it was to be refillable, it would be a perfect device —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.171.164 ( talk) 09:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
None of the information in this table is cited, which I would have thought was against Wikipedia policy? I have added a cost for PEMFC cells and mentioned my source the edit summary, but didn't put it in the main table as it would have been the only one. Would someone with the free time like to collect some citable data - or would all the references clutter up the table? Wogone ( talk) 11:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
"batteries store electrical energy chemically and hence represent a thermodynamically closed system." This is a bit misleading as when you go to use the battery it is now an open system, unless you include the circuit it powers, in which case the battery and circuit together can be approximated to a closed system. Maybe I'm wrong and or it's not such a big deal but I found it a bit confusing. TFJamMan ( talk) 09:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
There is mention in this article that researches from Monash university created cheap plastic catalyst which performs not worse than Platinum.Levels of currents comparable to Platinum had been obtained. I still didn't hear that somebody stop to use expensive Platinum in fuel cell production.A hoax? Stanley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.228.58 ( talk) 20:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
If you will read article itself to which is link in this wikipedia article you will find claims that PEDOT produces the same current densities as Platinum and work for long time without degradation.I'm a bit sceptical about that because it already would revolutionize the fuel cell industry.Stanley
I already read some of those articles but still have some douts.As I know what is making a periodic element a good catalyst is electronic properties of an atom.Therefore best catalyst is platinum after that is nickel and so forth.I think that rules of physics are unbeatable and it would be strange if some material for sports clothing or even "all-mighty" nanotubes will replace such a noble metal as Platinum. Also if only one thing what is needed to increase currents is to increase surface area why fuel cells still have such problems with power density?Can't they make something similar to microporous membrane and reduce their size to the size of a fuel filter?Stanley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.228.58 ( talk) 04:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
According to http://www.mwcog.org/uploads/committee-documents/v1ldW1s20060524145809.ppt, efficiency is 40-60% rather than 50% —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.243.178.120 ( talk) 05:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I was wandering if it would be alright to put observations that I have noticed while working on fuel cells myself with the DOE at Stark State College of Technology? I have noticed that in some of our fuel cells that we are seeing an increased amount of moisture on the anode side of our fuel cells under test that have a hydrogen source with a purity of 99.99995% purity. I believe that we are seeing O2 crossover from the cathode side of the fuel cell to the anode side at which point it reacts with the hydrogen already present on the anode side to produce H2O. Any input on this matter would be appreciated as I am still fairly new to editing on Wikipedia and can use all the help that I can get. andrew e0 2000 ( talk) 3:55, 1 July 2009 (EST)
I am also new to wikipedia and like you have experience with fuel cells. I would suggest that the information you want to add is very specific and perhaps doesn't belong on this article. You might want to consider posting this question on the discussion page for the article on the type of fuel cell your experiments concern (presumably PEMFC if you are using pure hydrogen?)
Campcounselor ( talk) 12:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
So that editors can better watch over this concern I have placed links at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard to both Talk:Solid oxide fuel cell and to this talk page. - 84user ( talk) 18:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard -- more people concerned with actually editing the article can work on this: Many of the references here, and at SOFC were from one single person. Wikipedia is not a self-advertisement company, should not be biased, and represent a fair view of technology all over the world. It appears that both sites have been used by a group around a Miller, A., to self-advertise. While the results are undoubtebdly good, the journals in which they are published are of lower quality, which hopefully was not the only reason for them to end up here. In SOFCs, out of 9 references, 8 were from that group. In a topic that is being researched by thousands of people, with significant impact institutes and major global corporations such as the DOE, Rolls Royce, and Siemens, findings from one single group cannot outweigh the findings of thousands others by a factor of 8:1. This was addressed by several users, but anyu editing effort is usually immediately reversed by some users (see history). Likewise, in Fuel_cell, while SOFCs should be mentioned, they should be referenced by a proper review article by a group of reknown. 22:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC) S.Nimanan
It seems that iron/sulpher aswell as stainless steel? is used as a replacement for platinum in fuel cells. However, it seems to me that these are no longer true (inorganic) fuel cells. As inorganic fuel cells could have benefits in some cases (the bacteria may be fragile in some environments, ...) perhaps that this article needs to foresee 2 articles:
Also, I already added the iron sulpher-alternative in the text at this page, yet I haven't yet implemented the stainless steel idea (see http://www.physorg.com/news154630043.html ) I'm not completely sure how this latter works, both methods need to be clarified better in the wikipedia articles, and perhaps schematics can be made.
