Splitting water: Daniel Nocera poses with a device for breaking down water into hydrogen and oxygen. The device uses an inexpensive catalyst that he has developed.
Donna Coveney, MIT
Researchers have found a cheap and easy way to store the energy made by solar power.
Researchers have made a major advance in inorganic chemistry that could lead to a cheap way to store energy from the sun. In so doing, they have solved one of the key problems in making solar energy a dominant source of electricity.
Daniel Nocera, a professor of chemistry at MIT, has developed a catalyst that can generate oxygen from a glass of water by splitting water molecules. The reaction frees hydrogen ions to make hydrogen gas. The catalyst, which is easy and cheap to make, could be used to generate vast amounts of hydrogen using sunlight to power the reactions. The hydrogen can then be burned or run through a fuel cell to generate electricity whenever it's needed, including when the sun isn't shining.
Solar power is ultimately limited by the fact that the solar cells only produce their peak output for a few hours each day. The proposed solution of using sunlight to split water, storing solar energy in the form of hydrogen, hasn't been practical because the reaction required too much energy, and suitable catalysts were too expensive or used extremely rare materials. Nocera's catalyst clears the way for cheap and abundant water-splitting technologies.
Nocera's advance represents a key discovery in an effort by many chemical research groups to create artificial photosynthesis--mimicking how plants use sunlight to split water to make usable energy. "This discovery is simply groundbreaking," says Karsten Meyer, a professor of chemistry at Friedrich Alexander University, in Germany. "Nocera has probably put a lot of researchers out of business." For solar power, Meyer says, "this is probably the most important single discovery of the century."
The new catalyst marks a radical departure from earlier attempts. Researchers, including Nocera, have tried to design molecular catalysts in which the location of each atom is precisely known and the catalyst is made to last as long as possible. The new catalyst, however, is amorphous--it doesn't have a regular structure--and it's relatively unstable, breaking down as it does its work. But the catalyst is able to constantly repair itself, so it can continue working.
In his experimental system, Nocera immerses an indium tin oxide electrode in water mixed with cobalt and potassium phosphate. He applies a voltage to the electrode, and cobalt, potassium, and phosphate accumulate on the electrode, forming the catalyst. The catalyst oxidizes the water to form oxygen gas and free hydrogen ions. At another electrode, this one coated with a platinum catalyst, hydrogen ions form hydrogen gas. As it works, the cobalt-based catalyst breaks down, but cobalt and potassium phosphate in the solution soon re-form on the electrode, repairing the catalyst.
The DOE funds a research center aimed at making artificial photosynthesis practical.
With catalysts created by an MIT chemist, sunlight can turn water into hydrogen. If the process can scale up, it could make solar power a dominant source of energy.
Hopefully this is a real advance, we'll be needing it ... and the real way to "win" the war on terror is to get off of oil.
But, apparently he splits oxygen and also produces hydrogen ions. It's unclear what this means. Does the process produce:
Two H^+
H_3O^+
other?
Depending on the exact output, this process is more or less useful.
Once this technology becomes widespread, we're going to run out of drinking water!
Even without this breakthough, we are running out of drinking water. Kevin, can this work on sea water?
Dr. Nocera says that the system is flexible--it can be adapted to work with water that has different impurities. It looks likely, he says, that it could be made to work with sea water.
Thanks! Working on non drinkable water is very important as the water ecosystem services get close to depletion. That way the biofuels vs. food story is not repeated.
If I'm right, we do not have to worry about our water supplies since the system described here does not use any water! Yes, water molecules are being split into protons and oxygen molecules in the process, but as soon as you extract the energy stored in the form of oxygen and hydrogen, you will get all the water back as well.
If it did not work on seawater it could power the desalinization process.
Desalination is improving, but it seems to me that is still a very energy intensive proposition.
Isn't any water lost in the electrolysis process regained when the hydrogen is run through a fuel cell? This could theoretically increase the supply of drinking water by using non-potable water as the input and the ultimate output being pure water.
im so worry about the source of energy that becomes the water, if the water today is a precius resource and is so scarce, if it is used as a source of power what would happen with us, all of us know the hungry of energy of this planet, rigth now there problems with the biodiesel, etc,that put the foods in the clouds, what would happen with the water when this discovery becomes commercial?
