Fuel Cell Laptops

[MacRumors]

FoxNews (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90776,00.html) reports that NEC has revealed a prototype fuel-cell based Laptop computer that will go on sale next year -- with big plans in the near future

NEC initially plans to introduce a computer with a fuel-cell system able to run for five consecutive hours on a single cartridge of methanol fuel, but also plans to make a PC within two years that can run continuously for as long as 40 hours.

Apple is said to be actively pursuing (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/06/20030626013405.shtml) fuel cell technology for their Powerbook line.

[Mudbug]

What they fail to mention is that the fuel cell will have to be pulled along behind the user on a 50"x95" trailer in order to support the weight and bulk of the cell, along with 30 feet of rubber tubing in order to route the ensuing water away.

I'll believe it when I see it.

[dabirdwell]

Fuel cell tablet?


Also, somebody just figured out how to make this work without platinum, as a matter of fact I think it can be done with biomass waste.

[agreenster]

Im sure this will just become an industry standard, just as Lithium batteries have become. In a year or two, every laptop with probably be powered by fuel cells, no matter who the manufacturer is.

[agreenster]

Originally posted by Mudbug
What they fail to mention is that the fuel cell will have to be pulled along behind the user on a 50"x95" trailer in order to support the weight and bulk of the cell, along with 30 feet of rubber tubing in order to route the ensuing water away.

I'll believe it when I see it.

Thats not true. Waste fill be in the form os a non-polutant gas. The refillers will probably be about the size of a CO2 canister.

Do you really think all these companies would be stupid enough to consider switching to fuel cell if it wouldn't fit the current form factor for most laptops?

You must be eating weedies for breakfast.

[dabirdwell]

Don't knock weedies now...

..hemp might be able to power these fuel cells

[Pete_Hoover]

I think this is really cool. Fuel cells are the future, and I am glad to see some companies are making an impact on the notebook market with these new batteries. I cant wait until they come out in a year to see some reivews.

[cb911]

it can be done with biomass waste? could this be a combining of a fuel cell powered laptop and the iLoo?:p :D

but seriously that's some cool tech. hopefully NEC getting fuel cell powered computers out there will push Apple to have them done.

seeing that the next PowerBooks will probably have a G4, we might see the first G5 PowerBooks with fuel cells. and remember the rumors that Apple will be using OLED technology some time in 2004? i think that was talking about the iPods, but considering that the G5 PowerBooks, like the G5 PowerMacs will have a completely different look... it could be possible that Apple is holding off the G5 PowerBook release so that they can release it with an OLED screen and fuel cell power source. using those technologies would really make sure that the G5 PowerBooks were something completely different.

[Wonder Boy]

So wait, 2004 is the year of the laptop? Apple better get there clocks fixed. 2 new laptops without any updates (so far) hardly qualifies for the year of the laptop.

[MacVault]

A five-hour run time doesn't seem very revolutionary.?.? Also, methanol doesn't seem as prevalent as a power outlet. How would this issue be addressed? Will we have gas stations for laptops on every street corner? :D ??????????

[dabirdwell]

maybe you can charge your fuel-cell car and notebook at the same filling station

[iJon]

damn 40 hours, that is a hell of a long time, i know i would like it because i hate having to plug in my adapter.

iJon

[Pete_Hoover]

Originally posted by Wonder Boy
So wait, 2004 is the year of the laptop? Apple better get there clocks fixed. 2 new laptops without any updates (so far) hardly qualifies for the year of the laptop.

Ya. I want to see some updates. Hopefully they will update them in JUly. I am tired of waiting, and you are right. This is hardly the year of the notebook.

[RogueWarrior65]

One HUGE issue in my book will be where you can't use this damn thing. Airlines won't let you on a plane with a pair of friggin' nail clippers (after all, you might threaten to cut off the crew's cuticles). Do you think they're gonna let you on the plane with containers of methanol?

[psxndc]

Originally posted by RogueWarrior65
Do you think they're gonna let you on the plane with containers of methanol?

They let you on now with a Zippo lighter. No joke, just flew 2 weeks ago. They even pulled it out of my bag to make sure it was a real one.

-p

[iJon]

Originally posted by RogueWarrior65
One HUGE issue in my book will be where you can't use this damn thing. Airlines won't let you on a plane with a pair of friggin' nail clippers (after all, you might threaten to cut off the crew's cuticles). Do you think they're gonna let you on the plane with containers of methanol?
haha, no kidding. im excited about my trip to dallas soon. i cant till they ask me about my gun scope, i mean my isight.

iJon

[Windowlicker]

I don't know too much about this technology, but it doesn't sound too user friendly :P

I would much rather have an power adapter than a bottle of methanol on me..

