Slashdot Mirror


A New Way To Make Water, And Fuel Cells

Roland Piquepaille writes "You probably know that it is easy to combine hydrogen and oxygen to make water. After all, this chemical reaction is known for more than two centuries. But now, researchers at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) have discovered a new way to make water. As states the UIUC report, 'not only can they make water from unlikely starting materials, such as alcohols, their work could also lead to better catalysts and less expensive fuel cells.' But be warned: don't read the technical paper itself. It could win an obfuscated contest — if such a contest existed for scientific papers." Yet another advance in fuel cell technology; we discussed a different one just the other day.

107 comments

  1. Re:Wow by datadigger · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I 2nd this

    --
    Aphorisms don't fix code. (Bart Smaalders)
  2. Alcohol into water? by doyoulikeworms · · Score: 5, Funny

    Shouldn't it be the other way around?

    1. Re:Alcohol into water? by mrbluze · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't it be the other way around? Bah, that old one's almost 2000 years old now.
      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    2. Re:Alcohol into water? by Cheerio+Boy · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't it be the other way around? Only if you listen to the Christians and only for one man at a time. ;-)

      *ba-dum! ching!*

      I'll get my hat...
      --

      "Bah!" - Dogbert
    3. Re:Alcohol into water? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      That was already done 2000 years ago, that's not really groundbreaking.

      The russians do it too, their water (wodka) is quite strong.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    4. Re:Alcohol into water? by phatvw · · Score: 1
      Jesus:

      For my next miracle, I'm gonna turn water into funk.
    5. Re:Alcohol into water? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      What, you never heard of grapes?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    6. Re:Alcohol into water? by mh1997 · · Score: 1

      they make water from unlikely starting materials, such as alcohols,
      Big deal, last night I turned a quart of vodka into water, tonight I am doing the same with beer.
    7. Re:Alcohol into water? by The+Famous+Brett+Wat · · Score: 1

      That gives me an idea. Attach permanent magnets to the corpse of W. C. Fields, wrap coils around his coffin, and then say you've found a way to turn alcohol into water. Bingo: free electricity.

      --
      proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
  3. [OT] Grammar nitpick by noidentity · · Score: 5, Funny

    But be warned: don't read the technical paper itself. It could win an obfuscated contest -- if such a contest existed for scientific papers.


    An obfuscated contest or a contest for obfuscation? The fomer would be difficult to figure out, while the latter would reward entries that are difficult to figure out.

    1. Re:[OT] Grammar nitpick by Cheerio+Boy · · Score: 1

      But be warned: don't read the technical paper itself. It could win an obfuscated contest -- if such a contest existed for scientific papers.


      An obfuscated contest or a contest for obfuscation? The fomer would be difficult to figure out, while the latter would reward entries that are difficult to figure out.

      So that would be a Perl contest with government funding rules then?
      --

      "Bah!" - Dogbert
    2. Re:[OT] Grammar nitpick by mrbluze · · Score: 1

      Reading the post, I already felt thoroughly obfusced. Reminds me of the timy my fsck obfsck'd by hard drive and it all turned to water.

      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    3. Re:[OT] Grammar nitpick by Smordnys+s'regrepsA · · Score: 0

      Yes.

      --
      Just -1, Troll talking to another.
    4. Re:[OT] Grammar nitpick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly.

  4. Re:Wow by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

    There is a lot of hydrogen in hydrocarbons as well as carbon. So you generally get water when you burn them, and it's possible that some methods of burning them wouldn't create CO2 either.

    For example, it might be energetically favorable to release all the hydrogen from hydrocarbons, combine it with oxygen and leave the remaining carbon in the form of graphite or maybe even carbon nanotubes.

    If I knew more chemistry I could do the math and find out if this was true.

