but here we have something that can match li-ion, but that can be refueled as easily as one refuel a gasoline car. Can be stored for long periods on simple containers. And can be produced from atmospheric gasses.
Interesting implications for fixed location energy storage. A palette sized tote of water is about 1000 liters, so 1.45MWh/tote. That is roughly a month of US household electrical consumption.
I'm not finding numbers for efficiency of creating the formic acid, and for the catalyst I find notes that the good ones use expensive elements. So I guess when my new lead acid battery bank wears out in 8 years I won't be installing a formic acid system.
Formic acid contains 53 g/L of hydrogen[1]. The Mirai has a 500 km range, using 5 kg of hydrogen[2]. So you would need 95 L (116 kg) of formic acid to get the same range. The actual tanks on the Mirai (87.5 kg, 122 L) are physically larger, but weigh less.
I imagine the formic acid also has safety advantages: it's stored at room pressure rather than under pressure, so the tank can't explode, and if there's a leak, it won't vapourise.
On the other hand, it's reasonably nasty stuff, although far from Things I Won't Work With levels of nasty:
Very interesting work. What they developed essentially is a way to store renewable energy.
They take CO2, H2O and electricity from renewable sources to create their fuel. The secret here is the catalyst they developed. The fuel is liquid, thus stored easily.
In order to use it they use a reverse chemical process which creates H2 and CO2. The H2 burns with oxygen (and releases part of the stored energy) to produce H2O and thus they end with the elements they used in the first step.
If in its currrent capacitiy can be used for transportation, it probably can be used for many other things as well.
Is it not? Not being used up is kind of the definition of "catalyst" though, so while it might need maintenance/recycling (due to mechanical changes, or contamination) it probably can be reused after processing.
"The tailpipe emissions are only CO2 and water," explains Mr van Cappellen. "No other harmful gases like nitric oxides, soot or sulphuric oxides are emitted."
The same is true of the complete combustion of petrol and other hydrocarbon fuels. I remember the same was said of propane when it became the popular alternative fuel several decades ago.
The CO2 is also an input; it originally comes from the environment, so this is net-zero emissions in the same way that biofuels are. From the article:
Although the bus emits CO2, Team Fast argues that the original CO2 used to create the hydrozine is
taken from existing sources, such as air or exhaust fumes, so that no additional CO2 is produced
- it's a closed carbon cycle in the jargon.
True if combustion occurs in pure oxygen. Combustion of petrol fuels in an automobile tends to produce nitrogen oxides from the nitrogen in the atmosphere. I assume fuel cell reactions don't do this.
I think the core of the idea is that formic acid is easier to synthesize than other hydrocarbon fuels, while being easier to handle than pure hydrogen. It's also split into hydrogen and CO2 in this process, not burned, which could happen cleaner than practical combustion?
The idea here is that the acid is made from elements already floating around in nature, and thus the exhaust do not introduce more than the production initially removed. This unlike petrochemicals because the exhaust gasses is in addition to what is already out there.
Yeah, that was a little too subtle. I had to check it a few times before I realized they weren't talking about hydrazine (toxic, probably carcinogenic if it doesn't kill you right away, and definitely not something you want putting around on public roads).
If I were their marketing, I'd pick something else, fast. Something a good hamming-distance away from anything requiring special suits for handling, and that doesn't include steps in release protocols like "evacuate nearby towns".
Interesting. What's the catalyst made of? I remember they used to require platinum and other expensive elements.
Also, using CO2 from factories is nice but eventually we need to get rid of them altogether. I imagine taking CO2 from the atmosphere at its natural concentration should be incredibly inefficient.
If it's not extreme then handling shouldn't be much worse than petroleum fuels which are mildly irritating, toxic, and flammable. We have built infrastructure to let people handle those products (rather) safely.
On the other hand, it's 100%, not 9%. I'd say it's about as nasty as anything you're likely to come across at home (bleach, white spirit, etc), but small potatoes as an industrial chemical:
Sure, but I can imagine ants that injected gasoline or vinegar (for example) would be unpleasant too - while having those substances on your skin is fine.
Formic acid is a relatively weak acid (if I can read wikipedia correctly), much more like acetic acid than sulphuric acid.
Yep, from what I can tell it's about 10x stronger than vinegar at the same concentration, but about 1/7 the strength of citric acid (lemon juice). It's often use in wart treatments so it's not too bad in small concentrations.
However, it's flammable and can cause acid burns in the concentrations they're talking about in the article.
