[FlamingCobra]

I stumbled across this about a year ago. It's a hydrogen fuel cell small enough to fit in your pocket and it has USB ports so you can recharge your electronic devices. I found a few websites that talked about it cited the price as $100. I eventually found the manufacturer's website and it simply said to contact the manufacturer directly for a price. I was unable to find any more information about it.

I was wondering if any of you guys had heard of it or could maybe dig up some consumer reviews, tell me if this is ligit, find more information on the product, etc.

[Qent]

Until fuel cells are supplied by a nuclear grid, you're better off carrying batteries. :/

[FlamingCobra]

But then you'd have carry different batteries for all your electronic devices and probably screwdrivers too. You might can switch out a cell phone's battery with your hands but you need a screw driver to open up a GBA SP/NDS.

And you can't open up an iPod nano. So it's not even possible to switch out the batteries on those.

[IronBeer]

Until fuel cells are supplied by a nuclear grid, you're better off carrying batteries. :/

Because we need to manufacture hydrogen, which requires a considerable energy input from fossil fuels.

[MarkN]

Fuel cells are generally more efficient than batteries, but you are unlikely to get a pocket fuel cell of the most efficient type as they do not reach peak efficiency until the temperature reaches 600 deg C or so. Other problems include storage of the hydrogen, where you have three options:
1) store as a gas. this leaks, ignites if the container gets too hot, and you need a lot of volume.
2) store as a liquid. This will explode on contact with air, requires cryogenic temperatures, and high pressures, which makes that tank heavy.
3)Store dissolved in a solid. this is probably the best option, and is the option used by the prototype hydrogen cars. However, while the hydrogen partial pressure is very low, making it less explosive than most hydrocarbon fuels, and the concentration of dissolved hydrogen is very high, meaning that the fuel tank can be small, the only two options are dissolved in a metal, which is very heavy, or dissolved in carbon nanotubes which are expensive.

When you add the fact that we do not currently have a system for the distribution of hydrogen, you are much better off with a Li-ion or Li-poly battery pack of the same size

[Rodo]

hydrogen fuel cells?

+1 step closer to the Terminator 

[Dragon]

Could you post a link to the manufacturer's website?
While this could be possible, I doubt it's cheap enough to be better than a normal battery.
And regarding carrying a screwdriver around, it's a good idea anyway, especially if you have pockets to spare (military uniforms are great for that). You newer know when you'll need one.

[FlamingCobra]

This is an article about it:
http://www.gizmag.com/at-last-an-affordable-portable-pocket-size-fuel-cell/15425/

This is the product on the manufacturer's website:
http://www.horizonfuelcell.com/store/minipak.htm

And here's a page on the manufacturer's website that discusses the MiniPak and a hydrogen canister refiller that you can use in your home:
http://www.horizonfuelcell.com/electronics.htm

The last link also gives links to order forms and brochure guides for each product.

The MiniPak is indeed $100, and each hydrogen canister (Hydrostik) is $10. The refilling station is $500.

I still don't know about any consumer reviews.

[Dragon]

Very interesting. I wonder what the price usually is.
They also have a whole slew of other fuel cell based power supply systems.
Sounds really promising.

[FlamingCobra]

Better than batteries?

[Scourge of Ages]

When they say batteries would be better, it means you might have better luck with something like this:
http://www.amazon.com/Duracell-Instant-Charger-Lithium-universal/dp/B002FU6KF2
It's a Lithium-Ion battery that you can use to recharge anything with a USB cable. $20 and rechargeable. Also a very safe technology.

[Nuke]

Until fuel cells are supplied by a nuclear grid, you're better off carrying batteries. :/

Because we need to manufacture hydrogen, which requires a considerable energy input from fossil fuels.

you know thats not the only way to make hydrogen?

nuclear reactors are somewhat known for creating hydrogen as a byproduct. there's always electrolysis of seawater, powered by renewables/nuclear.

[Qent]

I was thinking of nuclear->electrolysis, actually. But either way you need more nuclear.

[MP-Ryan]

I love how the home refilling station is $500 and bills itself as just using water and electricity.

I think they forgot to mention the [****-load] in front of the word electricity.

Electrolysis isn't exactly an efficient process.  You probably burn through a lot more power just using and filling this thing than replacing batteries in your devices, charging them in a car or convenient wall outlet, or at worst (if camping or something equally detached from a convenient source of power) using a small efficient gasoline generator or solar kit.

It's a gimmick.

I was thinking of nuclear->electrolysis, actually. But either way you need more nuclear.

Talk about ways to make efficient energy-generation massively inefficient =)

[Qent]

Yeah, I'm not too worried about that though. However you do it will be reflected in the relative prices of electricity off the grid, batteries, and fuel cells, unless there's some stupid government subsidy like right now.

[Nuke]

when considering generation of hydrogen through electrolysis, think of hydrogen as energy storage and not as an energy source. and then compare that with current battery technology to see which is more efficient.

i read the other day that many types of nuclear reactors produce hydrogen as a fission byproduct. im not sure how much or if it could be safely used (free of radioactive impurities). im hoping one of our nuclear experts would clarify this for me so i dont have to look it up again. if this idea is viable it would definitely be another pro for building more nuclear reactors.

[Scourge of Ages]

if this idea is viable it would definitely be another pro for building more nuclear reactors.

Of course you would say that, Nuke

[Al-Rik]

Fuel cells are generally more efficient than batteries, but you are unlikely to get a pocket fuel cell of the most efficient type as they do not reach peak efficiency until the temperature reaches 600 deg C or so. Other problems include storage of the hydrogen, where you have three options:
1) store as a gas. this leaks, ignites if the container gets too hot, and you need a lot of volume.
2) store as a liquid. This will explode on contact with air, requires cryogenic temperatures, and high pressures, which makes that tank heavy.
3)Store dissolved in a solid.

4.) Store as a simple chemical compound like Methane, Methanol or Formic Acid, and set the Hydrogen free by a reaction prior the reaction in the fuel cell.

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

Generally most fuel cells in development are using very expensive materials like metals of the Platin Group as catalyst and ion-sensitive Membranes - making the whole thing very expensive.

IMHO fuel cells won't beat the internal combustion engine  in the near future for traffic purposes or lithium ion batteries for electronics.
Lithium Ion Technology is still cheaper, and Ethanol or LPGs Fuels can also be generated from renewable resources (even better than Hydrogen).

The main benefit for Ethanol as fuel is the possibility to use the actual infrastructure like gas stations, and most modern cars can burn it with a little refit.

[Akalabeth Angel]

The reason fuel cells aren't being adopted so far as I understand it, having spoken to someone who is writing their doctorate on fuel cells, is because they require platinum as a catalyst in some sort of chemical reaction. And platinum, being expensive, obviously limits their economic feasibility. Most corporations dealing with fuel cells are thereby in a race to find a suitable and much more cost-effective substitute for platinum.