  5. Pet Peeve: UIUC by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 4, Informative

    No one in the state calls it UIUC, except for University of Illinois at Chicago students and alumni who get upset when you call it U of I. Every one else just calls it Illinois. It confuses everyone else when its referred to as UIUC.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    1. Re:Pet Peeve: UIUC by djcapelis · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually "everyone else" might just be defined to be people who aren't in your state... last I checked there were more people not from Illinois than those from Illinois. (And if you have to pick a segment to confuse, I'd think you'd want to pick the ones who are near the place and can probably figure it out.)

      Good to know either way, but whether you like it or not, the majority of folks know it best as UIUC. Sorry that you're so well known and all. :)

      Also, if they don't want to be known as UIUC, perhaps a change of domain name is in order...

      --
      I touch computers in naughty places
    2. Re:Pet Peeve: UIUC by djcapelis · · Score: 1

      Ah, I see they have both domains...

      It's almost like its got two names each of which might be equally acceptable for use!

      --
      I touch computers in naughty places
    3. Re:Pet Peeve: UIUC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every one else just calls it Illinois. It confuses everyone else when its referred to as UIUC.

      Who's "everyone else"? Anyway, most of us at UIC just refer to it as Urbana and our location as Chicago.

    4. Re:Pet Peeve: UIUC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They actually are trying to rebrand the name now to "Illinois" instead of UIUC. The domain is in use(http://illinois.edu/).

    5. Re:Pet Peeve: UIUC by ArcticFlood · · Score: 1
      --
      This is here so you don't ignore the last two lines of my posts.
    6. Re:Pet Peeve: UIUC by Hesperus · · Score: 1

      Uh.. I call it UIUC. For what it's worth my wife grew up in Urbana, and her brother is a physics student living in Champaign (I prefer Champaign myself). Still when we are visiting I tend to say "we're going to Chambana".

      --
      ____________________________________

      -- I beleve you'll like this -->
    7. Re:Pet Peeve: UIUC by djcapelis · · Score: 1

      Oh dear, I'm sorry to hear that. Marketing people really need to get the hell out of universities...

      --
      I touch computers in naughty places
    8. Re:Pet Peeve: UIUC by ArcticFlood · · Score: 1

      Yeah, some tech decisions aren't made for good reasons, such as using Blackboard (which is hugely bloated). At least only the new subdomains are being used as illinois.edu instead of uiuc.edu, and that only matters with the login system. However, it is neat having my school mentioned on Slashdot.

      --
      This is here so you don't ignore the last two lines of my posts.
    9. Re:Pet Peeve: UIUC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The University of Indonesia is in Chicago?

      http://www.ui.edu

    10. Re:Pet Peeve: UIUC by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 0, Troll

      UIC students should be honored to have been mistaken for a real university.

      *ducks*

    11. Re:Pet Peeve: UIUC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FWIW, as a Californian, the only time I hear UIUC is in reference to the computer science department.

    12. Re:Pet Peeve: UIUC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got a degree from UIUC, and the majority of the time I was there I heard it referred to as UIUC. So I'm not sure where you're getting your perspective from, but I do not believe it is a majority. Generally "U of I" is used in a more general sense, sort of like how one would say "UC" to refer to the University of California system of schools (rather than a specific campus). And "Illinois" is of course the name of the state.

    13. Re:Pet Peeve: UIUC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ditto dude I wonder why the get angry all about it when you don't use the acronym

  6. Re:Wow by jhines · · Score: 1

    I thought humans had proved this one a long time ago, at the first kegger.

  7. ohnoitsroland by Corwn+of+Amber · · Score: 5, Informative

    Oh, no, it's Roland!

    The Snake-Oil X-Man!

    --
    Making laws based on opinions that stem up from false informations leads to witch hunts.
    1. Re:ohnoitsroland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This news is a terrible blow to my company, which wants to sell powdered water. We almost have the technology working, although the reconstitution part is a little tricky. But as soon as investors put more money in, we'll have it licked.

    2. Re:ohnoitsroland by aevan · · Score: 2, Funny

      We have tonnes of powdered water here every winter,and amusingly enough, licking it is one of the ways to restore it to liquid water. Just add a label to 'add heat' and you're back in business.

