America, Don't Copy...Build Something Better!

About a month ago I wrote an article in The Huffington Post, wondering if there was a better option than the plug-in electric vehicle. Evidence indicated that the direct methanol fuel cell (DMFC) was worthy of exploration. To quote from that posting:

Per unit volume, a fuel cell should be able to provide five times more energy than the lithium battery. Chapter 3 of Simple Solutions for Planet Earth can be referenced for details. In short, this device works like a battery to produce electricity, but uses hydrogen as the energy source instead of lithium, lead or cadmium. However, and this defies common sense, one gallon of methanol has more accessible hydrogen than one gallon of liquid hydrogen. So as hydrogen is very expensive to manufacture, store and deliver, with no existing infrastructure...
...the logic argues for producing methanol from biomass to power a fuel cell. This simplest of alcohols is the only biofuel capable of directly and efficiently being utilized by a fuel cell without passing through an expensive reformer.

There were 32 comments, the most significant had to do with the glaring fact that there is no DMFC available for ground transport, and might well be impossible to build. Feedback from experts in the field, though, overwhelmingly indicated that, first, the DMFC is real, and could in a few years begin to replace batteries in portable applications such as computers and iPods. One obvious reason why there is no DMFC for cars is because the U.S. Department of Energy has prohibited R&D on this option. The Farm Lobby effectively convinced Congress and the White House to only focus on ethanol and biodiesel, purposely leaving out methanol. Details are provided in the above posting.

So therefore, where are we as a Nation on next generation cars? Not unlike our ethanol fiasco, the plug-in electric car has a different kind of gigantic problem: we don't produce any advanced batteries for this application. Panasonic and Sanyo manufacture nearly all of the nickel metal hydride batteries used in our current hybrid autos. The irony to all this is that Stanford Ovshinsky of Ovonics in Detroit invented this technology, and even succeeded in suing Panasonic for stealing his idea. Ovshinsky worked out a partnership with General Motors, but their conventional wisdom must have prevailed, for nothing much happened.

The story of the lithium battery is also a national nightmare. If you trace the expertise, you will find yourself in Japan, Germany, South Korea, France and China. Where are the American companies with the world patents and leadership? They don't exist!

But, ah, we have coming the ballyhooed Chevy Volt. This hybrid will use a South Korean lithium battery and cost $40,000 when it becomes available in the fourth quarter of 2010. The Toyota Prius ranges in price somewhere in the twenties. The Volt is the car that will save Detroit?

We need to instead invent our own new power system. Toshiba and a few other Japanese companies do have a current advantage for portable uses of the direct methanol fuel cell (DMFC), but no one is doing anything about using this technology for cars, yet.

How ideal and opportune, then, for Detroit and the Obama Administration to partner on a new pathway for our future: initiate an Apollo-like project to develop the DMFC. The heartland of our country can also become involved, for the non-food portion of our crops and fields, cellulose, is the ideal feedstock for biomethanol.

The traditionalist might say, isn't this risky? It will take another decade or more just to build a competitive DMFC. Yes, they are right, it will take some time. But ten years from now, if we maintain our current course, we will be importing foreign batteries or paying royalties for our domestic brand. Is this smart?

The simple solution comes in two parts. Sure, continue the thrust to combine 14 American companies in a billion dollar federally funded venture to design an advanced battery. This will almost surely be a lithium battery. Even though this already been done, that's all right as a necessary hedge, for the plug-in concept has merit as a transition option. For one, the electricity can begin to come from wind energy.

The parallel focus should be to provide an equal sum to a consortium of American firms to accelerate the prospects for a direct methanol fuel cell. An important part of this effort should be to find a substitute for the platinum electrode, as, for example, carbon nanotubes. The potential is at hand to again become the world leader in vehicle production.

This second challenge is not currently being discussed in the White House or the Congress or Detroit. Why copy the world? Let us invent our own future.

Comments

[Bryan Seigneur]

Logically, this seems to converge.

Lithium Ion batteries were developed for electronics, and everyone sees them as good for cars. They see continued electronics battery research as indicating that battery technology will improve.

In this quest, companies have developed methanol FC "batteries" to be used in electronics.

All we have to show policy makers is that the next logical step is to have methanol FC "batteries" in cars to extend range. And get rid of the inefficient combustion engine at the same time. Perhaps, we can make a startling enough case to enough legislators. KISS.

[DavidRedstone]

(1 of 4)

You could substitute "cold fusion" or "hydrinos" or "Mr. Fusion" for "DMFC" throughout your post and it would be just as compelling.

You say: "Evidence indicated that the direct methanol fuel cell (DMFC) was worthy of exploration."

What evidence? Wishes and dreams are not "evidence".

You say: "Per unit volume, a fuel cell should be able to provide five times more energy than the lithium battery."

The operative word being "should". DMFC developers have always touted the theoretical energy density of DMFCs. But no one has ever come anywhere close to that theoretical potential in a commercially viable device. Not even for an iPod charger, let alone a car engine.

You say: "the logic argues for producing methanol from biomass to power a fuel cell"

No it doesn't. The logic argues for producing methanol from crop waste, garbage and sewage to fuel internal combustion engines, thereby displacing gasoline. Adding fuel cells to the equation only slows down (or completely blocks) the adoption of renewable methanol as a transportation fuel.

