Most applications currently being considered for methanol fuel cells are small handheld devices such as cell phones, PDAs, laptop computers, MP3 players. This is not very smart IMO since methanol is poisonous and is absorbed through the skin, causing blindness & death. Any leaks in a *handheld* device could cause this problem, and don't forget that some people bite their fingernails, suggesting that some people might accidentally ingest small amounts of methanol, in which case the poision would act much more swiftly! I like to look further ahead to potential automotive applications, since that is the ultimate goal anyway, and the more stringent performance requirements more readily demonstrate the shortfalls of direct methanol fuel cells.

You are partly correct about methane (natural gas) being a better fuel. Methane is higher energy per kilogram, however it is a gas. Compressed gas storage technology using aluminum-lined all-composite tanks achieve only 11.3 weight-percent storage capacity for natural gas (or hydrogen) at an internal pressure of 5000 psi. But compressed gases are dangerous - a leak will ignite causing the tank to *rocket* or *pinwheel* and even become airborne in a deadly dangerous manner - and the tanks are heavy. The massive tanks would increase the amount of fuel needed to bring the vehicle up to speed, also reduce cargo & passenger space, and increase the rolling resistance of the tires (more weight = more friction on the tires) leading to reduced overall range.

It would be better to use methanol rather than methane (natural gas). Methanol is a liquid, and the tanks are far lighter than the mass of fuel they can hold. That is why methanol is being looked at as a fuel for Direct Methanol Fuel Cells (DMFC). However since most methanol is made from natural gas, or alternatively from coal, it is a non-renewable fuel, and in spite of greater efficiency of the fuel cell in-and-of-itself the use of methanol fuel achieves nothing due to extra energy needed to manufacture methanol from natural gas. The same is true of nearly all the fuels suggested for fuel cells, such as compressed natural gas, methanol, compressed hydrogen, Borax (sodium borohydride), liquid hydrogen, etc. It would be just as efficient to use an internal combustion engine.

A Direct Liquid Ethanol Fuel Cell (DLEFC) has the same advantage of utilizing fuel tanks that hold many times their weight in fuel, and at the same time using a renewable, environmentally-friendly fuel to generate electricity to power an automobile, with the same or greater efficiency than the internal combustion engine. In addition to the weight savings of the storage tanks, an electrical vehicle saves even more weight by ridding itself of the mechanical drive system associated with cars that use the IC engine. An electric car has no drive train, no transmission, no axles, no steering or braking linkages. The only moving parts are the wheels and the suspension components. Indeed, if the fuel cell can burn either methanol or ethanol (becoming a Flexible Fuel Vehicle) then the advantages are vastly superior to any other system. Here is a list of the advantages of a car powered by a Direct Liquid Ethanol Fuel Cell:

- make full use of traditional refueling infrastructure
- use different fuel, possibly methanol depending on availability and price
- smooth transition to renewable fuel
- featherweight onboard fuel tanks
- double energy efficiency of internal combustion engine
- eliminate heavy mechanical components
- lower maintenance
- longer vehicle operating life
- super-lightweight vehicle construction possible
- fewer materials used in construction
- easier recycling
- super-low rolling resistance due to lightweight chassis
- extra interior volume
- more room for safety features
- more stylish vehicle designs
- more aerodynamic vehicle design
- quieter vehicle operation

In the short-term, the use of Direct Liquid Ethanol Fuel Cells (DLEFC) for handheld devices would also be far safer, since Ethanol is not lethally poisonous (it'll get you drunk if you consume sufficient quantities) and isn't absorbed through the skin, so a fuel leak from your laptop computer wouldn't soak through your pants and kill you on your way to a business meeting.

Yahoo press release July 1st 2002

Medis Technologies homepage and press release

This is a superior result IMO, even though the cost of fuel cells in general are not yet competitive. This general drawback w.r.t. all types of fuel cells might eventually change. In fact they might already be affordable for handheld electronics, since their electrical consumption is so minimal. Remember that lithium ion batteries got their start this way, and have been used extensively in a variety of products ranging from electronics to electric vehicles.