    3. Re:ohnoitsroland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thank you on behalf of my fledgling company. In gratitude, I shall send you a case of powdered single-malt Scotch which you may also lick. It's been aged 12 years, so some of the powder is, I fear, dust. Nonetheless it'll be an uplifting experience, unless you lick too much, in which case it'll be an under-the-table experience.

    4. Re:ohnoitsroland by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      Instructions: Add contents of sachet to 8 pints of water. Stir. Makes 1 gallon.

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
  8. Obfuscation be damned by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

    How valid is their conclusion? Is there an expert here on Slashdot that can offer some insight, because this does sound like a huge discovery.

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    1. Re:Obfuscation be damned by j1m+5n0w · · Score: 1

      Well, here's an actual link to the paper if someone wants to actually read it: Homogeneous Catalytic Reduction of Dioxygen Using Transfer Hydrogenation Catalysts. Unfortunately, they don't let anyone read more than the abstract without an account or paying $25.

      I'm a little offended by the suggestion not to read the paper because it's too confusing. But then, it's not like we can read it anyways without jumping through a bunch of hoops and paying unreasonable sums of money.

    2. Re:Obfuscation be damned by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      I thought I read in the article that the study was funded by the US Department of Energy. Since which is a public research project funded by the US government at a state university kept under a $25 key? I thought the usual stipulation of government grants for research at universities like this, that the results be made freely available to the public. That's why we're paying for them.

      Where this some small corporation I might be tempted to scream hoax or fraud when you made a broad claim, try to dissuade people from investigating it, and then charging for details. However I don't know what to think of a university pulling such a stunt.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    3. Re:Obfuscation be damned by dbIII · · Score: 1
      It appears that Roland has just seen some stuff about chemistry that he finds very exciting but doesn't understand well enough to explain, similar to the articles on materials and thermodynamics of his that have been linked to here with sometimes spectacular conclusions that are unfortunatly wrong. A lot of reactions with hydrocarbons and oxygen result in some water.

      Lets' all chip in an get Roland and Zonk some second hand textbooks so they can write about the spectacular stuff as it is without inflating it to unlikely stuff by accident.

    4. Re:Obfuscation be damned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hydrogen Flammable. News at 11.

    5. Re:Obfuscation be damned by frozenraisin · · Score: 1

      For anyone who reads the chemical literature regularly, this is a not very interesting reaction, but they've managed to get some press by using a catchy title to lure those not well-versed in oxidation chemistry. The noble metal-catalyzed oxidation of alcohols by oxygen is a well-known reaction. Most noble metal salts or noble metals embedded on carbon or silica will mediate the same reaction. In fact, the reaction described is often an undesired side reaction in other metal-catalyzed processes. It's amazing what a clever title in a paper can do.

    6. Re:Obfuscation be damned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought I read in the article that the study was funded by the US Department of Energy. Since which is a public research project funded by the US government at a state university kept under a $25 key? I thought the usual stipulation of government grants for research at universities like this, that the results be made freely available to the public. That's why we're paying for them. Where this some small corporation I might be tempted to scream hoax or fraud when you made a broad claim, try to dissuade people from investigating it, and then charging for details. However I don't know what to think of a university pulling such a stunt.

      I don't know where you get your ideas from, but publications have always been like that. The journals don't work for free and traditionally the reader pays. I can tell you that all the scientists I know hate this system, but the money has to come from someplace. I doubt we'd be able to convince our funding agency to fork over another few grand for publishing. The system is better than it once was. The journals used to demand we give them an exclusive copyright license, so we couldn't even print out copies of our own paper. Now most journals allow us to put PDFs on our website. Anyway, I don't know how you can get all huffy and threatening when you know so little about the system.

    7. Re:Obfuscation be damned by Seedy2 · · Score: 1

      Well, they submit the paper for publication, the published get to do what they want as far as controlling access to their publication.
      And there are frequently stipulations about where/when else you can publish a paper when you get one accepted by a journal.