Finally, I'm hoping that perhaps the articles I made earlier; notably
can be reimplemented again into wikipedia, possibly altered or reorganised to comply better with Wikipedia. These are relative to the fuel cell article as the "alternative ICE fuel generator included eg hydrogen generators (generating hydrogen for use in fuel cells).~The articles are still available at Appropedia ( http://www.appropedia.org/).
KVDP ( talk) 12:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I vote to change the intro to
A fuel cell is an electrochemical cell that produces electricity from a replenishable fuel tank. The electricity is generated trough the reaction, triggered in the presence of an electrolyte, between the fuel (on the anode side) and an oxidant (on the cathode side). The reactants flow into the cell, and the reaction products flow out of it, while the electrolyte remains within it. Fuel cells can operate virtually continuously as long as the necessary flows are maintained.
Fuel cells are different from conventional electrochemical cell batteries in that they consume reactant from an external source, which must be replenished[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.90.148 ( talk) 11:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Y'all Scientists -- Regarding the word "cell," I believe it's improper to use the word that you're defining in the definition. Without even getting past the first sentence of your article, the beginner is immediately forced to switch to someone else's article to find out what a "cell" is.
I might recommend simply using the synonym "battery" (if that might be accurate). If you want to be more elaborate, you might start with a quick definition of "cell," and then get more specific defining the fuel cell. Thanks, Nei1 ( talk) 00:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Aren't the "batteries" made by Mehran Keshe also fuel cells ? --> http://keshefoundation.com/powercells/ add in article 91.182.45.110 ( talk) 08:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
From a cursory look at the Keshe Foundation's website, it seems like they have a lot of new physics which if true would be all over PRL, Science, Nature, and the popular press. Since it isn't, I can only conclude that they're full of shit. eigenlambda ( talk) 01:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
"It is also important to take losses due to fuel production, transportation, and storage into account. Fuel cell vehicles running on compressed hydrogen may have a power-plant-to-wheel efficiency of 22% if the hydrogen is stored as high-pressure gas, and 17% if it is stored as liquid hydrogen.[29] In addition to the production losses, over 70% of US' electricity used for hydrogen production comes from thermal power, which only has an efficiency of 33% to 48%, resulting in a net increase in carbon dioxide production by using hydrogen in vehicles[citation needed]. However, more than 90% of all hydrogen is produced by steam methane reforming.[30]"
This passage uses several inconclusive points as evidence as drawbacks for the technology. "...hydrogen 'may' have a power-to-plant...", the information states numeric values that are not really given a true definition or contrast with current power-trains. An 'as high as xx% and as low as xx%" statement should be used to prevent non-neutral ambiguity.
A citation is critical for the power grid origin for hydrogen production and does not state the efficiency of hydrogen production, only the efficiency of electricity production. This to say, if a 100,000 tonnes of hydrogen gas are produced for every KW/h consumed, the environmental impact swing in favor of Hydrogen. If only 1 Tonne of hydrogen is produced for every MW/h consumed then it is extremely inefficient.
On these grounds I am removing the section for lack of neutrality and requesting a fact check. I will post findings here, so lets get this article straightened out.
Daniellis89 ( talk) 21:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
when talking about solid oxide fuel cells the example used with methanol is actually proton exchange membrane fuel cell. I have come to this conclusion because the description suggests that after methanol is catalytically broken up the H+ produced transfers to react with oxygen to create water. Solid oxide fuel cells do not do this. They transfer O2- ions from the oxygen side to react with methanol, as it says both in this article and the main SOFC article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_oxide_fuel_cell
I would correct myself, but I don't know an appropriate example to replace this glaring error with and I don't want to cause any similar errors.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bassmansam ( talk • contribs) 14:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I found a lot of out-dated information in this section that I am going to update.
Power Section- The fuel cell market has expanded a lot in the last few years, and I am updated and expanding the information in this section to reflect these developments. Stationary fuel cells have also been used by many different companies in addition to Stuart Island, so I will add in more examples.