[DavidRedstone]

(2 of 4)

You claim that "one obvious reason why there is no DMFC for cars is because the U.S. Department of Energy has prohibited R&D on this option".

Can you provide a single link or source in support of the proposition that DoE affirmatively prohibited R&D on DMFCs for cars? (The truth is that DoE dropped support for on-board methanol reformers, and that the image of methanol was unfairly tarnished by the problems a few years ago with MBTE. Google "MBTE and ground water contamination".)

You claim that "the Farm Lobby effectively convinced Congress and the White House to only focus on ethanol and biodiesel, purposely leaving out methanol. Details are provided in the above posting."

But there are no details in "the above posting". I am no fan of the farm lobby and I believe that the idea of using food for fuel was monumentally stupid. But can you provide a shred of support for your suggestion that ethanol interests conspired to get the government to actively block research on methanol?

[DavidRedstone]

(4 of 4)

No one is doing anything about using DMFCs for cars because the idea is ridiculous. Do you have any idea how much platinum group metal it would take to build a DMFC capable of propelling a car? Do you have any idea how sensitive DMFC are to common pollutants -- sensitive in the sense that they can be permanently poisoned by a single exposure to SOx or CO?

Patrick, I am with you 100% on the idea of using renewably produced methanol as a fuel for ICEs. We could rapidly start displacing huge amounts of gasoline that way. My objection is only to your entirely unsupported advocacy of a failed technology like DMFC -- a technology that is not needed to start using renewable methanol as a fuel. If anyone in a policy position were to listen to you, the result would be the delay of the implementation of a good technology by making it dependent on a technology that will never happen.

[DavidRedstone]

(3 of 4)

You say: "Not unlike our ethanol fiasco, the plug-in electric car has a different kind of gigantic problem: we don't produce any advanced batteries for this application."

That is a problem which could easily be solved. We know batteries work and we know how to make them. All it would take to start building battery factories in the U.S. is money and/or tax incentives. Spending public funds on domestic battery R&D and production capacity makes sense. Wasting public money on a pie-in-the-sky "Apollo-like project to develop the DMFC" makes no sense. The total lack of success with DMFCs after decades of R&D effort is much more of a "gigantic problem" than any technical issue facing BEVs.

You say: "Toshiba and a few other Japanese companies do have a current advantage for portable uses of the direct methanol fuel cell (DMFC), but no one is doing anything about using this technology for cars, yet."

What "advantage"? These companies have been trying to make DMFCs work for more than 20 years and have gotten nowhere. Every year they say they will have commercial products in a year or two and every year they push their schedules back. Motorola gave up on DMFC after ten years of effort.

[MarcelWilliams]

First of all, the Federal government needs to pass a flex fuel mandate for future automobiles requiring that all new automobiles be capable of using gasoline, ethanol, and methanol by the year 2020. This would allow Detroit the ability to sell their automobiles to ethanol utilizing Brazil and methanol utilizing China. However, if flex fuel vehicles are combined with plug-in-hybrids, this would give consumers the ultimate in fuel flexibility. Plus I really like the convenience of being able to fuel your automobile at home with electricity.

I strongly agree with you that methanol fuel cells should be the ultimate goal for American automobiles, especially if this technology is combined with plug-in-hybrid technology.

The production of fuel ethanol waste 60% of its biomass while using 25% of our corn crop for fuel instead of for food. The production of methanol from agricultural waste would increase alcohol fuel by 50% without having to use any of the food content for fuel.

Methanol also has the added advantage of being able to be converted directly into gasoline using the Mobil Oil MTG (methanol to gasoline) process. This would allow a methanol derived fuel to be used in older automobiles that lack flex fuel capability or methanol fuel cells.

Marcel F. Williams
http://www.newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/

[Patrick Takahashi - Huffpost Blogger]

We don't agree on nuclear power, but we like methanol. However, I don't believe we should be importing ethanol made from food (sugar) in Brazil and methanol made from coal in China. We need to produce our own methanol.

Your New Papyrus is a fine blog. I recommend your magazine to HuffPo readers.

[MarcelWilliams]

Thank you Patrick!

I have no objection to ethanol importation from Brazil if people want to fuel their future flex fuel vehicles that way. But ethanol is pretty much a waste of resources, IMO, compared to methanol as we both have stated.

I'm also, In the long run, against any importation of any carbon dioxide polluting hydrocarbon fuels-- including methanol from coal.

I agree, we need to produce carbon neutral methanol in the US. But there's only enough urban and rural-- biowaste-- in this country to replace about 6% of our hydrocarbon fuel and industrial chemical needs. 80% of the CO2 in the biomass synthesis process simply goes to waste.. But if you added hydrogen to the process, 30% of our fuel and industrial fuel needs could be met. And if we extracted additional CO2 from the atmosphere then ultimately 100% of our hydrocarbon fuel and industrial chemical needs could be met.

But there's really only one clean energy source that could produce enough hydrogen cheaply enough to produce enough methanol for our transportation needs, IMO, and that's nuclear energy. I recommend that people read my blog article "Gasoline from Air and Water' at:

http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2008/11/gasoline-from-air-and-water_24.html

for interesting references to processes that could totally free us from the petroleum fuel economy and even make us a major exporter of clean synthetic fuels.

Marcel F. Williams
http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/