      --
      Nothing to say here... move along
    8. Re:Obfuscation be damned by Seedy2 · · Score: 1

      For any other Chem heads out there that were puzzled by Cp*IrH (since Cp isn't an element) there's a wiki at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cp*

      --
      Nothing to say here... move along
  9. sigh by wizardforce · · Score: 4, Informative

    The reaction rate of oxidizing hydrogen or even many alcohols isn't a problem with the catalysts in current use, the porblem is that the catalysts are based on platinum, rhodium etc.. which are extremely expensive. The catalyst in this case is based on Iridium which is also very expensive, if not more so than Platinum. Lcohols are not an unusual starting material for making water and giving off large amounts of energy in an oxidation reaction. Methanol for example, in contact with Platinum in air will oxidize to formaldehyde and water releasing enough heat to eventually cause the platinum to glow red. This is in fact used to great effect in certain fire-starting mechanisms.

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    1. Re:sigh by florescent_beige · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right, alcohol fuel cells already exist.

      My reading of the blurb leads me to think their apparent contribution is finding an iridium based metal hydride that catalyzes both the oxidation and reduction sides, which I never thought about and didn't know platinum couldn't do. Your example above leads me to think it can so I'm wondering what this is really all about.

      Also we have a new reason not to RTFA. The summary forbids us from doing so.
      --
      Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
    2. Re:sigh by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      So basically they found a new expensive catalyst to turn a product (alcohol) that is energetically costly to make and that consumes quite a bit of water, back into water and energy. Presumably with some non negligible loss of both energy and water in the process.

      Is this supposed to be some kind of exciting news ?

      Or maybe it is of interest to chemists because it's some sort of exotic catalytic reaction ?

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    3. Re:sigh by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      Or maybe it is of interest to chemists because it's some sort of exotic catalytic reaction ?
      we have a winner. There are better energy solutions than using alcohols [which are usually made at the expense of food production]. Food that otherwise could have fed millions of people and saved many lives.
      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    4. Re:sigh by Orange+Crush · · Score: 1

      . . . or it could've rotted in the fields because it was no longer economically feasible to harvest or transport the food to the millions of hungry mouths. Food production is heavily dependent on fossil fuels which are just stored biomass. The more expensive it gets to extract and refine fossil fuels, the more attractive using "fresh" biomass for fuels becomes. We just need to produce more biomass than our machines and bodies consume.

  10. WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Er... Water is pretty much the side product of almost any reaction. For example, you may have heard that ethanol burns relatively cleanly. Translation: Ethanol -> Carbon dioxide + Water
    This has almost never not been known.

    1. Re:WTF by toddhisattva · · Score: 1

      Yup.

      An "unusual starting substance" would be something like pure boron.

      Well, I learned last night that you can make your own steroids with Red Bull and Super Glue so it's time to dust off the pyrex!

    2. Re:WTF by dykofone · · Score: 1
      "An "unusual starting substance" would be something like pure boron."

      My god man, I read that as "pure bacon," and was filled with a rush of visions of a glorious future, in which water was no longer pumped from the ground, but instantly created as a byproduct of the pork industry.

      Maybe I've had too much Super Bull Red Glue...

  11. Re:Wow by innerweb · · Score: 1

    This makes sense. In a normal person, alcohol is broken down into water and sugar inside the body.

    InnerWeb

    --
    Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
  12. How do they get 2H2 + O2 = 2H2O + Energy ? by xebecv · · Score: 0

    I mean where does one H2 go?

    1. Re:How do they get 2H2 + O2 = 2H2O + Energy ? by xebecv · · Score: 1

      That will be an F in Chemistry to me.

    2. Re:How do they get 2H2 + O2 = 2H2O + Energy ? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      This is elementary chemical equation balancing. In 2H2 + O2, You have 4 atoms of hydrogen and 2 atoms of oxygen, and with 2H2O you have 4 atoms of hydrogen and 2 atoms of oxygen. They are the same quantities for all elements involved. The only difference is to what those atoms are bonded, but conservation of matter is maintained.

    3. Re:How do they get 2H2 + O2 = 2H2O + Energy ? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      The chemistry notation is apparently confusing you: try this for more normal looking math.