Combined Heat and Power- Information is out of date and there are few citations (many are broken or now re-directed), I am updating information and including more recent sources.
Hydrogen transportation and refueling- This title isn't very clear, I will change to Fuel Cell Transportation Vehicles and Hydrogen Refiling,
Land Vehicles- As there are many different types of fuel cell land vehicles I will change title to Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEVs) as this is the name the industry generally refers to when talking about cars. Most of the information in this section is not relevant to FCEVs and is out of date. I will take out old information and update the section with recent numbers from the Department of Energy. (DOE) There have also been a lot more FCEVs developed in the last few years, I will add more recent developments from major auto manufacturers.
Aircraft, Boats and Submarines- I will add to these section to include more recent developments
Fuel Cell Forklifts- One of the major Fuel Cell applications is Forklifts for the material handling industry, I will create a section that talks about forklifts.
Fueling Stations- A lot of this information is out of date with broken links, I will update and include more up-to-date sources.
Market Structure- I will take this section out of applications and combine it with Fuel Cell Economics as that seems to make more seance.
Briannabesch ( talk) 19:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
There are several pieces of information in this section of the Fuel Cell Wikipedia page that I found to be either out of date, not cited, or wrong. I would like to change these facts on the page.
Currently on Wikipedia: "In 2002, typical fuel cell systems cost US$1000 per kilowatt of electric power output." Correct statement: "In 2002 projected improvements in performance and operation on hydrogen led to an estimate of approximately $100/kW for the system cost" Source: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/tiax_cost_analysis_pres.pdf
Currently on Wikipedia: "In 2008 UTC Power has 400 kW stationary fuel cells for $1,000,000 per 400 kW installed costs" Correction: UTC does not list their prices, and there are many different payment options, tax incentives, etc. so I don't think we should include a price on the Wikipedia page. It is misleading.
Currently on Wikipedia: "The production costs of the PEM (proton exchange membrane). The Nafion membrane currently costs $566/m²" Correction: In 2005, NREL studies showed that with the average cost of Nafion at $80/lb, a Nafion membrane would cost about $23/m^2. The high end of membrane cost is about $27/m^2. Source: http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/pdfs/39104.pdf
LhamillFC ( talk) 19:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I have blocked LhamillFC ( talk · contribs), Briannabesch ( talk · contribs), and Pfchea ( talk · contribs) as confirmed socks of Connordfc ( talk · contribs). Keegan ( talk) 07:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
User:Pfchea, User:Connordfc, User:LhamillFC, and User:Briannabesch, thank you for the additions that you made to this entry last week. Please fill out the incomplete references that you have added to this entry with author names, article titles, publisher names, publication dates and, where available, page numbers. I have left notes on some of your talk pages about how to do this, and the relevant guideline is WP:CITE. Please let me know if you need more assistance. Thanks! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 15:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
and {{
cite web}}
for formatting references. It guarrentees consistency.
WP:wikicite makes life easier for you too. Cheers.
Stepho
talk
23:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)The Efficiency section is a pure copy paste from another source and may be a product of original research, suggest complete rewrite to conform to wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniellis89 ( talk • contribs) 22:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I would like to insert the following chart from the Department of Energy's, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Fuel Cell Technology Program as I found that it offered a clear explanation of the different efficiencies of fuel cells, and may help clarify some of the other text in this section I found difficult to get though. Any advice on how best to size it?
BBfchea 16:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briannabesch ( talk • contribs)
You need a key defining all the terms used in the chart. You can find many of them here: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/glossary.html -- Ssilvers ( talk) 23:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
This is a great section, but there are certain areas that need more explanation.
Currently on Wikipedia: "A major disadvantage of the SOFC, as a result of the high heat, is that it 'places considerable constraints on the materials which can be used for interconnections'." The source for this fact is out of date... There is much research being conducted on SOFCs that are dealing with these problems, so a source from 2010 (11 years ago) does not seem like it should be included.