40 hours sounds quite promising though.

[r8ix]

They're really not that practical for laptops. You'd have to carry refills around with you, and you wouldn't be allowed to fly with it on an airplane. Methanol is considered a hazardous material. Also Currently, 2 hours of laptop use costs <$.015 for the electricity, even for the 17" PB. How much will replacement cartridges cost? Even for the "40 hour desktop", average electricity will run from $.50 to $2.00, depending on what all you have hooked up. Fuel cells are great, but I can't see them being effective for this purpose.

I will ask my friend, who runs the National Fuel Cell Research Center, what he thinks of this and report back...

[ouketii]

you could plug it in an electrical outlet and run it w/o batteries, obviously, but i wonder if you can recharge methanol at all.... it'd be nice to be sitting in class, and see someone's computer spontaneously combust ecause they tried to plug it in ; )

[ouketii]

Originally posted by r8ix
They're really not that practical for laptops. You'd have to carry refills around with you, and you wouldn't be allowed to fly with it on an airplane. Methanol is considered a hazardous material. Also Currently, 2 hours of laptop use costs <$.015 for the electricity, even for the 17" PB. How much will replacement cartridges cost? Even for the "40 hour desktop", average electricity will run from $.50 to $2.00, depending on what all you have hooked up. Fuel cells are great, but I can't see them being effective for this purpose.

I will ask my friend, who runs the National Fuel Cell Research Center, what he thinks of this and report back...

...national fel cell research center...how convienient ;)

[r8ix]

Professor Scott Samuelson at NFCRC:

<http://www.nfcrc.uci.edu/>

<http://www.nfcrc.uci.edu/ABOUTUS/personnel1.asp>

[r8ix]

Since the NEC laptop is supposed to run 5 hours (like the iBook...), the comparable cost for electricity would be about $.03, which is the price the cartridges would have to compete with to be competitive.

[Freg3000]

Like many have pointed out, I have my doubts. But it would be cool. It is also interesting how these two fuel cell stories came out so closely together.

[aub32]

Well, besides the fact that the word fuel closely relates to the word FIRE, it also tells me that there may be a coincidence in not being allowed onto a 767 with a tank of 93 octane.

Or is it just me...

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by r8ix
Since the NEC laptop is supposed to run 5 hours (like the iBook...), the comparable cost for electricity would be about $.03, which is the price the cartridges would have to compete with to be competitive.

Huh?

Fuel cells are for cost- and weight-effective battery life, not AC power. The are not meant to compete with your home AC outlet! They are meant to compete with the ten pounds of Li-Ion batteries you'd have to lug around to get a PC laptop to run for 40 hours!

And, yes, carrying a zippo-sized ampule of Methanol (costing maybe 50 cents) makes a whole lot more sense to me than recharging a second battery (always a wonderful joy) and carrying that extra battery around, which has about ten times the size and weight of the fuel-cell canister.

It's amazing the amount of misinformation here. I mean, for one thing, at least one airline has already OK'd the use of fuel cells (you'll have to dig through articles from about six months back i think to find info on that). Fuel cell canisters are incredibly tiny (fuel cell power generators aren't so tiny, which is one reason why they're not in widespread use yet, but the canisters themselves - the thing that holds the liquid - is quite small!).

[mcrain]

Originally posted by Freg3000
But it would be cool.

Actually, I love my powerbook, but I do have one complaint. It often gets very, very hot.

I want to know how much hotter or cooler a powerbook that runs on burning methanol can be.

I mean, if it burns the skin off my lap, I'll stick with batteries. On the other hand, if the waste product is a liquid and can be used to cool the processors, I'd think that would be a good way of adding a new technology in a way that makes the older tech work even better.

[StuPid QPid]

I have a couple of comments.
First. Those that say carrying a laptop full of methanol is hazardous. I'm not exactly sure what is in present batteries, but I sure wouldn't want to open one. Wasn't there a time when some underwent spontaneous combustion?
Second: How much energy does it take to produce the methanol in the first place, and what are the waste products? It's all very well saying the fuel cell itself produces very little waste, but if it takes huge amounts of energy to produce the methanol, this rather defeats the green credentials of the technology. Maybe there are some mac using chemical engineers who can enlighten me?

[sonicsessions]

i'm just imagining some guy, sitting at a fuel pump with his laptop, wondering how to hook it up.

