New Catalyst Can Efficiently Oxidize Ethanol to CO2 at Room Temperature; Boost for Direct Ethanol Fuel Cells
26 January 2009
![]() |
Model of the electrocatalyst for ethanol oxidation consisting of platinum-rhodium clusters on a surface of tin dioxide. Click to enlarge. |
A team of scientists at the US Department of Energy’s (DOE) Brookhaven National Laboratory, in collaboration with researchers from the University of Delaware and Yeshiva University, has developed a new ternary (Pt/Rh/SnO2) electrocatalyst that could make direct ethanol fuel cells feasible.
Consisting of platinum and rhodium deposited on carbon-supported tin dioxide nanoparticles, the new catalyst can split C–C bonds in ethanol at room temperature in acid solutions, facilitating its oxidation at low potentials to CO2—a capability which has not been achieved with existing catalysts, according to the researchers. A paper on the work was published online 25 January in the journal Nature Materials.
Our experiments and density functional theory calculations indicate that the electrocatalyst’s activity is due to the specific property of each of its constituents, induced by their interactions. These findings help explain the high activity of Pt–Ru for methanol oxidation and the lack of it for ethanol oxidation, and point to the way to accomplishing the C–C bond splitting in other catalytic processes.
—Kowal et al. (2009)
Instead of using hydrogen as the energy carrier, or using a front-end fuel processor to reform a hydrocarbon liquid to produce hydrogen for use in a hydrogen fuel cell, a direct ethanol fuel cell directly converts ethanol (C2H5OH) to electricity, with H2 and CO2 as outputs:
Ethanol is one of the most ideal reactants for fuel cells. It’s easy to produce, renewable, nontoxic, relatively easy to transport, and it has a high energy density. In addition, with some alterations, we could reuse the infrastructure that’s currently in place to store and distribute gasoline.
—Brookhaven chemist Radoslav Adzic
“The ability to split the carbon-carbon bond and generate CO2 at room temperature is a completely new feature of catalysis. There are no other catalysts that can achieve this at practical potentials.” —Radoslav Adzic |
A major hurdle to the commercial use of direct ethanol fuel cells is the molecule’s slow, inefficient oxidation, which breaks the compound into hydrogen ions and electrons that are needed to generate electricity. There are a number of efforts underway to develop a viable direct ethanol fuel cell, such as that at Kyushu Institute of Technology (KIT). The KIT team reported on their work with oxide nanoparticle composite electrodes for direct ethanol fuel cells at the 214th Meeting of The Electrochemical Society in October. (The Brookhaven team also presented their work at ECS 214.)
![]() |
Current–potential and current–time polarization curves comparing the activity of PtRhSnO2/C with several other catalysts for ethanol oxidation. Kowal et al. (2009) Click to enlarge. |
The Brookhaven catalyst is made of platinum and rhodium atoms on carbon-supported tin dioxide nanoparticles. The electrocatalyst is capable of breaking carbon bonds at room temperature and efficiently oxidizing ethanol into carbon dioxide as the main reaction product. Other catalysts, by comparison, produce acetalhyde and acetic acid as the main products, which make them unsuitable for power generation.
Structural and electronic properties of the electrocatalyst were determined using x-ray absorption techniques at Brookhaven’s National Synchrotron Light Source, combined with data from transmission electron microscopy analyses at Brookhaven’s Center for Functional Nanomaterials.
Based on these studies and calculations, the researchers predict that the high activity of their ternary catalyst results from the synergy between all three constituents—platinum, rhodium, and tin dioxide—knowledge that could be applied to other alternative energy applications.
Next, the researchers will test the new catalyst in a real fuel cell in order to observe its characteristics first hand.
The work is supported by the Office of Basic Energy Sciences within DOE’s Office of Science.
Resources
A. Kowal, M. Li, M. Shao, K. Sasaki, M. B. Vukmirovic, J. Zhang, N. S. Marinkovic, P. Liu, A. I. Frenkel & R. R. Adzic (2009) Ternary Pt/Rh/SnO2 electrocatalysts for oxidizing ethanol to CO2. Nature Materials, doi: 10.1038/nmat2359
HaraYoshitaka Hara, Minoru Anai, Kazuyoshi Kamisugi, Shuji Hayase (2008) The high efficiency of a direct ethanol fuel cell having an oxide nanoparticle composite electrodes (Kyushu Institute of Technology)
Liquid energy carriers like ethanol are definitely much better than batteries because they can pack more energy per volume/weight. And fuel cells are way more efficient than ICE at converting chemical energy into mechanical energy.
But I have three problems with this approach:
1) platinum/rhodium are not exactly abundant elements, and very expensive; how much do you need for the catalytic reaction?