This is not artificial photosynthesis
The article is misleading and implies that this discovery is artificial photosynthesis. But its really just an improved electrolysis electrode. Its cool, but its a far cry from solar power.
i am often irritated by articles in tech review that hype discoveries so much. This article is a good example.
Re: This is not artificial photosynthesis
No, not yet. Coincidently, I was pondering this in the car today! What catalyst (or any substance) when added to water exposed to sunlite, will produce cheaper hydrogen gas than possible using other electrolysis. Thats all.
Re: This is not artificial photosynthesis
Indeed, this is nowhere near artificial photosynthesis. The headlines seems to suggest that the catalyst, when added to water, will allow the set-up to absorb sunlight and produce O2 directly. This discovery, while a great one, is an improvement towards electrolysis rather than solar power! Very misleading article.
Re: This is not artificial photosynthesis
Kevin,
Perhaps your readers would be interested in watching a 10-minute video about the Nocera-Kanan discovery. It's the pilot for a project called Chemical Explorers, a series of Internet videos about interesting developments in modern chemistry. Because it's intended for a general audience, it doesn't go into the kind of technical detail that some of the earlier posts do. But it does allow viewers to hear directly from the two chemists behind this discovery, it shows the cobalt catalyst in action, and it tells the interesting story of how the discovery came about. The video can be watched at the following site:
http://chemicalexplorers.blip.tv/#1150780
SteveL
Re: This is not artificial photosynthesis
Please read the second page, including the paragraph that lays out clearly how this advance contributes to the goal of achieving artificial photosynthesis.
Re: This is not artificial photosynthesis
Indeed. The article appears to be either the work of a crank or of the information being filtered through someone who lacked any understanding of what was being done. Presumably the latter, but the subject's full of the former, and the author does Nocera no favors by giving such a confused and vague description.
Electrolysis is not a difficult way to store energy, but it is inefficient largely due to more energy being imparted at the electrode surfaces to neutralize H+ and O-- ions and recombine them into H2 and O2 than is stored in the products, due to an energy threshold that must be reached to make the reaction possible. The oxygen has the higher losses due to the nature of its chemical bonds...in water, it is bonded to two hydrogen atoms, while each hydrogen is bonded only to a single oxygen atom, and in O2, it has a double bond compared to the single bond in H2. It sounds as though they have created a catalyst that reduces the minimum energy required to do this, or perhaps to use the energy being released from recombining O2 molecules to push others over the threshold. This catalyst is unlikely to be at all useful in developing one that does the same for hydrogen, but reducing losses at the oxygen-producing electrode (the anode) will still make the cell as a whole more efficient at making hydrogen, and there is less to gain by doing the same on the hydrogen side anyway.
But anyway...this isn't at all revolutionary for power leveling, only for electrolytically producing hydrogen. There are already numerous far more efficient and higher-capacity methods for storing up energy for later use, including things like flywheel and pumped water energy storage. The bigger issues with solar are the inefficiency and the resulting monetary *and environmental* costs of the giant solar panel farms.
Re: This is not artificial photosynthesis
AFAIK, I agree that there are many candidates for storing energy, and as with the generation, there is a horse race going on as to which is the clear winner. (Correct me if I am wrong, and the optimal storage solution has been found).
What is the efficiency of this conversion process? How does it do better than any of the other promising finds?
The previous article using dyed plates as waveguides/concentrators still sounds much more promising...IF the efficiency is good.
I should add - I have read that the efficiency for hydro storage is poor, but it can certainly store a large amount.
Re: This is not artificial photosynthesis
Also,
What environmental costs are there for very large solar farms?
Is it anywhere close to the costs for any of the other solutions?
Re: This is not artificial photosynthesis
Cobalt based catalysts have been used for decades in the electrolysis of water. Their oxygen evolution activity is thousand times higher in alkaline solution than what Kanan and Nocera report for neutral water (1 mA/cm2 at an overvoltage of 0.41 V). Still, the efficiency of splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis is only around 70%. The efficiency of storing hydrogen at high pressure is about 90% (only 70% if hydrogen is liquefied). Fuels cells, which convert hydrogen back into electricity, are about 40% efficient under practical conditions. Hence, the overall efficiency of storing (solar) electricity as hydrogen is 0.7 * 0.9 * 0.4 = 25%. By comparison, lithium batteries are more than 80% efficient in storing electricity.