It really doesn't seem like a practical idea... even if you could buy "low cost cartridges" or whatnot. The biggest issue I have with my little sony clié PDA is that it uses regular AA batteries, with no recharge option. While that is handy when I'm on the run and the battery is low, it gets pretty expensive. Imagine working on your laptop somewhere and realising your tank is almost on E... can't just plug it into the wall and charge it up... and I doubt a fuelcell for a laptop would be a common item at a shop, like AA batteries.

[r8ix]

Airlines do not have the authority to approve transport of methanol; that's a matter for the FAA (and probably Homeland Security). And while it is true that the fuel cell is more directly competing with the battery, if you look at the cost of a recharge, or the actual cost of the electricity, the fuel cells are not cost effective.

Cigarrette lighters, for instance, are not allowed on commercial airplanes right now.

Also, with regard to the heat issue, fuel cells are a hot technology, most technologies would be hotter than anything else in your laptop...

[matznentosh]

Originally posted by StuPid QPid
Second: How much energy does it take to produce the methanol in the first place, and what are the waste products? It's all very well saying the fuel cell itself produces very little waste, but if it takes huge amounts of energy to produce the methanol, this rather defeats the green credentials of the technology. Maybe there are some mac using chemical engineers who can enlighten me?

I think that is a very important point. Also, no one has mentioned what direct waste gas or whatever is produced by methanol fuel cells. Hydrogen fuel cells make water. But Methane would have to make some sort of carbon product, probably CO2, which would then be another source of greenhouse gases.

[r8ix]

Alkaline Fuel Cells
100°C - 250°C
Molten Carbonate Fuel Cells
600°C - 700°C
Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cells
150°C - 220°C
Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) Fuel Cells
around 90°C (also requires additional cooling)
Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFC)
650°C - 1000°C
Direct Methanol Fuel Cells (DMFC)
Similar to PEM, around 90°C (lower performance than others)

source:

<http://www.nfcrc.uci.edu/fcresources/FCexplained/FC_Types.htm>

[Makosuke]

People here seem surprisingly quick to bash a technology they understand almost nothing about.

I agree completely that for some users, having to use methanol (or whatever) canisters instead of a battery that charges automatically when your laptop is plugged in is far less than ideal. For example, if I'm working around the house and want to occasionally take my laptop outside for an hour, but certainly don't want to bother with replacing fuel canisters, a battery is ideal.

However, for the seasoned traveler who wants to be able to pack 20 or 30 hours of use in a briefcase without lugging around a heap of heavy batteries, replacable fuel canisters would be ideal.

It all depends. And it's not at all certain that these would run hot; it didn't say whether they're direct methanol fuel cells or they use a micro-reformer, but it would make a difference. (Oh, and by the way, PEM fuel cells can easily run much closer to the 50 degree C range--the ones I work with never go much over 60).

I poked around NEC's site but although the Japanese press release is up (http://www.nec.co.jp/press/ja/0306/3002.html), there's no English translation yet. I'll have to get my wife to read it for the details, but in my limited capacity it looks like the prototype is running at 40mW/cm2 of cell surface area, which is actually a very low power density (probably runs cooler that way). It claims 14W continuous, 24W peak output. It looks like the stack makes use of carbon nanotubes, which I seem to remember reading an article that said NEC was working on a year or so ago.

Production model in 2004, but knowing what I do about fuel cells, I'm a bit skeptical. They will probably be selling something, but I have a feeling it'll be targeted at the Japanese bleeding-edge market that most people won't touch. That means the first ones will be very expensive, and I have my doubts about long-term reliability (current fuel cells generally can manage 2000-4000 hours in semi-controlled environments, and I'd expect these to do much worse, but we'll see.)

Perhaps coincidentally, NEC also announced a piezoelectric-pumped laptop liquid cooling system today:
http://www.nec.co.jp/press/en/0306/3001.html

And by the way, the 5 hour life is probably impressive if you're used to PC laptops.

[yzedf]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2847679.stm

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,49717,00.html

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-960823.html

DOT not Homeland Security (3rd link).

[Makosuke]

Originally posted by matznentosh
I think that is a very important point. Also, no one has mentioned what direct waste gas or whatever is produced by methanol fuel cells. Hydrogen fuel cells make water. But Methane would have to make some sort of carbon product, probably CO2, which would then be another source of greenhouse gases. The issues surrounding Methanol and it's environmental effects are very real--it's usually refined from natural gas at this point, meaning that it is a fossil fuel like any other, and of course it will produce CO2 when used in a fuel cell. (http://www.methanex.com/)

It does, however, burn relatively cleanly (especially in a fuel cell), and has some advantages over gasoline as a fuel. More importantly, if used with a fuel cell, it should be more efficient and clean burning than direct burning of the fuel.

