What's better and cheaper to use the the MRFC(Fuel
Post# of 848
Posted On: 12/10/2014 5:23:26 AM
What's better and cheaper to use the the MRFC(Fuel Cell)Technology
http://mantraenergy.com/mantra-energy/technol...echnology/
On top of owning ERC, Mantra Energy also licenses an innovative fuel cell technology from Professor Oloman. This “mixed-reactant fuel cell”, or MRFC, has the potential to be cheaper, smaller, lighter, and have a higher volumetric power density than conventional fuel cells, which have struggled to be adopted due to their high costs.
The advantage of MRFCs lies in that their operation does not demand the separation of fuel and oxidant. In conventional fuel cells it is imperative to prevent the fuel and oxidant from mixing, a requirement that necessitates the use of expensive membranes (15 – 68% of the total capital cost), thick, heavy flow plates (10 – 25% of the total capital cost), and a variety of other gaskets and seals.1 By contrast, MRFCs have no membranes and reduced seal requirements, allowing them to benefit from significant cost, volume, and weight reductions. Volume reductions may be so significant that, although MRFCs necessarily have a lower efficiency than conventional cells, they exhibit higher volumetric power densities.
Professor Oloman’s MRFC is a superb complement to ERC as it can utilize a variety of fuels, including formic acid and formate salts. Taken together, the two technologies represent a form of energy storage and offer the potential to use carbon dioxide as an energy storage medium.
A conventional fuel cell (left) and a MRFC (right). The necessity of a membrane and the separation of fuel and oxidant in the conventional fuel cell results in a larger, more complex, and more expensive unit.
http://mantraenergy.com/mantra-energy/technol...echnology/
On top of owning ERC, Mantra Energy also licenses an innovative fuel cell technology from Professor Oloman. This “mixed-reactant fuel cell”, or MRFC, has the potential to be cheaper, smaller, lighter, and have a higher volumetric power density than conventional fuel cells, which have struggled to be adopted due to their high costs.
The advantage of MRFCs lies in that their operation does not demand the separation of fuel and oxidant. In conventional fuel cells it is imperative to prevent the fuel and oxidant from mixing, a requirement that necessitates the use of expensive membranes (15 – 68% of the total capital cost), thick, heavy flow plates (10 – 25% of the total capital cost), and a variety of other gaskets and seals.1 By contrast, MRFCs have no membranes and reduced seal requirements, allowing them to benefit from significant cost, volume, and weight reductions. Volume reductions may be so significant that, although MRFCs necessarily have a lower efficiency than conventional cells, they exhibit higher volumetric power densities.
Professor Oloman’s MRFC is a superb complement to ERC as it can utilize a variety of fuels, including formic acid and formate salts. Taken together, the two technologies represent a form of energy storage and offer the potential to use carbon dioxide as an energy storage medium.
A conventional fuel cell (left) and a MRFC (right). The necessity of a membrane and the separation of fuel and oxidant in the conventional fuel cell results in a larger, more complex, and more expensive unit.
(0)
(0)