Kanan and Nocera propose to store solar energy directly by splitting water with an artificial photosynthetic system (photoelectrochemical cell) instead of having separate solar cells for electricity generation and water electrolysers for hydrogen production. The idea is certainly attractive, but it faces serious difficulties in practice.
First of all the current densities and hence gas evolution rates of photoelectrodes in sunlight are hundred times lower than in an electrolyser. The highly diffusive and volatile hydrogen has to be separated from oxygen (by a membrane that conducts protons) and collected over the whole surface of the solar array. The water consumed by splitting has to be replenished and mixed with electrolyte salts for electrical conductivity.
Water splitting requires theoretically a voltage of 1.23 V at 25 C, practically about 1.8 V due to overvoltage losses. To produce this voltage with visible light at least two photosystems have to be connected in series, as plants have been doing for billion years with photosystems I and II.
To summarize: you need at least two illuminated electrodes connected to catalysts for hydrogen and oxygen evolution, separated by a membrane, bathing in an aqueous electrolyte that is continuously renewed and a system to collect the hydrogen without mixing it with oxygen. The distance between the electrodes has to be kept very short (a few millimetres) in order to limit ohmic resistance losses in the electrolyte. And the whole has to be stable under sunlight and heat for many years…
Isn’t it much easier and more practical to connect a field of photovoltaic panels, which are optimized for solar energy conversion, to a compact electrolyser that is optimized for hydrogen generation? But, as mentioned above, electricity is by far more efficiently stored in batteries. And if you just want to store solar energy during the night the storage of heat in solar thermal power plants is the cheapest and most efficient solution.
Re: This is not artificial photosynthesis
OK, so the comparison of efficiency is 25% to 80%. So this system becomes economically viable if the cost to build, maintain, etc. is 25%/80% = 31.25% over a period of time. So what are the comparative costs?
An argument about effiency has to include a cost-benefit analysis to carry the argument to its logical conclusion for the purpose of identifying if this has economic legs.
Re: This is not artificial photosynthesis
Add to this lack of efficiency the fact that a mole of hydrogen (2 grams) occupies 22.4 Liters of space (assuming process works at atmospheric pressure). Compressing hydrogen to any usable pressure for transport or storage for later use requires further energy, which is very large since compressing the light gas is not easy. Further, fuel cells are only 52% efficient, at best, so off the top, electricity generated at such a heavy (PV Capital)cost is discounted by a huge amount for storage. It may be a technical chemical feat towards the mimicking of photosynthesis, but from the data provided, certainly not a useful and economically viable one for power storage. maybe good to make sugar and carbohydrates from CO2 and sunlight as a next step....Aah! that will be the next news release. Scientists sequester CO2 to make sugar......Many of these impractical lab efforts get more hype and attention than practical, economically viable smaller steps towards solving the world's energy problems. The media, unfortunately gobbles up and is only looking for (hype about) earth shattering discoveries, and it is a shame most of the prestigious institutions fall prey to such tactics, perhaps to impress alumni, donors, research grant decision makers, etc.
Re: This is not artificial photosynthesis
Oh My God.
An analogue to Ice9. Put some put some magic pixie catalyst dust, in the Ocean and watch it all dissociate and just ...DISAPPEAR!
Re: This is not artificial photosynthesis
They leave out the efficiency of converting electricity to hydrogen. If the percentage is small, the whole discussion could be meaningless.
It seems like this may be a nice scientific break through, but Meyer's claim that "this is probably the most important single discovery of the century" seems a little overly sensationalist
A couple questions:
1. Wouldn't creating H2 and O2 then recombining them in a fuel cell be way less efficient (and more expensive) than just using batteries? Good fuel cells are typically less than 60% efficient at generating power. So if we assume that the dr's process is 90% efficient and that the power electronics to regulate the voltage both to the Dr's device and then from the fuel cell to the outlet are each 95% efficient then you get .9*.6*.95*.95 = .49. You lose about half your energy! If on the other hand you use batteries that should easily be able to get 90% efficiency on charge and discharge (depending on the chemistry and charge/discharge rate this could be quite a bit higher), and you assume the same losses for the power electronics .9*.9*.95*.95 = 73%. 73% is much better than 49% and you eliminate the need for all those expensive storage tanks and fuel cells.