In any case, though, as a replacement for gasoline and other petrolium fuels on a large scale, methanol would be a stopgap measure at best, and a CO2 polluter in green clothing at worst. Pure hydrogen, electrolyzed from water using renewable sources, is the only viable fuel cell-based option in the long term.

But as far as a laptop goes, the situation is entirely different--you're dealing with a very small amount of fuel (even if we're talking about the millions of laptops in the world put together), and a market where performance is as important as anything else.

Besides, look at the current alternative: burning oil, coal, or natural gas in a semi-efficient process (~50%), then piping the power through miles of power lines (line losses), then converting it to DC (not all that efficient), then charging a battery (not 100% efficient), then getting that power back out of the battery and using it. We're hardly talking about efficient conversion from fossil fuel to portable power here, when you look at the grand scheme of things.

I'd say methanol-fired laptops have a place, at least as a transition technology. Besides, it's not like the technology will park there permanantly, and laptops have a much shorter useful life than, say, a car or a power plant, so even if the technology is eventually replaced by something better the old ones won't be floating around all that long.

[r8ix]

Glad to hear of the DOT ruling (DOT runs FAA, by the way).

Even at 50-60°C (122°F-140°F) they are on the border of the uncomfortable and burn temperatures, but within the realm of cooling. Also, if this unit only puts out 14W continuous, 24W peak, we're not going to see it powering a G5 laptop any time soon.

I still have my doubts about the cost efficiency, although I wouldn't be surprised if you could adapt one to run on vodka as well as just methanol!

[r8ix]

Originally posted by Makosuke
The issues surrounding Methanol and it's environmental effects are very real--it's usually refined from natural gas at this point, meaning that it is a fossil fuel like any other, and of course it will produce CO2 when used in a fuel cell. (http://www.methanex.com/)

...

Besides, look at the current alternative: burning oil, coal, or natural gas in a semi-efficient process (~50%), then piping the power through miles of power lines (line losses), then converting it to DC (not all that efficient), then charging a battery (not 100% efficient), then getting that power back out of the battery and using it. We're hardly talking about efficient conversion from fossil fuel to portable power here, when you look at the grand scheme of things.

I'd say methanol-fired laptops have a place, at least as a transition technology. Besides, it's not like the technology will park there permanantly, and laptops have a much shorter useful life than, say, a car or a power plant, so even if the technology is eventually replaced by something better the old ones won't be floating around all that long.

The delivered price of electricity most places in the U.S. is $.11 per kilowatt-hour or less (California being the notable exception). A laptop rated at up to 45W like my iBook will consume .225 kilowatt-hours over 5 hours, running at full power (and recharging, I guess). This is about 2.5¢, which there is no way methanol cartridges can compete with.

If the laptop contains both a battery and a fuel cell (although now we're running into space issues...), the power source could be chosen depending on conditions, which might work.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by StuPid QPid
Second: How much energy does it take to produce the methanol in the first place, and what are the waste products? It's all very well saying the fuel cell itself produces very little waste, but if it takes huge amounts of energy to produce the methanol, this rather defeats the green credentials of the technology. Maybe there are some mac using chemical engineers who can enlighten me?

As a mac-using chemical engineer (albeit one who has not practiced chem eng for several years :) ), I feel obliged to answer:

Methanol is cheap to produce, both economically and environmentally. In fact, it is the waste product of many common chemical processes, so you're kinda in the world where you get Methanol like it or not ... you might as well use it!

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by Makosuke
The issues surrounding Methanol and it's environmental effects are very real--it's usually refined from natural gas at this point, meaning that it is a fossil fuel like any other, and of course it will produce CO2 when used in a fuel cell. (http://www.methanex.com/)


Just wanted to note that as long as we are using natural gas in other ways, methanol is either a useful product or a waste product. In other words, when you refine a natural gas stream, you get various component output streams (the precise components and ratios are a product of the input stream). It's not like the world refines natural gases and throws away all the other streams besides Methanol. Methanol is one of the cheapest output components of a refinery because production outstrips usage.

So, you either use the waste product, or you ... well, waste it :)

Were methanol in higher demand, there are numerous non-fossil fuel, renewable sources which are only slightly more expensive than the waste stream of a refinery, most notably including vegetable refining (which is used to produce ethanol but likewise produces large quantities of methanol as well).

