Filed under: EV/Plug-in, Hydrogen, Toyota
Daihatsu develops a precious metal-free fuel cell
When people think about alternative fuel vehicles, Daihatsu is not a name that usually comes to mind. Daihatsu is one of the smaller Japanese car-makers and they sold a couple of models in the US market from 1988-92. More recently, Toyota bought a majority stake in the company and Daihatsu actually assembles most of the models that are sold as Scions in the US market.
Daihatsu has just announced the development of a new fuel cell that addresses two of the biggest issues with the technology. Unlike other cells, Daihatsus design uses no platinum or other precious metals as a catalyst. Current cells use an acidic electrolyte membrane that protons from the hydrogen pass through. The platinum is used as a catalyst because of its corrosion resistance in the presence of the acidic membrane.
Daihatsu has switched to an alkaline anion exchange membrane. That allows them to use materials such as nickel or cobalt as a catalyst. Instead of hydrogen, Daihatsu is using liquid hydrazine-hydrate as fuel. The fuel is synthetic and more easily handled and transported than hydrogen. They are claiming that they get similar power density of about 0.5 W/cm2 compared to hydrogen fuel cells. This may be an interesting approach to follow, especially if Toyota decides to pursue it.
[Source: Daihatsu]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
pro_usa 7:50PM (9/15/2007)
shouldn't matter because hydrogen FOOL cells are just that right?
Reply
TX CHL Instructor 8:36PM (9/15/2007)
"The fuel is synthetic and more easily handled and transported than hydrogen."
Hydrazine is a monopropellent -- that is, it doesn't need anything else to 'burn'. It is highly unstable and extremely toxic. It is shock-sensitive, and will explode on contact with a number of relatively common compounds. Mixing it with water stabilizes it, but also reduces the energy density.
This doesn't look much like progress to me.
Reply
Chris M 11:31PM (9/15/2007)
You're right, Hydrazine is rather problematic as a fuel, and unlikely to ever be used by the general public.
But you've got to admit - it is easier to store, transport and handle than H2!
With the anionic exchange mechanism, it may be possible to persuade such fuel cells to work with safer and easier to handle fuels.
Reply
justwokeup 10:42AM (9/16/2007)
FOOL cells is right. It takes more energy to produce, store, and then consume hydrogen than it would save. We're just shifting our dependence from big oil to "big hydrogen" because it's going to be so expensive to make, store and distribute.
Electric cars have the ability to remove our dependence on any fuel if you have solar cells or wind power at your house. Just use solar or wind to charge a battery(ies) during the day and then download/charge to your electric vehicle at night from the batteries.
Even if you used your solar/wind system to make hydrogen at your house and then fill the h2 tank of your fuel cell vehicle overnight would be better than using a toxic explosive to power your car.
Reply
KC 1:40PM (9/16/2007)
@ justwokeup
Yes, because the best solar cells on Earth are only about 15% energy efficient and the ones the general public could ever imagine affording are nowhere near that.
Wind power is hardly a viable solution for everyone and is not consistent in producing energy.
Plus you want every home to have a second mortgage - equal to about half the value of their house - worth of battery banks in their home and car to store all this energy.
Must be nice to be as wealthy as you because people outside gated communities will simply not be able to afford your solution.
Reply
Architeuthis 2:51PM (9/16/2007)
"When people think about alternative fuel vehicles, Daihatsu is not a name that usually comes to mind."
When people think alternative fuel, they're not usually thinking of hydrazine, unless they tool around in a Messerchmitt Me163.
And while hydrazine may make for a decent rocket fuel, it still only has about half the energy density of petroleum.
Reply
mark 7:29AM (9/17/2007)
KC, you sound like you should know better than spreading misinformation like that....
Solar cells on this planet are now up to 42% efficient (see http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/08/428_efficiency.php). The current norm for commercial solar cells is currently ~16%. There are also potentially much cheaper technologies on the horizon, however these are likely to be less efficient. (http://www.news.com/Solar+cell+breaks+efficiency+record/2100-11395_3-6141527.html)
I'm not sure why you think wind power is not viable, but consistent power is not necessarily a show stopper.
I agree that better storage technologies are required for the future, but until there is a greater takeup of renewable power, the power grid is good storage.
Reply
tom 6:13PM (2/21/2008)
Excactly how dangerous is hydrazine? There must be ways of safely storing and handling it-it seems like a really viable, sustainable non-polluting alternative to fossil fuels-couldn't it just be pumped into fuel tanks with a sealed, pressurised hose like natural gas-operated vehicles. I must be missing something here, because it seems like the ultimate fuel based on its efficiency, renewability and price.
Reply
armen 6:20PM (2/23/2008)
Hi,
I've just read about Daihatsu and there is yet an even better solution. -Improving today's traditional fuel cells.
There is a way to truly mass produce flow plates and to make them resistant to corrosion without precious metals using a ceramic coating (Maxphase).
The answer : Cell Impact (flow plates) and Impact Coatings (deposition of Maxphase on the flow plates).
Please have a look at:
www. cellimpact.com
www.impactcoatings.com
http://www.fcexpo.jp/english/ (searching for Cell Impact)
and tell me what you think.
The two companies are working together.
Reply