2. If you have access to a fuel cell anyway, couldn't you just run it in reverse to separate the H2 and O2? Perhaps the idea is that a reversible fuel cell would be more expensive that the combination of the Dr's device and a more conventional fuel cell. For a paper on a reversible fuel cell with round trip efficiency of ~50%, see link below: http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2006/TM-2006-214054.pdf
Your questions are sensible, but the photosynthesis focused research produces energy without any noticeable costs (if I understood the article properly). Of course there is the machine manufacturing cost that harnesses the energy from the sun, but then it uses a catalyst that reforms itself ('heals itself' according to the article).
On the other hand your figures are based on extensive refinement to fuel cell technologies. This technology is still a new breakthrough and it is logical to expect it to evolve into becoming more efficient than current day fuel cells in my own opinion.
Also since there is a one time cost of manufacturing the apparatus that collects Hydrogen and Oxygen and then the catalyst is self-healing, you can think of it as free energy in a way.
Excuse me but you are missing something in your equation, the efficiency of the power generator/converter.
In the first equation you have the artificial photosynthesis efficiency but you do not include the efficiency of current solar cells producing electricity (or the efficiency of any other power generating device).
If you set up your equation properly with all the parts you would have seen this. Units have to balance.
The replacement cost of batteries is a huge factor as the other respondent points out. Just to replace the lithium ion batteries in those new cars costs hundreds of dollars and must be paid every 4 years or so.
A benefit of making H2 and later putting it into a fuel cell (instead of just using a battery for storage) is transportability. Moving a battery to where you want to use the electricity is a non-trivial exercise.
The problem with plug-in hybrids is the length of time it takes to recharge their batteries. A fuel cell vehicle can "recharge" in the same time as a gasoline vehicle.
Note that a couple of months ago, in this space, there was a discussion of a company trying to implement a battery-swap-station system for overcoming this extended recharge problem.
Moving hydrogen to where you want to use the electricity is a non-trivial exercise with losses that will always be bigger (by entropy) than advanced batteries.
Hydrogen as an energy carrier is a total loser.
Its all interesting and hopeful.
However, this year I have probably read of a dozen
or so breathroughs regarding our energy problems.
Later, there appear to have been serious difficulties of one kind or another.
So sometimes, they hype gets ahead of the reality.
I hope thats not the case here.
I also hope it's a breakthrough. Researchers are like baseball players they make homeruns, but also strike out. What's needed is that they keep taking tunrs at bat. At some point the solar home run is bound to come.
To increase the incentives for researchers to take turns at bat, I have suggested to take down the barriers on the development of the resources of the demand side, as follows:
The electric power industry regulations have a strong barrier to the development of the resources of the demand side. For any solar power breakthrough to be integrated to power system planning, operation and control a new market architecture and design is required to eliminate said barrier.
The article is a good contribution to TR readers about one of the most important kinds of uncertain generation.
A scenario I was thinking (and I'm sure many, many others) is to make the US's SW desert our new 'solar Saudi Arabia'. CA, AZ, NM would be the 'have' states. Distribution of electricity to the rest of the country, and manufacture of synthetic fuel on site (which gets shipped to rest of the continent).
Given the hurdle(s) you've described, how bleak is the outlook for something like that?
I agree, make sure to add Nevada to solar sink. This needs to be a project the size of the Interstate Highway system. We shouldn't wait until the perfect solar technology system is developed. Whoever is President next, should tackle this project make it WWIII in scope and intensity. This would quickly cure the oil speculators, starve the Middle East and take them out of the equations. The US should lead the technology and throw everything we have at the project. A project of this size stimulate the economy and give us something "real" in return. The environmental wackos would need to get out of the way. There will be room for the wildlife and I'm certain some species might even find life better.