In other words, it would be patently silly for someone to be against the use of methanol in fuel cells for environmental reasons.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by sonicsessions
i'm just imagining some guy, sitting at a fuel pump with his laptop, wondering how to hook it up.

It really doesn't seem like a practical idea... even if you could buy "low cost cartridges" or whatnot. The biggest issue I have with my little sony clié PDA is that it uses regular AA batteries, with no recharge option. While that is handy when I'm on the run and the battery is low, it gets pretty expensive. Imagine working on your laptop somewhere and realising your tank is almost on E... can't just plug it into the wall and charge it up... and I doubt a fuelcell for a laptop would be a common item at a shop, like AA batteries.

Depends on packaging. The simplest user-friendly packaging would allow you to buy a bottle of rubbing alcohol (methanol) and fill the ampule yourself ... This is available at any drug store throughout the country, and might even be available in airport drug stores (possibly not as methanol is flammable ...)

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by matznentosh
I think that is a very important point. Also, no one has mentioned what direct waste gas or whatever is produced by methanol fuel cells. Hydrogen fuel cells make water. But Methane would have to make some sort of carbon product, probably CO2, which would then be another source of greenhouse gases.

Water and CO2 would be emitted, yes. Note that your breathing would likely produce far more CO2 than your laptop fuel cell, however!

[coumerelli]

Originally posted by mcrain
Actually, I love my powerbook, but I do have one complaint. It often gets very, very hot.

I want to know how much hotter or cooler a powerbook that runs on burning methanol can be.

I mean, if it burns the skin off my lap, I'll stick with batteries. On the other hand, if the waste product is a liquid and can be used to cool the processors, I'd think that would be a good way of adding a new technology in a way that makes the older tech work even better.

Or the liquid (water) could run out of a vent in the bottom of the laptop down onto your legs to cool them off. It just may be more efficient, and it would be refreshing, too! :D ;)

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by r8ix
If the laptop contains both a battery and a fuel cell (although now we're running into space issues...), the power source could be chosen depending on conditions, which might work.

I wouldn't imagine this in first-gen products, but I would guess maybe within 2-3 revs you might be able to swap out the FC module for a LiIon module in most cases. At least, I'd exect this in the PC variants ... Apple hasn't been overly flexible on battery issues in my experience ...

Also, forgive me if I'm wrong, but that line-lump DC power supply is sipping AC power no matter if you are recharging your laptop or not, right? Seems I remember reading that most such transformers operate at about 80-90% peak consumption on no load ... The point being that your laptop power at present isn't quite as efficient as it sounds when you take into account that most people leave their recharging devices plugged in for significantly longer than it takes to recharge such devices (ie, leave the laptop plugged in overnight before the flight), and even leave the chargers plugged into the wall sans device after they leave far too often!

[r8ix]

Originally posted by jettredmont
Apple hasn't been overly flexible on battery issues in my experience ...


Well, the WallStreet series were pretty good in that respect. You had a battery compartment and a second compartment which could take another battery, a CD-ROM drive, a floppy drive, a ZIP drive, or presumeably, a fuel cell unit (if they existed at the time...). Maybe they'll do something like that with future generations of Powerbooks.

[r8ix]

as far as costs goes, the methanol itself would probably be nearly free. It's the packaging, shipping and handling, etc. that will drive up the cost of the cartridges and make them relatively expensive.

[projectParanoia]

http://forums.macrumors.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif The water coming from the fuel cells would be heated by the fuel cell itself, so the water would actually cause some burns... http://forums.macrumors.com/images/smilies/eek.gif

[MacViolinist]

Originally posted by r8ix


Cigarrette lighters, for instance, are not allowed on commercial airplanes right now.



Uhhh.... I've never flown without at least 2 lighters on me. As a matter of fact even over memorial day weekend when the terror alert was on Orange or Burnt Umber or Seneca or whatever they call it to scare people, they still let me on with the lighters.

[r8ix]

Originally posted by MacViolinist
Uhhh.... I've never flown without at least 2 lighters on me. As a matter of fact even over memorial day weekend when the terror alert was on Orange or Burnt Umber or Seneca or whatever they call it to scare people, they still let me on with the lighters.

well, they're not supposed to. they're on the official list of banned substances...