      2(H*2) + (O*2) = 2(H*2 + O)

      Does that make more sense now?

    4. Re:How do they get 2H2 + O2 = 2H2O + Energy ? by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      >but conservation of matter is maintained
      Actually no. The reaction releases energy, so the end products are lighter by E/c^2. Mass-energy is conserved.

  13. water from alcohol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's a discovery!

    What did they think happens when alcohol burns?
    Or when alcohol is metabolized for that matter...

  14. Breaking News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Upon inspection of the molecules it was discovered that they in fact had created Di-Hydrogen Oxide and not water which has caused quite a few deaths of late.

  15. Free Energy by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Informative

    All these chemicals are just storage media for energy released by the fuel cells. Where is all that alcohol supposed to come from, Russia's motherlode of vodka wells?

    Making the alcohol consumes the very energy released by the fuel cells along with water. If the alcohol is fermented vegetation, that bacterial process consumes some of the energy to process the higher-energy sugars and carbohydrates in the vegetation. The vegetation is the key, because it converts the actual source of energy, sunlight, into those sugars. But by the time the alcohol hits the fuel cell, already over 95% of the sun's energy is lost in other processes before the final 50-80% max efficiency is applied to the usable 5%.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Free Energy by protobion · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the inherently low efficiency of light-harvesting in photosynthesis in general which hovers around 1% of total insolation recieved.

      --
      Essentia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
    2. Re:Free Energy by g8oz · · Score: 1

      You're right, but historically, the concentration of energy in a source has been more important than the total efficiency of the process involved in making it. Just look at the oil and gas industry. It hardly efficient to wait 70 million years for decomposed plant matter to turn into an acceptable fuel, but that hasn't stopped the world from depending on it.

    3. Re:Free Energy by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      The QM theoretical peak efficiency of photosynthesis is 12%. Sugar cane gets 8%, the most of any land plant. But I haven't seen stats showing the average is so low. Where can I find them?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    4. Re:Free Energy by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Well sure, but that's exactly why I asked "Where is all that alcohol supposed to come from, Russia's motherlode of vodka wells?"

      The point isn't some abstraction about efficiency. It's the most concrete point about where the energy is supposed to actually come from, while we get all excited about improving one bottleneck in one segment in one conduit from whatever source to our consumption.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    5. Re:Free Energy by Velocir · · Score: 1

      The US produces a lot more vodka than Russia. So maybe it will be their vodka wells?

    6. Re:Free Energy by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Does it? I'd be willing to believe it, though it's both counterintuitive and contrary to Wikipedia's claim that 70% of vodka is consumed in Russia. Citation?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    7. Re:Free Energy by protobion · · Score: 1
      Here, among several other studies : http://www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/reprint/34/3/356.pdf

      "The work in our laboratory was initiated after the last world war by calculations of maximal efficiencies for some field crops, taking high annual yields in Holland, from agricultural data, making allowance for roots, stubbles, etc., and comparing them with the average energy on the cultivated surface during the growth period (27). Considering only wave lengths available for photosynthesis, the efficiencies were between 0.5 and 2 %, and the large deviation from photosynthetic efficiency in laboratory experiments of short duration-viz., 20 to 30 %-was the starting point of our work. Earlier computations of efficiency of higher plant growth are discussed in detail in (11). The possible reasons for the relatively low long term efficiency are as follows (27): 1) too high incident light intensities under field conditions; 2) too low C02 content of the air; 3) too low temperatures; 4) other limiting factors, e.g., too little water; 5)loss of light between the plants; and 6) factors, provisionally difficult for analysis, e.g., fluctuating rate of photosynthesis, possible "afternoon depression," respiratory losses."

      --
      Essentia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
    8. Re:Free Energy by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      That's a fascinating article, with all kinds of fundamental limits specified (like light quanta per CO2 reduced, total global biomass by category, human energy requirements, etc). And several documented experiments showing photosynthesis peaks near its actual QM efficiency (in the chlorophyll band) of 27% (of which 44.5% of photos reaching the Earth make the 12% overall efficiency).