Kevin,
Is there a reason why the following was taken out of my post
... The EWPC article Uncertain Generation is Here to Stay takes the idea into the context of the Third Industrial Revolution. . . . . . . With regard to solar distributed generation, please read the EWPC article Nanosolar Breakthrough and the Old Paradigm. Research for scheduling and integrating ... solar power to power systems planning, operations and control, will be part of the next stages. . . . . . . To understand what to do first in the wider, and highly uncertain, legislative and regulatory context, TR readers should consider reading the EWPC article Leadership Answers What to do First, whose summary is "The answer to the question of what to do first is for the global power industry to get out of the wrong jungle to produce a EWPC based EPAct as soon as possible. That is the kind of leadership needed to face the inevitable fundamental changes required to significantly reduce today’s legislative and regulatory uncertainty."
Please let me know,
Thank you,
José Antonio
Nowadays people are conscious of individuals effects on Earth sustainability. This makes the new discovery amazing. Although I got really surprised with this discovery, I am really afraid energy companies that use petroleum and other cheap (at least for the moment) resources will try to postpone the application of such technology. They show themselves as good guys, but what they really want is to earn a lot of money. I really hope this doesn't happen, and it's just my imagination.
i don't see any advantave as against conventional water electrolysis in cost and materials. Besides Solar electricity can be as cheap as 1 cent per kwh
(see http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/tag/analysis)
There's one huge logistical problem
The places where Solar installations make the most sense are places where water is available least.
This will so negatively affect cost of operation that I imagine that it will be very limited to the few places where it makes sense to deploy it.
Though I do hope for the best, I'm remembering the great number of "Solar Breakthroughs" that, though they seemed to be fabulous ideas, never made it past the demonstration stage.
Re: There's one huge logistical problem
There is an immense opportunity implementing solar on rooftops. So if your home has water your good to go.
Re: There's one huge logistical problem
"There is an immense opportunity implementing solar on rooftops."
It would seem that Southern California Edison has embarked on doing just that:
Click for article
Southern California Edison Launches Nation's Largest Solar Panel
Installation
March 27, 2008
Southern California Edison (SCE) today launched the nation's
largest solar cell installation, a project that will place 250
megawatts of advanced photovoltaic generating technology on 65
million square feet of roofs of Southern California commercial
buildings - enough power to serve approximately 162,000 homes.
"These are the kinds of big ideas we need to meet California's
long-term energy and climate change goals," said Governor
Schwarzenegger. "I urge others to follow in their footsteps. If
commercial buildings statewide partnered with utilities to put
this solar technology on their rooftops, it would set off a huge
wave of renewable energy growth."
"This project will turn two square miles of unused commercial
rooftops into advanced solar generating stations," said John E.
Bryson, Edison International chairman and CEO. "We hope to have
the first solar rooftops in service by August. The sunlight power
will be available to meet our largest challenge - peak load
demands on the hottest days."
SCE's renewable energy project was prompted by recent advances in
solar technology that reduce the cost of installed photovoltaic
gen...
No offense, but the 100% efficiency claim is snake oil. Reaction of H2 with O reduces entropy by reduction of gas molecules (O comes in O2 only), and as a result, even perfectly efficient catalysis cannot approach 100% efficiency. By a long run, actually. With perfect thermodynamic efficiency, they could get around 80%. Much less if you factor in the compressor and other parasitic system losses that are need in the elecrolysis system.
I was under the impression that the MIT people understood the definition of entropy. Clearly I was wrong. I'm very disappointed now.
Nocera has been quoted in other publications (e.g., eetimes) hyping 100% efficiency. As you'll see in the linked article, the non-expert writer laps that up. But Nocera's quote is "In fact, with our catalyst almost 100 percent of the current used for electrolysis goes into making oxygen and hydrogen." A clear case of shameless hype. In any electrolyzer, almost 100% of the current goes into making oxygen and hydrogen. It is the unavoidable overvoltage that cuts the net energy efficiency dramatically. So maybe his catalyst makes that a bit better, but he likes to leave that 100% impression, knowing full well that this 100% is achieved even in the most primitive electrolyzers kids build for their high school science projects.
Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say they've got an 80% efficient (HHV) system. They would need a perfect compressor for that (and even then it's generous).
Now, fuel cells are basically elecrolysers in reverse. So let's give them a generous 80% theoretical efficiency too.
Let's even take a very generous total compression and other parasitic losses of 20%.
This is probably more generous than the fundamental thermodynamic limits allow, and even then almost half of the energy is wasted. So even theoretically, hydrogen is still lossy. In practice losses are about twice that, and it's advancing only very slowly in real world testing.
Hydrogen energy storage doesn't work. Let it be MIT...
siphon, are you being stupid? nowhere was there a claim of 100% efficiency. we all know that is impossible. i could bet the researchers have gone through basic thermodynamics course (may even have wrote a textbook or two) to know that.
No you are stupid. In fact so stupid that you couldn't read the post above with the Eetimes link. And lazy too - you didn't even bother
to google for it.
You're lazy, stupid and insulting. At least I'm only the latter.
The researchers have either been misquoted (I hope this is the case) or they really do not understand the definition of entropy. I really, really hope it's a misquote, but even then Nocera must realize the implications of low system efficiency, as this is related to entropy. This is the crux of the problem with hydrogen energy storage, and it's a killer for large scale market penetration.
Hydrogen has it's uses: rocket fuel, chemical feedstock. An energy carrier is not part of this list.
Hydrogen is absolutely not viable for residential storage. This has to be a commercial endeavor. The EEstor ultracapacitor, if it comes to realization, would be a dream come true. Very little infrastructure would be needed. Weight and Size would be greatly reduced.
Has anyone considered large scale, municipal sized ultracapacitor installations? If I've got it right, none of the materials are rare, and there is no reason that an ultracapacitor cannot be scaled up arbitrarily large.
Current ultracapacitors have nowhere near the energy density of other load leveling technologies like pumped hydroelectric or flywheel storage. They can be charged and discharged quickly (though more slowly than other capacitors), but really can not store much energy. They have enormous capacitances compared to other technologies, but extremely limited voltages, and since energy stored is given by 0.5*C*V^2...a 10 farad capacitor charged to 2.5 V stores only 32.25 joules, enough to give a bit over half a watt of power for one minute. A 0.1 microfarad capacitor at 25 kV stores the same amount of energy...this is a voltage that is commonly exceeded by color CRT monitors.
That's why nobody's seriously considered it yet. EEStor is doing something entirely different, though. Rather than building electrolytic capacitors with carbon aerogel electrodes to get the high capacitance, they are building high voltage capacitors with bariam titanate ceramics, using high purity materials with some special processing techniques to achieve both high capacitance and high operating voltages. They have not yet released a working product or, to my knowledge, even demonstrated a working prototype, but they've apparently impressed Lockheed Martin...hopefully they've got something.
Whether it'd be possible to scale it up for load balancing of grid power is another issue. It requires high purity barium titanate, which is not rare, but not overwhelmingly plentiful or cheap either. And again, there's alternatives like pumped water, flywheel, and thermal storage that are in current use and can be scaled up to very high capacities.
Storing and moving pure hydrogen is prone to problems - leakage, low energy density, etc. I have not seen anyone suggest taking this apparent low-cost way of making hydrogen and using that as input to a sabatier reaction which combines H2 with C02 to produce CH4. Sabatier as I understand it is a well known easy reaction. Combined we now have a way to make carbon-neutral 'natural' gas. And that we have infrastructure for distributing and storing already, without the problems of pure hydrogen.
Just an idea.
...darth
So why not just connect your hydrogen producing solar-powered system to the tank of your hydrogen car? If the system is inexpensive to build, maintain, etc., but large storage at home is a problem, why not just install it for your vehicle at home? No more gas stations...
This is an open question from a non-engineer...
Can this break-through catalytic process be used to reduce the cost of fuel cells? The other half of the equation.
Renewable Energy Centre, Mithradham (www.mithradham.org )is the first fully solar educational instituion in India dedicated for the promotion of environment and renewable energy technologies. Our centre is working with solar energy for the last 9 years. The solar system is a stand alone system. We are using a gel battery bank for storage. When can we expect the break through in storage in the market so that we could go for it when the battery life expires ?.