[MacFan26]

Originally posted by r8ix
Well, the WallStreet series were pretty good in that respect. You had a battery compartment and a second compartment which could take another battery, a CD-ROM drive, a floppy drive, a ZIP drive, or presumeably, a fuel cell unit (if they existed at the time...). Maybe they'll do something like that with future generations of Powerbooks.


Yes, I was somewhat suprised when Apple came out with the laptops after the WallStreets that didn't have the drive and battery compartments. I liked being able to switch my CD-ROM and my Zip any time I needed to even without restarting.

[Sonofhaig]

Originally posted by iJon
haha, no kidding. im excited about my trip to dallas soon. i cant till they ask me about my gun scope, i mean my isight.

iJon

...and they will check too. I'd be too afraid they'd confiscate it. ;)

[Sonofhaig]

Originally posted by projectParanoia
http://forums.macrumors.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif The water coming from the fuel cells would be heated by the fuel cell itself, so the water would actually cause some burns... http://forums.macrumors.com/images/smilies/eek.gif

Maybe Apple could use the water waste as a cooling system for the future G6? :D

[T.Rex]

Wow, you guys sure are quick to dismiss a technology you have never even seen! I wonder what your thoughts would have been on the "Horseless carriage" (a.k.a. automobile) or those so-called "aero-planes", had you lived around the turn of the last century.

This reminds me of hearing/reading discussions by PC users writing-off Macs without even having attempted to use them or give them a chance.

I thought Mac users were supposed to be open minded; yet you all sound off on this subject like you are experts in the field of chemistry or alternative fuels. How about waiting until the technology is actually in use before judging it?

As for the claim that producing ethanol is harmful because it is derived from natural gas, etc., that is simply not true. Ethanol can be produced quite cheaply and efficiently by utilizing the starch found in corn. Here in Canada (I'm not sure about the US), depending on where you live, up to about 15% of the gasoline from the pump is refined ethanol which makes it burn significantly cleaner than straight gasoline. The production of ethanol is already a large industry, both here and in the US, and will only continue to grow in the future. This can only serve to drive the cost of ethanol down.

[r8ix]

Originally posted by T.Rex
Wow, you guys sure are quick to dismiss a technology you have never even seen!
....
As for the claim that producing ethanol is harmful because it is derived from natural gas, etc., that is simply not true.

I've seen a lot of Fuel Cells. There's a hotel near where I lived that had the longest continually running fuel cell in America -- over 7 years.

And by the way, we're talking methanol, not ethanol.

[Makosuke]

On topic: the temperatures being given are at the reaction site, not external surface temperatures, meaning that these laptops won't necessarily run really hot. There is current research in micro-reformers that react at over 100C, but are cool to the touch on the outside--you just need to build it right. And in fact, since these reactions generally prefer heat (unlike chips, which hate it), you might even be able to just insulate it and keep it warm inside without affecting nearby components (or your knees), and without needing to dump any heat.

Now for a highly off topic rant--sorry. Since it's popping up, I wanted to say something in regards to the environmental impacts of methanol (and similar hydrocarbons) as a fuel:

For laptops, its negligable, as well as the cost for someone with mobility in mind (I don't want to pay $0.10 an hour to use my computer at home, but on the road that sounds like a bargain). That should be pretty obvious.

As a large-scale source of energy, it's much more questionable. Being a byproduct of current refinery technologies, there's some of it around that you might as well use. And being easily refined and more easily used in a fuel cell than other fossil-based fuels, not to mention generally cleaner, it's a decent choice for a gasoline alternative.

But in the long term on a large scale, I'd be very skeptical (and I work at an alternative energy research lab, I'm not just spouting random opinions). If it's derived from a fossil fuel, you've got the same basic carbon output issues (and therefore greenhouse effect) as any other fossil fuel.

Although ethanol and similar things can be produced from corn, etc, it's not likely to be a magic cure on a large scale for a number of reasons. True, if you only look at corn-in-to-energy-out, the process is carbon neutral--the corn sucks as much CO2 in as the burnt fuel puts out. But to grow enough corn or other biofuel to supply a significant percentage of the current world's energy demand, you'd not only be running into major land-use issues, but modern farming methods rely heavily on fossil fuel input--both in terms of fertalizer and heavy energy use of farming equipment--and it's subsidized so you don't see the real cost. There are also soil and aquifer depletion issues in some areas. If you tried to derive all that from the crops you were growing and have it be sustainable in the long term, it would be very expensive and I think your actual energy output would be a rather small percentage of what your fields produced, and I'd be impressed if there was enough farmland in the world to keep up.