Currently on Wikipedia: "Another disadvantage of running the cell at such a high temperature is that other unwanted reactions may occur inside the fuel cell. It is common for carbon dust (graphite) to build up on the anode, preventing the fuel from reaching the catalyst." Again... there is much research being done on SOFCs including research that addresses this problem. I think that this information: "The anode or fuel side electrode typically is composed of a cermet-containing YSZ and Ni metal. The Ni metal acts as a catalyst for the oxidation of the fuel. Among the problems faced with a Ni cermet anode is Ni metal coarsening (sintering) during use, as well as the buildup of carbon deposits on the surface (coking) during internal reforming of the fuel. Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania have shown that the use of copper (Cu)-based cermets dramatically reduces coking and loss of performance during service due to coking." should be included Source: http://www.ceramicindustry.com/Articles/Feature_Article/10637442bbac7010VgnVCM100000f932a8c0____
Currently on Wikipedia: "Much research is currently being done to find alternatives to YSZ that will carry ions at a lower temperature." There is also research being done to reduce the temperature while still using YSZ. Source: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378775308002243
LhamillFC ( talk) 20:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Not only is there research being done to find alternatives to YSZ, but there are also alternatives currently being used in fuel cell systems being sold today. Ceres Power's SOFC that they sell uses CGO (cerium gadolinium oxide) as the electrolyte instead of YSZ, allowing operating temperature to drop to 500-600 degrees C. I would like to add this into the section. LhamillFC ( talk) 13:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
This section explains a fundamental aspect of how MCFCs work. I think it makes it seem like a problem that needs to be sorted out "somehow". The DOE has a good explanation of this, and I think it should replace what is currently on Wikipedia.
"Because the electrolyte loses carbonate in the oxidation reaction, the carbonate must be replenished through some means. This is often performed by recirculating the carbon dioxide from the oxidation products into the cathode where it reacts with the incoming air and reforms carbonate."
DOE explanation: "At the anode, hydrogen reacts with the carbonate ions to produce water, carbon dioxide, and electrons. The electrons travel through an external circuit creating electricity and return to the cathode. There, oxygen from the air and carbon dioxide recycled from the anode react with the electrons to form carbonate ions that replenish the electrolyte and provide ionic conduction through the electrolyte, completing the circuit."
Source: http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/fuelcells/fuelcells_moltencarb.html LhamillFC ( talk) 21:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi all, I wanted to to combine the "Market Structure" section under "Fuel Cell Applications" with the Economics section as that seemed to fit better under economics then applications, and then would change the "economics" title to "Fuel Cell Markets and Economics". The first sentence under the current "Market Structure" section is not cited, and the second has a broken link, I would like to take this sentence out unless someone ells knows where this information can be found and cited (let me know and I'll put it in!). I felt the second sentence of the "Economics" section, "A fuel cell and electric motor combination is not directly limited by the Carnot efficiency of an internal combustion engine." should be taken out as this point is addressed in the "efficiency" section of the page. I also wanted to add in more infomration about the current fuel cell market around the world, so the first paragraph would then read:
"In 2010, fuel cell industry revenues exceeded a $750 million market value [1] and 0.14 million unit shipments, with a average annual growth rate of 115%. [2] Aproximately 50% of fuel cell shipments in 2010 were stationary fuel cells, up from about a third in 2009. [3] The "Big Four" players in the Fuel Cell Industry remain the United States, Germany, Japan and South Korea. [4] Current stationary fuel cells can generate power at approximately $724 to $775 per kilowatt installed. [5] Translated to a consumer, this means stationary fuel cells can generate power at 9-11 cents per kilowatt-hour, including the price of fuel, maintenance, and hardware. [6] A typical stationary fuel cell will meet its return on investment in 3-5 years. [7] Hydrogen is a candidate as a storage mechanism and can help ease the integration of renewable energy generation into our existing grid. We can produce hydrogen though distributed electrolysis generation wherever and whenever excess electricity is produced. This hydrogen can then be distributed to where it is needed, to be turned back into electricity to meet peak demand or even power FCEVs. In this way hydrogen becomes a keystone in the creation of an alternative energy future and a hydrogen economy.
I'll leave this up here for a day before changing- let me know what you think!BBfchea 16:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briannabesch ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for your comments, two heads are always better than one. Below I have posted the new first paragraph, but I first wanted to address a couple of things SSilvers had said.
-I have now formatted sources to be more consistent with the articles previous sources. Several of the sources do not have authors, but I included as much information as I could find.