To produce oxygen Nocera and Kanan added Cobalt and Potassium phosphate to freshwater. Both Cobalt and Potassium phosphate exists natural in seawater. Is it likely that the process also would work simply using ordinary seawater without adding anything to it ?
If this was really such a breakthrough why did the major news medias not pick up on it?
Does anyone have the patent number for this invention? Can't seem to locate it. Or perhaps a paper describing the experiment.
I have done a quick search: no issued patent or published patent application at the US Patent & Trademark Office. It is possible and likely that an application was filed fairly recently. I know others who start calling their idea "patented" the moment they have filed, well before an actual patent is granted and issued. More hype, but in this case probably not consciously designed to mislead.
Has this process reached a stage where discussion has begun as to precisely what kind of company(ies) will be interested in making this process a part of their productivity?
This is a special breakthrough....if it is as promising as it presently appears..... because the eventual hydrogen produced would replace at least gasoline if not also subsequently, heating oil, freeing us from carbon dioxide production along with the freedom from the crushing damage to our economy the "exporting" of billions of dollars annually for foreign oil. As an interested investor, the eventual business which incorporates this process for public consumption would be a nice place to focus...pb
Here is an interesting comment from The Oil Drum:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4378
Re: MIT public relations blitz
Wow, that oildrum article was pretty good.
I thought TR was a serious publication that wouldn't get sucked in by hype. When it comes to research by MIT folks, they apparently do.
A professor at the university od Dansk has developed a catalyst to turn water directly into alcohol, reversing the biological process of rapidly turning alcohol into water.
Does anyone know how many kilowatt hours the Nocera MIT process takes to split one liter of water?
Also, how many kilowatt hours normal electrolysis takes to split one liter of water?
Thanks.
Hello guys in technologyreview forum,
Solar generator is a technology that is useful in our everyday life. I would like to know your ideas about it? Read Sunpowerport Solar Generator . I appreciate your ideas. Thank you.
Efficiency is a bit of a bugaboo. It is admirable to raise the efficiency of Dr. Nocera's system, but it is not a requirement of implementation or profitable use. If a solar system eventually reaches a state where the investment is paid off and the system can sustain the cost of its maintenance, then all further energy production is free (efficient or not).
Cost efficiency is different than production efficiency. So if the production is beyond a trivial amount efficiency is by definition good enough even though it can and will be improved over time.
If I get what I need and my initial investment is low enough to be practical I don't care about production efficiency only about the time required to reach the payoff time.
Also hydrogen is not particularly dangerous when not stored in a flammable bag. Hydrogen floats up and away so it disperses itself automatically even if it is burning. Gasoline puddles on the ground and its fumes tend to hug the ground. So a car crash that releases hydrogen will most likely be less dangerous than one that results in a pool of flaming gasoline. Yes garages will need to be fully and actively vented. Remember the crash of the Hindenburg? There were 36 fatalities and 62 survivors. The was a large fire but the blast effect was small and a certain percentage of the fatalities resulted from jumpers and people caught under flaming canvas or falling structural members neither of which you would have in a car fire.
If you remain connected to the grid you are held captive by a utility with high operating costs and a profit motive. Generate your own power for home and automotive use and that goes away entirely except for minimal maintenance.
What we are talking about is distributed power generation not centralized power generation dependent on an extended delivery system.
I don't think many people are aware of the rate at which power alternatives are coming on line. Withing 10 miles of my house is a soft drink botteling plant whose entire roof is covered with PVs and recently I was driving to a photo assignment in western New Mexico. As I drove a humongous train passed me. Every car was a flat car carrying giant wind turbine blades. The train snaked along a river for as far as the eye could see. It suddenly happened that positive change is taking place. Its real folks. Even bottom line managers are getting on the bandwagon. The Chinese are doing it. The Germans are doing it. The Spanish are doing it. Americans are beginning to think about it and argue about it.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
brock_cusick
1 Comment
Solar is just an application
If I understand this correctly, this is a method for using electrical power to produce hydrogen fuel. Why the focus on solar? Isn't this just as beneficial for wind? Wouldn't using nuclear baseload power to produce H2 fuel to meet peakload demand or motive power also make sense?