      I wonder why the 27% overall efficiency is so much lower than the 90%+ theoretical efficiency of the actual photosynthesis, once it gets started.

      Nature might be only 1% efficient, leaving much of the remaining 99% to heat up the Earth. But since so much solar energy research is designed to minimize the Global Warming effects of climate change, I wonder whether increased efficiencies might offer even more benefit than just the tappable energy. If algae could be arranged in large pools to absorb 27%, rather than 1%, of sunlight energy, then that sounds like 27x the energy diverted from heating, so the direct heat reduction of a pool could match that of a pool 27x as large at 1%. If the conversion could be tuned to photons in the other 55.6% natural photosynthesis doesn't absorb (perhaps by finding some phytobenthos or others selected to consume the sunlight filtering through layers of the greener plants), we might be able to turn, say, northern lakes across Canada and Russia into "heat sponges" that buffer the increasing temperatures melting the permafrost.

      Maybe even find there's a natural cycle that returns the melt to ice when photosynthetic plants can grow in the newly warmer temperatures of plentiful fresh water and low intensity sunlight. We might choose the risky path of such large scale "terraforming", if certainly faced with the crippling blow that unmitigated melting of global tundra presents. Or at least understand what's going to happen to plan for other contingencies, without trying to deflect them by reengineering the actual bioenergetics working against us.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    9. Re:Free Energy by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      Thank you for recognizing that simple alcohols as a general-purpose energy source aren't end-to-end efficient. I'd presume that the ethanol, like that that the Bush regime mistakes for transportation fuel, is to come from extremely inefficient corn production / fermentation. More toxic fertilizers dumped into the ground and thus into the Gulf of Mexico. Marvy.

    10. Re:Free Energy by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Practical approaches have to be measured as alternatives against each other. I pointed out that creating new energy pathways through our industry requires better than adding an efficiency-eating intermediary step, even if that extra decrease has improved efficiency over its previous (prohibitively inefficient) version, if a different, simpler pathway is more efficient overall.

      I don't know the true facts of the overall energy budget of corn/ethanol/fuel production. It's so politicized from several directions (petrodollars, agribiz, conflicting factions of environmentalists, inconsistently opportunistic politicians, inane ADD media...) that a clear, definitive analysis seems completely elusive. My intuition tells me that the big picture favors the ethanol over imported petroleum, so long as less petro products like fertilizer, pesticide and energy input, are consumed than the energy content of the ethanol produced (scaled by the efficiency of extracting biofuel vs petrofuel energy). In other words, as long as making enough ethanol to replace petrofuels doesn't require as much petrofuels as it "replaces" in usable energy, the ethanol is a win. Because the ethanol costs to the environment are smaller than in petrofuel production (AFAICT). And the geopolitical costs are much lower (eg. war), while the production expenses are spent much more inside the US economy, a domestic reinvestment that's more efficient in ROI to me and most other Americans than sending it to OPEC.

      But I can't be sure. I don't have a conclusion about preferring ethanol to petrofuels because my intuition could be wrong, if some of those "ifs" run the wrong way.

      But I do think that domestic biofuel production could replace imported fuel entirely. And that there's probably a way to do it right, without increasing food prices (in fact, probably dropping them), and without poisoning the environment as much as does the imported fuel industry. That's the line of hope I'd like to see proven out.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  16. Re:Wow by Deadstick · · Score: 1
    I can name three ways to make water out of alcohol off the top of my head:

    (1) Set fire to it.

    (2) Pump it into your gas tank and start your engine.

    (3) Drink some booze and take a leak.

    But considering the amount of energy it takes to make alcohol in the first place, why would you want to get water from such expensive ingredients?

    rj

  17. No duh by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1
    The title of this news release certainly wins a prize in the "yeah, so?" category-- lots of starting materials make water, including, among other things, gasoline-- a significant component of your car exhaust is water vapor.