-About Pike Research, they are a market research firm, not a marketing firm- their mission statement is
I actually found the numbers and facts I cite from Pike Research ($750 million market value, 50% stationary fuel cell shipments, Germany, Japan, USA and South Korea as the countries with the largest market shares) in the paragraph on a number of news sources first, and though it was most responsible to cite the original published study. As such I consider it a WP:Reliable Source.
-I’m sorry about the confusing wording with “can”, I have changed it to reflect that fuel cells do generate power at $724-$775 per kW installed and 9-11 cents per kW consumer price. I also put in that Bloom Energy stationary fuel cells achieve a 3-5 year payback.
-Hydrogen is also being looked at as a storage mechanism, I significantly revised this section to take into account your comments. I can continue to look to update the sources as well. I would also be ok moving this last section to the "application section" if people feel that that would work better.
This is the revised paragraph I would like to put in.
In 2010, fuel cell industry revenues exceeded a $750 million market value worldwide [8]. There were 0.14 million fuel cell stacks shipped globally in 2010, up from 11 thousand shipments in 2007; in 2010 worldwide fuel cell shipments had an annual growth rate of 115%. [9] Approximately 50% of fuel cell shipments in 2010 were stationary fuel cells, up from about a third in 2009. [10] The "Big Four" players in the Fuel Cell Industry remain the United States, Germany, Japan and South Korea. [11] The Department of Energy Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance found that, as of January 2011, stationary fuel cells generated power at approximately $724 to $775 per kilowatt installed. [12] Bloom Energy, a major fuel cell supplier, says its fuel cells will meet a return on investment in 3-5 years, translated to a consumer, this means stationary fuel cells generate power at 9-11 cents per kilowatt-hour, including the price of fuel, maintenance, and hardware. [13] [14]
Another emerging market for hydrogen is a mechanism to store energy, particularly excess energy from intermittent renewable energy sources like solar and wind farms. [15] As most renewable energy sources are intermittent, storage mechanisms must be devised to provide reliable power (see Grid energy storage). The National Renewable Energy Laboratory is conducting the wind-to-hydrogen project: this project is testing ways to use the electricity produced by wind mills or solar panels when electricity demand is low to electrolyze water and form hydrogen. [16] That hydrogen can then be stored, and turned back into electricity via a fuel cell when electricity demand is high. [17] This application is particularly important for places hoping to rely on intermittent renewable power.
BBfchea 21:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briannabesch ( talk • contribs)
As people haven't commented on this in the last 36 hours I'm going to go ahead and add this section in now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briannabesch ( talk • contribs) 13:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I found that the introduction to the article was rather confusing and technical. I wrote an alternative that I tried to make more straight foreword and accessible to the common reader. Thoughts?
A fuel cell is a device that produces electricity through an electrochemical process. It converts the chemical energy stored in a fuel into electricity through a chemical reaction with an oxidizing agent, usually oxygen. Hydrogen is the most common fuel, but hydrocarbons such as natural gas and alcohols like methanol are also used. In addition to direct current electricity fuel cells produce water, heat and, depending on the fuel source, sometimes carbon dioxide. Fuel Cells are different from batteries in that they require a constant source of fuel and oxidizing agent to run, but can produce electricity continually for as long as these inputs are supplied.
Welsh Physicist William Grove developed the first crude fuel cell, based off a concept developed by his fellow scientist and friend Christian Friedrich Schonbein in 1939. The first commercial use of fuel cells was in NASA space programs to generate power for probes, satellites and shuttles. [1] Since then fuel cells have been used in many other applications. Fuel cells are used to power buildings, many different types vehicles, and to charge smaller electronic devices like laptops and smartphones.
There are many types of fuel cells, and they are each classified by the fuel cell’s electrolyte, the substance that allows charges to move within the fuel cell. Fuel cells come in a variety of sizes. Individual fuel cells only produce very small amounts of electricity, so cells are ‘stacked’, or placed in series, to increases the voltage output to meet application’s power generation requirements. BBfchea ( talk) 17:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
A fuel cell is a device that converts the chemical energy stored in a fuel into electricity through a chemical reaction with oxygen or another oxidizing agent. Hydrogen is the most common fuel, but hydrocarbons such as natural gas and alcohols like methanol are sometimes used. Fuel Cells are different from batteries in that they require a constant source of fuel and oxygen to run, but they can produce electricity continually for as long as these inputs are supplied. Welsh Physicist William Grove developed the first crude fuel cells in 1839. The first commercial use of fuel cells was in NASA space programs to generate power for probes, satellites and space capsules. Since then, fuel cells have been used in many other applications. Fuel cells are used to power buildings, many different types of vehicles, and to charge smaller electronic devices like laptops and smartphones.
