|
Wednesday September 26, 2007
|
Worried about volatile chemicals being brought on planes? Well, at least one kind could be cleared for travel: methanol fuel cells to repower computer laptops. According to the Federal Register (summary statement here, text/.PDF file here) a proposal by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) within the
Department of Transportation (DOT) would make methanol fuel cells, like butane lighters, usable within the airplane cabin. But there are restrictions, of course -- one rather interesting one, in fact.
First off, it's worth pointing out that fuel cells are still a prototype technology, at least where laptops are concerned. However, fuel cells have been used in transportation, while companies like IBM (before its laptops were sold to Lenovo) experimented with Sanyo in building fuel cells into laptops. This story about Microsoft getting into the market, has been debunked (by Microsoft), unfortunately for the startup that touted itself as a partner.
In any event, the DOT proposal looks specifically at fuel cells that:
- do not exceed 240 volts or 60 watts;
- may include formic acid (used as a fuel by Tekion, which hopes to have a small fuel-cell powering laptops out in the fourth quarter of 2007);
- would be manufactured to a federally mandated "no leak" standard;
- and be labeled as ''APPROVED FOR CARRIAGE IN AIRCRAFT CABIN ONLY'' by the manufacturer.
The DOT proposal also specifies that passengers be prohibited from topping up the fuel cells while on the plane. Well, duh. But how users will actually recharge those fuel cells has yet to be determined. What happens when some jet-lagged businessman decides to uncork a bottle of methanol in first class? Is that even probable? Ingestion (breathing?) even small amounts of methanol can cause blindness, but it's difficult to say how serious this is.
In some sense, though, that's missing the point. Read the last restriction again. So now, innocuous gels/liquids/shampoos are deemed too hazardous to bring inside the airplane cabin, but a known volatile liquid (however safe it may be) is required to be stored inside your carryon baggage? I'm not criticizing the technology here, but I have a feeling that that this DOT logic is going to be questioned repeatedly by frazzled flyers.
|
|
|
Mixx It
Digg It
Stumble
More...
September 27, 2007 7:56 PM
I think fuel cells are a dangerous option on airplanes; as they could provide the power on the aircraft? In fact all computers should be barred on aircraft; as you never know what is inside them.
September 27, 2007 11:05 PM
I love the smell of methanol. Whats' wrong with that.
September 28, 2007 8:52 AM
As a representative of the global methanol industry, let me try an address some of the questions raised in this article. First off, methanol fuel cartridges have to meet rigorous international safety standards, as cited in the DOT rulemaking notice. You can not "uncork" a methanol fuel cartridge, they are designed and tested to ensure that the consumer has absolutely no ability to have any contact with the methanol fuel. Again, as cited in the DOT notice, these tests include: pressure differential, vibration, temperature cycling, high temperature exposure, drop, compression loading, connection cycling, external short circuit, and long-term storage.
Methanol fuel cell systems will be safer than the all-battery systems they are replacing. Remember Dell's recall of 4.1 MILLION laptop batteries that had a nagging problem of overheating and catching on fire.
To "recharge" your fuel cell-powered laptop computer you will simply pop out the old methanol fuel cartridge and pop in a fresh one. A hot-swap, no need to power down. And, more importanly, no need to start wandering around an airport looking for a free outlet to plug in.
Finally, the DOT logic is simple. If you are on a 14 hour flight from New York to Tokyo, and you have an important business presentation to work on with you laptop, you can have one methanol fuel cartridge in the device when you walk on the plane. You can also carry two spare cartridges in your briefcase, although one may be sufficient for just a short 14-hour hop. And those spare cartridges will only cost a couple of bucks apeice.
Oh, and you will have to put those spare methanol cartridges in a quart-size, zip-top plastic bag. Right next to your other innocuous containers of gels/liquids/shampoos, which actually are allowed in the passenger cabin, if less than 3-ounces.
October 9, 2007 8:42 AM
Regardless of how many safety tests have been performed to show how the device should withstand "normal" abuse, I refuse to believe that this is safer than a bottle of shampoo. I guess the soap industry needs to start stamping their products with "APPROVED FOR CARRIAGE IN AIRCRAFT CABIN ONLY." This is just another episode of Security Theater.
October 9, 2007 8:49 AM
In answer to Greg Dolan, if I have to drop my methanol cells off at a 'fueling station' to refill them, I'm not sure I want one. Moreover, you *know* some enterprising young person is going to pop one open to see how it works, and to avoid the (undoubtedly exorbitant) refueling fees which will be charged. And where will your safety be then? (You have to recharge them, so it won't be all that difficult to open them, 'consumer' or not).
One of your several errors is that you assume the 'consumer' is a dolt, and cannot do the highly technical things you do. Engineering knowhow is widespread, and methods devised to frustrate 'tampering' are invitations to tamper.
October 9, 2007 4:46 PM
Thomas: I wouldn't anticipate the use of 'fueling stations' and 'refueling fees' as you describe. It seems more likely that you would buy the cartridges over the counter, and either throw them away when empty or return them for a deposit.
Can you comment either way Greg?
October 9, 2007 6:37 PM
Since this has picked up a few comments in the past few days, I should make clear that I agree with Greg and the other posters who note that there won't be a "bottle" of methanol to refuel the cells. It was a bit of hyperbole on my part. On the other hand, there are home refill kits for printer ink. Is it possible that some Asian firm is going to try to supply a methanol refueling kit? Yeah, I can imagine that, health issues or not.
Which leads me to my point: the industry needs to do a better job communicating how refueling will work (besides comments to gadget blogs). As hydrogen-powered vehicles and electric cars have proven, developing the technology (i.e. the electric motor or fuel-cell components) is the technical problem.
The larger problem, in my mind, is cultural: how do you persuade the populace to buy these? When you start thinking _that_ through, you realize that it is the refueling infrastructure that's as much of an issue as the technology itself. Again, communicating this information is going to be an important piece of the puzzle.
In keeping with that, I think "No Common Sense" summed it up quite well: I have a hard time believing that some CEO who knows his way around a spreadsheet but not a laptop may consider "refuelling" his laptop on board a plane. And I'm having an even harder time understanding how a known toxic substance can be allowed onto a plane.
I'm as suspicious as anyone about Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol), but if a.) methanol vapor (or liquid) is toxic, and if b.) fetal tissue will not tolerate methanol and c.) I'm sitting in a closed cabin at 35,000 feet for several hours -- well, that bothers me, even if a fatal dose is 125 ml or so.