    It's easy enough to release the hydrogen from hydrocarbons and burn it (to get water), leaving carbon behind-- that's essentially a description of pyrolisis. Or, if you like, it's a description of how to make charcoal.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:No duh by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

      I was trying to be polite to the original poster and point out to them that they were sadly (and rather stupidly) mistaken without being inflammatory.

  18. Re:Wow by bassman2k · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Making water from alcohol! Alchemists have been trying to transmute one element into another for hundreds of years! Neither water nor alcohol are elements.
  19. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Are you dense? Earth, Air, Water and Fire. Hello? The four elements that make up the universe. You keep your post-biblical pseudo-scientific hogwash were it belongs.

  20. Please, RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This recommendation to not read the article is suspicious and harmful. I am tired of journalists who interpret scientific research in sensationalist, non-scientific ways and I am tired of the readers who trust the editorial versions of these journalists verbatim without taking 15 minutes to at least read the conclusions of the original investigators (i.e. researchers).

    Too many times have the press totally misrepresented scientific findings and the slashdot crowd is guilty of following the popular science shepherds. Go, read the damn paper yourself.

  21. Meh, when I were a lad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'not only can they make water from unlikely starting materials, such as alcohols... How is this news?
    Many moons ago when I was at college, we were doing this several nights a week.
    1. Re:Meh, when I were a lad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      College is in your past, suggesting that you are an adult, yet you use "meh" in you posts?

  22. Re:Wow by budgenator · · Score: 1

    Now if they could turn water into alcohol, the investors would be kicking their door down!

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  23. Re:Wow by ammoQ · · Score: 1

    If I were to select the form of the remaining carbon, I'd choose diamonds.

  24. Re:Wow by budgenator · · Score: 2, Funny

    five elements, you forgot alcohol you insensitive clod!

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  25. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great first post...only problem is neither water nor alcohol are elements. Nobody is transmuting anything here. So much for news for nerds!

  26. don't read the technical paper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why?, is too difficult to you, so no one should read it?. btw most comp sci papers are really obfuscated and with no content.

  27. Sign of the End Times by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 2, Funny
    Water into Wine - that's a miracle.

    Wine into water - that's the work of a beast!

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:Sign of the End Times by lindseyp · · Score: 1

      I've had the ability to turn wine (and other alcohol based beverages) into water for quite some time. Well... a water-like substance anyway.

      --
      j'ai découvert une démonstration vraiment admirable (de ce théorème général) que cette si
  28. Re:Wow by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    The alchemists didn't know that... And I think you should see your doctor ASAP, you're badly in need of an irony transplant.

    --
    Deleted
  29. Water Out of Alcohol Is Unlikely? by amitofu · · Score: 0

    I guess these "Scientists" have never heard of a molotov cocktail. Or an ethanol powered car or rocket. Or anything.

    CH3CH2OH(l) + 3O2(g) -> 2CO2(g) + 3H20(g)

    What would be unlikely is if they didn't produce water from alcohol. What a stupid summary. TIS, right? (This Is Slashdot).

    1. Re:Water Out of Alcohol Is Unlikely? by Eco-Mono · · Score: 1

      In before five million Sparta jokes.

      --
      (rot13) rpbzbab@tznvy.pbz
  30. How does this compare to just burning alcohol... by xebecv · · Score: 1

    ... inside internal combustion engine? By this I mean energy conversion efficiency, and cost/durability.

  31. Re:Wow by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1

    You mean firewater?

  32. a better idea by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 1

    Let's just concentrate on developing more efficient ways of turning salt water into fresh water.

    This might not seem like such an important thing to do, but it is. There are nations in the world (even modern nations) that suffer from a constant shortage of water. They could benefit from an easily renewable source of fresh water and would pay dearly for better technology to achieve this.

    There's no money to be made in turning alcohol into water.

    1. Re:a better idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh... you mean like mexico because we used it all to water our lawns? Or china because they flooded their biggest river and made the water in it nearly undrinkable? Or egypt, same problem as mexico. Hmmm... I think it's not just developing nations.