There are many types of fuel cells, which are classified by the fuel cell's electrolyte, the substance that allows charges to move within the fuel cell. Fuel cells come in a variety of sizes. Individual fuel cells only produce very small amounts of electricity, so cells are "stacked", or placed in series, to increases the voltage output to meet application’s power generation requirements. In addition to electricity, fuel cells produce water, heat and, depending on the fuel source, sometimes carbon dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and very small amounts of other emissions.
A fuel cell is a device that converts the chemical energy stored in a fuel into electricity through a chemical reaction with oxygen or another oxidizing agent. Hydrogen is the most common fuel, but hydrocarbons such as natural gas and alcohols like methanol are sometimes used. Fuel Cells are different from batteries in that they require a constant source of fuel and oxygen to run, but they can produce electricity continually for as long as these inputs are supplied.
Welsh Physicist William Grove developed the first crude fuel cells in 1839. The first commercial use of fuel cells was in NASA space programs to generate power for probes, satellites and space capsules. Since then, fuel cells have been used in many other applications. Fuel cells are used to generate primary and backup power for commercial, industrial and residential applications as well as for remote and or inaccessible areas. They are used to power fuel cell vehicles, including automobiles, busses, forklifts, airplanes, boats, motorcycles and submarines.
There are many types of fuel cells, but they all consist of an anode (negative side), cathode (positive side) and electrolyte that allows charges to move between the two sides. Charges are pushed from the anode to the cathode, though an external circuit which creates usable direct current electricity. As the main difference between fuel cells types is the electrolyte, fuel cells are classified by the type of electrolyte they use. Fuel cells come in a variety of sizes. Individual fuel cells only produce very small amounts of electricity, about 0.7V, so cells are "stacked", or placed in series or parallel circuits, to increase the voltage and current output to meet an application’s power generation requirements. [2] In addition to electricity, fuel cells produce water, heat and, depending on the fuel source, sometimes carbon dioxide, and very small amounts of nitrogen dioxide and other emissions. The energy efficiency of a fuel cell is generally between 40-60%, 85% effcient if waste heat is captured for use, [3] which is significantly greater than a typical combustion power generation process. [4] [5]
www1.eere.energy.gov
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).So I am trying to tackle the information that is written in the efficiency section. The current sections of "Theory" and "In Practice" I found difficult to understand, out of date, not well referenced and occasionally factually wrong. I attempted to re-write the Theory section, keeping in as best I could the information that was cited (and the links weren't dead) and making it sound more accessible. This is what I came up with- let me know what you think!
I'll be working on the "in practice" section next BBfchea ( talk) 21:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Also: Under the "In practice" section it was posted that "the overall efficiency (electricity to hydrogen and back to electricity) of such plants (known as round-trip efficiency) is between 30 and 50%, depending on conditions." However the source cited- a NASA Study entitled Round Trip Energy Efficiency of NASA Glenn Regenerative Fuel Cell System says "NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) has recently demonstrated a Polymer Electrolyte Membrane (PEM) based hydrogen/oxygen regenerative fuel cell system (RFCS) that operated for a charge/discharge cycle with round trip efficiency (RTE) greater than 50 percent." There is no mention of 30% anywhere I found- I would propose taking this out unless the 30% can be shown to be taken from elsewhere BBfchea ( talk) 21:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Since it has been about 24 hours I'm going to go ahead and post this- let me know if you have any questions BBfchea ( talk) 21:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
www1.eere.energy.gov
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I agree that the high temperature section is not organized very well, too technical and sometimes even false (see "SOFC contradiction" above). I have rewritten the SOFC section and will post it here for comments.
LhamillFC ( talk) 14:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
This looks good. I made some minor copy edits to the section. Nicely done! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 17:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
A couple of edits for the fuel cell vehicles section. I would like to propose the removal of the last paragraph of the Fuel Cell Vehicle section, below, as it does not relate to fuel cell vehicles. This paragraph would maybe fit under an article on the history of hydrogen, or on the full fuel cell vehicle page under history, but to me doesn't seem to fit in the "applications" section of the Fuel Cell page.