I'm sure this technology is revolutionary, but (unless I am mistaken) the implications are far broader than this story makes out. It's almost misleading. Am I wrong?
Reply
Kevin Bullis
178 Comments
Re: Solar is just an application
In some ways you're right. The system can use electricity from any source. But there are a couple of reasons to focus on solar. First, the ultimate goal of the research is artificial photosynthesis, because solar power is the biggest source of energy we've got.
The second is a more practical issue. Note that, near the end, the article talks about the need to improve the rate of oxygen production. Right now, the rate is very close to what would be needed in artificial photosynthesis, but not fast enough to be practical in conjunction with wind power or other sources of electricity, according to NREL's John Turner.
Let me know if you want more details on that.
Reply
MyTrac
2 Comments
Re: Solar is just an application
Kevin, I would appreciate more imformation on that.
TIA
Reply
Kevin Bullis
178 Comments
Re: Solar is just an application
Here's what John Turner of NREL says. In the case of artificial photosynthesis, the catalyst would be incorporated directly into a solar panel system that includes materials that absorb sunlight and generate electrons, membranes, and the catalyst that converts protons into hydrogen gas.
In such a system, the catalyst wouldn't be supplied with much of a current, which translates into pretty slow rates of water splitting. It'd be on the order of 30 to 40 mA/cm^2. Nocera says his catalyst works at about 5 mA/cm^2, so it's pretty close.
But if you don't have an artificial photosynthesis system, you are going to need two separate devices: the electricity generator plus a separate electrolyser that includes Nocera's catalyst. That's going to cost more. You can minimize these capital costs if you have catalyst that works at a higher current density and produces hydrogen at a faster rater (the faster, the smaller the system you need). There are also space considerations. In this case, you'd probably want a catalyst that works at high current densities. Today's, albeit expensive, electrolysers, for example, can work at 800 mA/cm^2 or more. It seems likely that you wouldn't need to go quite that far, since Nocera's system would be cheaper. But you'd want significantly higher densities than 30 to 40 mA/cm^2, Turner says.
Nocera actually has a different take. He thinks electrolysers based on his catalysts could be cost effective using photovoltaics as the power source, provided the current densities are improved a bit. This is especially true if you are using only part of the current from the PVs to power the electrolysis, using the rest to power your home during the day.
Reply
MitchJi
1 Comment
Re: Solar-Power Breakthrough
Hi,
I don't see any advantage compared with Solar Thermal combined with heat storage.
Creating and storing heat is bound to be more efficient and less expensive. Also storing hydrogen takes a lot of space.
Maybe for homes or other small installations or if Hydrogen Automobiles ever become practical (maybe in 30 or 40 years?).
Reply
LDighera
13 Comments
Re: Solar-Power Breakthrough
"... if Hydrogen Automobiles ever become practical (maybe in 30 or 40 years?)."
It would appear that Honda is putting hydrogen fueled automobiles in the hands of consumers in California TODAY:
TORRANCE, USA, July 25, 2008, 2008 - American Honda Motor Co., Inc.,
announced that Ron Yerxa and Annette Ballester took delivery of their
hydrogen fuel cell-powered FCX Clarity on Friday, July 25, 2008 at
Honda of Santa Monica, one of three dealerships in Southern California
that are part of the first fuel cell vehicle dealership network.
Full Story:
http://world.honda.com/news/2008/4080725FCX-Clarity/
Photo Index (3 photos):
http://world.honda.com/news/2008/4080725FCX-Clarity/photo/
Reply
CommonPaine
1 Comment
Re: Solar-Power Breakthrough
The fuel cell vehicles up and running (GM has several in test fleets) accelerate slowly by contemporary standards. Fill up hydrogen vehicles -- ditto.
Western Washington University has, under contract, been building fuel cells for about two decades.
The Ballard group in Vancouver, BC, has numerous city buses running around a number cities.
While the technology exists today, it is decades away from being commercially viable.
Reply
aldecal
15 Comments
Re: Solar is just an application
Is it possible to isolate the light frequencies that can be reproduced. To accomplish the same end results?
Reply