I'm not an expert in the area, and I'd be glad if I'm wrong, but this is the opinion I've heard from many who do realistic research in the field.

[macphoria]

I'm wonder about this fuel cell thing because even though it can provide longer usage, when it runs out of power, you have to refuel it. That means you have to BUY fuel in order to use it. Whereas lithium battery can be simply recharged for FREE even though it does not last as long.

Am I wrong about this?

[Lepton]

Here are some technologies being developed for laptop fuel cells. My source for most of this is various articles in EE Times.

A company called PolyFuel is working on using a 25% methanol 75% water fuel for its cells. It has approval for this fuel to go on U.S. airlines. It is in talks with Duracell to make cartridges that cost $2 to $3. They hope for 10 hour life.

A company called Neah is working on cells using a methanol and hydrogen peroxide mix.

One called Generics Group is working with hydrogen fuel that is already mixed with oxygen, resulting in a much smaller physical cell and a tenfold increase in power density. More traditional cells have to separate the two elements, which makes the cell physically much more complex. They can potentially "print" the battery electrodes on rolls and when the fuel mix flows through them you have a cell which can be very thin and flexibly shaped.

NEC is said to be working with carbon nanotubes in the form of "nanohorns" to form fuel cells. This (http://www.eetuk.com/tech/news/OEG20010905S0023) article describes it. They claim potential for 10 times the energy density of the best current batteries. It uses a solid polymer electrolyte rather than fluids.

[aub32]

So, what you're saying is methanol = methane = FART GAS, right? Now, there's a reliable power source, and I got plenty of it. Apple sure am smart for going after this idear!:D

[aub32]

By the way, I am joking, and it might show that I know nothing about chemicals.

[CHess]

Wouldn't it make sense for Apple to simply make a fuel cell that could be swapped out and replaced by a battery if needed?

I don't know anything about the size and shape of a fuel cell, but seems to me that to be viable for use in a laptop, it would need to be not much larger than a lithium battery (though perhaps larger than the G4's battery), so they might engineer the design to allow for swapping.

Then, in most cases, you'd use a battery, but if you needed long continuous operability, you could just pop in the fuel cell with fuel cartridge.

[Frohickey]

Should have just made the fuel cell to run on vodka.

:D

[cooper13]

Originally posted by jettredmont
Depends on packaging. The simplest user-friendly packaging would allow you to buy a bottle of rubbing alcohol (methanol) and fill the ampule yourself ... This is available at any drug store throughout the country, and might even be available in airport drug stores (possibly not as methanol is flammable ...)

Except rubbing alcohol is isopropyl alcohol, not methanol. I'm not sure airport drugstores carry it currently...

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by cooper13
Except rubbing alcohol is isopropyl alcohol, not methanol. I'm not sure airport drugstores carry it currently...

Make it use Scotch whiskey. I know they sell those in the airports... duty-free even. :p

Seriously, why use methanol. Methanol is toxic (http://www.solardome.com/SolarDome22.html). Its not even a renewal resource. Its made from natural gas, or coal. Its also eats aluminum, and rubber compounds.

Ethanol is a much better fuel source. Its a renewable energy source, that can be produced from corn, barley, grapes, potatoes, pretty much anything that has sugar in it that can be digested by yeast.

I'm sure that you wouldn't want to put whiskey, beer, wine, etc into your powerbook fuel cell as the impurities would clog up the insides of the 'fuel cell'.

The only bad thing I can see with using Ethanol is that you would need to be over 21 in order to use your computer. :p

[Jerry Spoon]

Originally posted by Sonofhaig
Maybe Apple could use the water waste as a cooling system for the future G6? :D

Oh man! Is this is the first G6 rumor I've seen. Only a few more years of these and we can get onto the G7 rumors:rolleyes:

[sjonni]

Why not let the Icelandic hydrogen companies come up with something for Apple, they are suppose to be in the frontline of this!

http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=hydrogen-en&FC1=&FC2=&FC3=%2Fhydrogen-en%2Fhtml%2Fiwgen%2Fnews_and_library%2Fpressreleases%2F2003%2Ficeland_station_2404_1200.html&FC4=&FC5=

http://www.newenergy.is/

Who knows, a adaptor that makes hydrogen in the computer. It takes only electricity to make hydrogen!



:D :cool:

[MacKenzie999]

Originally posted by jettredmont
...and even leave the chargers plugged into the wall sans device after they leave far too often!