I would also like to change the third paragraph.
74.82.102.4 ( talk) 18:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC) BBfchea ( talk) 21:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
The George Bush paragraph is an essential part of the history. Please do not delete it, although it could be streamlined. Also, I think the Ulf Bossel material is correct in context. The point being made has nothing to do with the method of production. You must clearly state all assumptions made, when you discuss technology development and studies. Punctuation always must go before the ref tags, not afterwards. Other changes will be reviewed and revised when they are added to the article. Make sure that the changes do not try to whitewash the criticism of this technology. Are you one of the editors from the
Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association? You forgot to log in. All the best, --
Ssilvers (
talk)
19:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I've streamlined the paragraph. The reason I put it with the Automobile section is that it is about cars. It doesn't affect the other parts of the article. But it is, I think, essential here. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Meyers1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).As I did with the SOFC section, I have rewritten the MCFC section to make it more comprehensive. I plan to write a section on each type of fuel cell using the same structure as I did with the SOFC and MCFC section. My hope is to create uniformity and make it easier for people to pick out specific information about fuel cells and compare information among the different types of fuel cells. Below is my MCFC draft - edits are welcome before I post it on the page.
LhamillFC ( talk) 17:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good. Try to combine the short little paragraphs together (putting related ideas together in the same paragraph), so that the section is just a few longer paragraphs. That makes it read more smoothly and look nicer. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
This talk page now makes me smile. This is the sort of collaboration that Wikipedia is built upon. Keegan ( talk) 06:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello all I am User:Benfchea. I am new to WP so please excuse, and feel free to comment/correct any formatting errors I may make as I get used to the site. That being said, I hope to provide reputable, verifiable contributions to this topic and others related to fuel cells and hydrogen. In reference to the discussion on fuel cell vehicles, I think that the conversation has slightly veered off course. As a general encyclopedia, the aim should be to provide an unbiased, comprehensive overview of the topic, not a public debate. As a first step towards resolution, I propose that all personal quotes that are not taken from scientific research be removed. This would include the quote by Secretary Chu, the rebutal by Mary Nichols and the quote from the GM CEO. While these are absolutely very important and powerful individuals, the quotes contain opinion, not fact. We can certainly discuss some of the ideas contained in the quotes, ie. issues with infrastructure, cost, and deployment, but I do not believe that the quotes themselves should be used. Of particular problem is the work "asserted" preceeding Secretary Chu's quote. Asserted is a word that conveys conviction and authority, and is too aggressive to be used in such a context. Not to mention, we are quoting a POLITICAL appointee, which is dubious. The quote by the GM CEO is also incredibly weak and misleading. The first half of the quote from the actual article states that they have made great advancements in the technology in the last 2 years alone, so what is there really does not provide the proper conext, not to mention a quote that contains "I dont know" is not particularly reputable. I have to go for today, but Ill be back tomorrow to provide some ideas about how we could alter this section to be more beneficial to the readers. Benfchea ( talk) 21:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I appreceiate the feedback from both of you. I dont think that I was able to fully develop my thought in my previous post so let me reinforce that my propositions were meant to be neutral. I should have also discussed my issues with the quote by Mary Nichols instead of focusing on those that challenge fuel cell development. I also should not have proposed deleting something without proposing what would take its place. My intention was to eliminate the role of opinion in what should be a topic grounded in research and firm conclusions. I think that we can agree that there are at least 2 sides of this discussion, and the discussion page is the place where we can present and discuss those views. When it comes to placing information on the actual page (and I admit this a longer term goal because it will invole significant time and effort) I think we could make the entire page more neutral. I think there can be a way to support both sides, without involving ourselves literally in a game of "he said, she said". In that context, I challenge all of us to seek out the underlying knowledge behind the opinions expressed by those quoted on this page, and use that as our basis for new additions or reformatting. In response to SSilvers, my first goal after joining WP was to update the Market and Economy portion of the page, but after sitting down and thinking about how to tackle it, I realized that I would need to compile alot more information before getting started. So I just jumped in at what seemed to be the most recent discussion which was on the vehicle page. Long story short, I look forward to working with all of you to develop the page in the most accurate way possible. Benfchea ( talk) 16:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)