The Register® — Biting the hand that feeds IT

Feeds

American boffin touts sugar-fuelled mobile phones

Gadgetry to run on spuds, Coke, even dead flies

Cloud storage: Lower cost and increase uptime

Fuel-cell researchers are working on portable electric power sources running on a wide range of unconventional fuels, but like all academics they disagree.

Many have seen the future of fuel cells as a hydrogen-driven one. Hydrogen-fuelled devices offer at least one big advantage, in that they would emit only water vapour as a waste product. Thus they have been seen as a possible way ahead by some car manufacturers, seeking to replace fossil-fuelled internal combustion engines with fuel-cells driving electric motors. Others have chosen to fuel engines with hydrogen directly.

But hydrogen is dangerous stuff to keep about and takes a lot of power to produce cleanly. It doesn't eliminate the carbon issue of itself; that would require a source of carbon-free electricity.

An alternative approach is the use of biologically-sourced carbohydrate fuels such as alcohol. Using these in a fuel cell emits carbon dioxide into the atmosphere just like burning fossil fuel, but the plants from which the fuel is made absorbed carbon as they grew. Turning plants into fuel uses power, but theoretically at least this power could come from biofuel too.

If this could be achieved while still leaving enough farmland for people to actually eat as well, the power of the sun would be stored as nice portable liquid fuel in a miraculaously carbon-neutral way, largely by lovely growing plants rather than nasty heavy industry. (Actually there would still be a lot of smelly refineries, but pass on, pass on.)

Unsurprisingly, then, many ecologically-concerned scientists see biofuels as the way ahead. Indeed, the Guardian went so far today as to speculate that "sugar-powered batteries could be the renewable, eco-friendly power source the planet is gasping for." The agricultural lobby is of course only too happy at the idea of fresh revenues and subsidies, too, and would be happy to support such thinking.

The Guardian spoke to Shelly Minteer of St Louis University in Missouri, who reckons she's figured out a way to use simple sugar in fuel cells rather than refined alcohol. That should reduce the amount of energy needed to turn plants into fuel, and sugar is safer and easier to store even than alcohol. Minteer is big on safety; she told the Guardian that she'd worked on hydrogen-fuelled cells in the past but found it too worrying.

Minteer's technique involves using a layer of enzymes taken from bacteria and potatoes laid over the surface of her electrodes. The enzymes convert sugar to energy rather as living organisms do, leading Minteer to characterise her kit as a "biological fuel cell." She has apparently tried running it on soft drinks, but it does best on regular table sugar.

According to the Guardian the "main byproduct" of the cell is water, which begs the question of where all the carbon in the glucose is going. El Reg suspects that it might still be getting emitted as horrible old carbon dioxide; though of course this would be biofuel atmo-carbon rather than fossil, and hence righteous.

Minteer reckons she could have a sugar-powered mobile-phone charger out in a few years, though all she's managed to power so far is a calculator.

Customer Success Testimonial: Recovery is Everything

Latest Comments

"Nasty" nuclear?

Look at some of the newer designs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

In particular, note that there are no long-lived wastes. We could power the entire country for a year, and get less than a (small) room-full of waste; this would be harmless within 500 years.

0
0

Typical Yanks

'According to the MIT experts report (not your average "eco-hippies") there is more than enough geothermal energy to supply the US needs for the next two millenia using existing technology'

They'll take all the heat out of their rocks, let convection/conduction transfer more heat from the rest of world back to them and effectively use everybody else's heat too.

0
0

No it isn't

"But hydrogen is dangerous stuff to keep about "

Scaremongers the lot of you, are you in the pocket of the oil companies perhaps?

Hydrogen is no more, less probably, dangerous than petrol and petrol vapour and 22 times less explosive.

0
0

More from The Register

Boffins find evidence Atlantic Ocean has started closing
'Embryonic subduction zone' that flattened Lisbon headed for Blighty
Google launches broadband balloons, radio astronomy frets
A careless Loon could blind the square kilometre array
New material enables 1,000-meter super-skyscrapers
Before you read on, see if you can guess how the new stuff will be used
 breaking news
You've seen the Large Hadron Collider. Now comes the HUGE Hadron Collider
International Linear Collider ready to rock and roll
Headbangers have a gas, gas, gas in mosh pits
Boffins say heavy metal crowds behave like The Vapours
Hubble spies unlikely planet being born in hostile neighborhood
Hoovering a cloud of sand 7.5 billion miles from a tiny star
 breaking news
Jaguar to open new car-making factory in Blighty (virtually)
Britain still makes stuff, it's just not real any more...
 breaking news
China's second woman 'naut blasts off for coupling in HEAVEN
Wang and pals test the cosmic waters for Chinese space station
Scientists investigate 'dark lightning' threat to aircraft passengers
One stormy flight could give lifetime radiation dose
 breaking news
Chinese 'nauts prep for next coupling in Heaven, clear way for new station
Second woman taikonaut and pals test tech for China's own orbiting platform