2) conversion from energy into ethanol it's no exactly immediate; you need biomass to produce it (with all the problems still associated with it)
3) fuel cells are more efficient than ICE but also waaay more expensive, so, why use them since ethanol can be used in ICE already?
Posted by: Alessio | 26 January 2009 at 09:09 AM
Direct ethanol fuel cells? Good. I like that. We need progress in fuel cells using ethanol or methanol not only as substitutes for the internal combustion engine in cars, but also for laptop computers, Blackberry and other personal digital assistants, and as sources of auxiliary power for trucks, cars, boats, et cetera.
And if we use ethanol more and more in fuel cells and engines, we'll also need progress in methods of breaking down cellulose into fermentable sugars, so we're not dependent on high-maintenance crops like corn for ethanol production.
Posted by: Alex Kovnat | 26 January 2009 at 10:18 AM
I'm dubious about this for all of the above reasons, and...
1. ethanol is hard to distribute with the current not-stainless-steel pipes that transport gasoline.
2. While a good fuel cell might be 60% efficient at converting ethanol to kinetic energy, batteries are ~90% efficient at converting electricity to kinetic energy --and electricity is much easier to distribute.
3. 1 acre of land covered with photovoltaic can produce far more miles of driving than 1 acre of land growing biomass for bioethanol. If you accept Nanosolar's numbers http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/?p=93 the difference is a factor of 54X. Even if those numbers are for ICE, if you substitute in fuel cells, it won't get better than 18X. BEV is massively more efficient from a well-to-wheels perspective.
Posted by: HealthyBreeze | 26 January 2009 at 10:44 AM
This is good; if you can use ethanol in a fuel cell it could increase the well-to-wheel efficiency to the point where it actually makes sense to use ethanol.
@Alessio
Currently almost every car produced has to have some platinum and rhodium in their catalytic converters to control emissions. A fuel cell car would burn so cleanly catalytic converters wouldn't be needed, so I assume we could just switch over the consumption of platinum/rhodium in the transport sector from one to the other.
However, because of the likely high cost, the fuel cells would have to be kept as small as possible; and be used to power the car through an intermediate storage system to even out the loads.
Posted by: ai_vin | 26 January 2009 at 10:58 AM
It still makes more sense to go BEVs but now we have an easy way to increase their range.
Posted by: ai_vin | 26 January 2009 at 11:04 AM
It sounds great - a liquid fueled fuel cell that runs off a biofuel that we are getting better and better at producing - what is not to like about that.
The answer is (or could be) the details - the efficiency and the cost / KW.
As people have pointed out, you could build very nice PHEVs with one of these.
A question might then be - what is the best combination of battery and fuel cell to best power a car - in terms of cost, range and performance.
Posted by: mahonj | 26 January 2009 at 01:35 PM
Many trips are unnecessary but contribute to our well being and peace of mind.
Drive only when absolutely necessary and just drink the ethnanol when the urge for a pleasure trip overcomes you.
Posted by: ToppaTom | 26 January 2009 at 04:00 PM
Heh, rrright: Save the planet by destroying your liver. :^(
Posted by: ai_vin | 26 January 2009 at 07:50 PM
industrial ethanol is denatured with just enough isopropyl to make you really, really sick.
Posted by: HealthyBreeze | 26 January 2009 at 08:15 PM
@HealthyBreeze: batteries do not convert electric energy to kinetic energy, the electric motor does, a battery convert chemical energy to electric energy.
The problems with batteries are the cost (too much), energy density (not enough) and the charging time (waay too much, the idea of swapping batteries is as viable as a whole society doing only with rental cars).
Posted by: Alessio | 27 January 2009 at 03:41 AM
@Healthy Breeze and the group:
If industrial ethanol has isopropanol in it for denaturing purposes, whats the octane rating?
Octane rating may not mean anything per se to a fuel cell but it does if you also plan to use it for engines like what we now have.
Posted by: Alex Kovnat | 27 January 2009 at 04:53 AM
Ethanol and methanol both have excellent octane ratings (like ~115, while pure iso-octane is 100).
Since methanol has a huge latent heat of vaporization, it makes an ideal racing fuel (cooler intake mixture = higher intake density and more "effective octane" = more hp).
I think isopropanol heat of vap is less but still much better than gasoline.
High octane allows more turbocharging.
High heat of vaporization (cooling) does also.
Together, even more.
Posted by: ToppaTom | 27 January 2009 at 05:42 PM
Umm. I meant that ETHANOL is still better than gasoline - and isopropanol is also so I doubt that minor dilution with isopropanol will have any effect.
Posted by: ToppaTom | 27 January 2009 at 05:59 PM