Is this a bad thing to do? My cellphone charger is always plugged in, phone or not, which I also charge far more often than is necessary. Along a similar line of thought, is the Firewire cable dangling from the back of my mac a bad thing, as it only occasionally has an iPod on the other end?

Thanks

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by cooper13
Except rubbing alcohol is isopropyl alcohol, not methanol. I'm not sure airport drugstores carry it currently...

D'oh!

You're right ... :) Shows what a decade-old chemistry education can do ...

FWIW, rubbing alcohol would be C3H7OH instead of CH3OH ... two more carbons and a few more bound hydrogens in there ...

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by MacKenzie999
Is this a bad thing to do? My cellphone charger is always plugged in, phone or not, which I also charge far more often than is necessary. Along a similar line of thought, is the Firewire cable dangling from the back of my mac a bad thing, as it only occasionally has an iPod on the other end?

Thanks

Well, first, the power adapter always plugged in does consume energy (although not as much as I was guessing at above ... not sure where I heard the 80-90% figure but actually looking it up I find more like 1-1.5% of full-load dissipation in most devices on no-load (ie, nothing plugged into it, just the transformer running keeping a constant voltage differential) ... just a slight difference there.

Quick ... feel the lump in your cellphone charger. While it may be "smart" and turn the transformer off when nothing is plugged into it, more likely than not it is not that smart (and this has more to do with regulations than with the technical feasibility of monitoring when something is plugged in ... wal-wart transformers are a separate device which can be UL certified separately of the device they are plugged into; two-way communication between the two would make this distinction less convincing). If the lump is hot, it is consuming power.

Leaving your firewire cord plugged in is a wholly different matter altogether. The FW cable itself does not consume power (at least, not when unconnected on one end). As such, having it plugged in is electrically similar to having an extension cord plugged into your wall outlet: you are not affecting power usage. Just make sure you don't spill coffee on the exposed end of the cord or something silly like that ...

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Make it use Scotch whiskey. I know they sell those in the airports... duty-free even. :p

Seriously, why use methanol. Methanol is toxic (http://www.solardome.com/SolarDome22.html). Its not even a renewal resource. Its made from natural gas, or coal. Its also eats aluminum, and rubber compounds.

Ethanol is a much better fuel source. Its a renewable energy source, that can be produced from corn, barley, grapes, potatoes, pretty much anything that has sugar in it that can be digested by yeast.


Quite true. http://running_on_alcohol.tripod.com/ethanolfuel/id30.html

For some reason which I don't know enough to explain ( :) ), most fuel cell implementations use methanol instead though ... 'course it could have something to do with a whole heck of a lot more research dollars coming out of oil companies than corn farmers ...


I'm sure that you wouldn't want to put whiskey, beer, wine, etc into your powerbook fuel cell as the impurities would clog up the insides of the 'fuel cell'.


The sad thing is that this is the most likely reason why you won't see "self-fill" fuel cell canisters ... someone, eventually, would see that their triple-malt scotch has ethanol in it and try running their laptop with that, and sue Apple for not properly warning them ...

[Ugg]

Originally posted by macphoria
I'm wonder about this fuel cell thing because even though it can provide longer usage, when it runs out of power, you have to refuel it. That means you have to BUY fuel in order to use it. Whereas lithium battery can be simply recharged for FREE even though it does not last as long.

Am I wrong about this?

Somebody is paying for the electricity that you use to charge the lithium battery. It is most definitely not free. Even if it were a wind generator or solar panel providing the juice, the system still costs money. There is no such thing as free energy.

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by psxndc
They let you on now with a Zippo lighter. No joke, just flew 2 weeks ago. They even pulled it out of my bag to make sure it was a real one.

-p

That and a can of hairspray and you'd be dangerous...

[dabirdwell]

Originally posted by Ugg
Somebody is paying for the electricity that you use to charge the lithium battery. It is most definitely not free. Even if it were a wind generator or solar panel providing the juice, the system still costs money. There is no such thing as free energy.

If Einstein is still right does this mean there is no free matter either:)

[macphoria]

Why not skip the fuel cell nonsense and go for Cold Fusion?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by jettredmont
The sad thing is that this is the most likely reason why you won't see "self-fill" fuel cell canisters ... someone, eventually, would see that their triple-malt scotch has ethanol in it and try running their laptop with that, and sue Apple for not properly warning them ...

damn lawyers!

First it was going after big tobacco when people who smoked to much died.
Next, it was going after fast food restaurants when people who ate too much got fat.
Next, its going after computer companies when people who use triple-malt scotch computed too much.

When is it going to end? :p