      We actually have some pretty good ways of doing desalinization, but from what I understand they are still very harmful to the bay used. Greenpeace raised a big stink a while back when they were going to buid a desalinization plant in the sparm whale spawning ground. I could be misremembering and mixing all sorts of stuff up, but that's what I recall. I think we'd also be well to focus on keeping the groundwater clean. Water in more and more towns is becoming undrinkable. That water then has to get pulled out of rivers and reservours instead... which we hope ARE drinkable. When the sources for those get developed and their groundwater gets polluted then they have to pull from upstream, and everyone has to get full out water treatment plants... which dump out farther downstream, and generally act as large evaporators further depleting the water supply. OH! maybe you could tell the army core of engineers that cutting all of the trees off of the levis (which this year they decided makes them stronger... last year having the trees made them stronger) greatly increases evaporation, along with killing off many of the organisms which help to purify the water.

      Ugh... why do we suck at this so much? It's not that complicated... really. Everyone is all about the hybrid cars, which is a good thing I think, at least people are concious of it (even if it's sudden rise IS a gimic from the car industry so they can still follow the gas laws that pushing everyone into SUV's was supposed to get around) and I haven't heard a peep about biodegradable soap in years. I was rather miffed 2 days ago to discover the place I had decided to live sprayed pesticides, diazanon I believe, a neurotoxin. It also has a pool and lawn in CA which is stupid, we're in a fucking desert. If you want a lawn go live where lawns grow. The problem is... there aren't options. EVERY apt complex has a pool and an fsck'ing lawn.

  33. Captain Planet by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 2, Funny

    It all makes sense now!

    That "heart" power the jungle boy and his monkey had was alcohol all along!

  34. Alcohol into water by MECC · · Score: 1

    As states the UIUC report, 'not only can they make water from unlikely starting materials, such as alcohols,

    Okay, I can understand water into wine, but the other way around?

    --
    "We are all geniuses when we dream"
    - E.M. Cioran
  35. Re:Wow by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    Air, water, earth and fire are elements, so the OP get 50%, you get 0%. Signed, Aristotle.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  36. ...noranydroptodrink by jberryman · · Score: 1

    Hate to be pedantic (okay, that's a lie) but the tag on the article is a misquotation.

  37. This religion won't take off by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1

    I'm predicting this wine into water dude won't be remembered after 2000 minutes, let alone 2000 years.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  38. props and lmao by SoyChemist · · Score: 1

    First off, thank you to James E. Kloeppel, the author of the press release, for giving credit to the grad student and identifying him as the lead author. Second, I have no idea where water is formally known as dihydrogen monoxide. Hopefully, that was a joke. When I go to see the queen, I will be sure to address it by the proper name. Go Illini! It sounds like the entire press release could be summed up in one sentence. They developed a new iridium catalyst that helps electrochemically reduce oxygen in fuel cells.

  39. Re:Wow by networkBoy · · Score: 1

    If you actually figured out how to do that DeBeers would shoot you.

    --
    whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
  40. Don't lick the yellow powder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'nuff said....

  41. Re:How does this compare to just burning alcohol.. by delt0r · · Score: 1

    Fuel cells are about 70% total efficiency or more. Internal combustion engines are about 20-30%. Bigger co generation plants can get to 50%. At this point fuel cells that can compare to the robustness of normal engines are expensive. The rest are more or less at the research prototype level.

    --
    If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
  42. hydogenation?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    6 months ago I couldn't even spell hydogenation.

  43. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  44. This is not about "making water". by argent · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is about "generating power in a fuel cell".

    Poor Zachariah Heiden made some comment that included the partial sentence "unconventional metal hydrides can be used for a chemical process called oxygen reduction, which is an essential part of the process of making water", and all the context got thrown away.

    The actual paper seems to be "Homogeneous Catalytic Reduction of Dioxygen Using Transfer
    Hydrogenation Catalysts".

  45. It's for fuel cells. by argent · · Score: 1

    How does this compare to just burning alcohol inside internal combustion engine?

    Well, for one thing, you're not going to want an internal combustion engine inside your laptop.