Slashdot Mirror
Using Sun's Energy to Split Water Means Solar Power All Night
phorm writes "Reuters is carrying an article about a recent MIT development which may pave the way for solar-energy to be collected for use in low-input periods. According to Reuters, the discovery of the a new catalyst for separating hydrogen+oxygen from water requires only 10% of the electricity of current methods. This would allow storage-cells to function as a form of battery for other forms of energy-collection, such as solar panels. The new method is also much safer (and likely environmentally friendly) than current methods, which require the use of a dangerously caustic environment, and specialized storage containers." sanjosanjo points out coverage of the process at EE Times, which features the MIT group's press release.
"...with our catalyst almost 100 percent of the current used for electrolysis goes into making oxygen and hydrogen."
If that is true (although I definitely have my doubts, as tales and empty promises of the past have made all of us highly skeptical when we read something like this), then it should open the road for a significantly more efficient means of producing hydrogen for hydrogen powered cars / devices. Hell a car equipped with a solar cell could just bake during the day to recharge itself and be ready to go for the commute home come 5pm. Though until I hear a confirmation of MIT's findings from another university/respected source, I hold on to my severe doubts about this.
This would be a big win for any kind of "environmental" energy source (wind, waves, caged toddlers) that isn't always on.
Heck, it would make a great general-purpose home UPS and/or load leveler. If properly integrated, a home equipped with this would be less vulnerable to brownouts and blackouts. Local storage would make the job of power companies easier too.
Fingers crossed.
According to Reuters, the discovery of the a new catalyst for separating hydrogen+oxygen from water requires only 10% of the electricity of current methods
Great. So when do we see it? If it's anything like almost every other "alternative energy" advancement, it will either get snapped up by an oil-company owned holding company, or strangled by licensing fees/requirements/exclusivity deals.
Seriously- let's take a look back. Have there been any major advancements in solar energy technology in the last fifty or so years?
MIT = MIT Technology Licensing Office, and I used to work there. Six figure checks to professors were not uncommon...and it was the only part of the university that turned a profit.
It'd be really refreshing to see scientists develop a bit of altruism. It's the ultimate Open Source, and they'd be guaranteed decades, if not centuries, of good will and fame. That's worth a lot more than a few *possible* royalty checks.
Please help metamoderate.
Have there been any major advancements? I'm don't know, because I have no idea what major means to you, but the costs have come way, way, way, way down, and they continue to get lower.
Hell, solar panels even net energy these days.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
"Nocera's catalyst is made from cobalt, phosphate and an electrode that produces oxygen from water by using 90 percent less electricity than current methods, which use the costly metal platinum."
Ok wait, I looked it up and we're currently at 70% efficiency on the electrical energy it takes to split water. I believe we lose even more power to compress the gas in to liquid form for storage.
Now let's say we're only at 10% efficiency now on electrolysis. If you decreased the amount of electricity needed by 90%, you're talking about 10 times that efficiency making the electrolysis system 100% efficient which is impossible. If we're currently at 20% efficiency, then we're up to 200% efficiency which is ludicrous.
I read that lower voltage electrolysis is an active research area that increases the efficiency of electrolysis. Now perhaps what this researcher has found is a way to perform electrolysis with 90% less voltage which would improve electrolysis efficiency from 70% to maybe 85% or something in that ballpark range. That would be far more believable. I'm very much inclined to believe that the story should have reported that this new electrolysis process requires 90% less voltage; not 90% less electricity to produce the same amount of hydrogen and oxygen.
>> It'd be really refreshing to see scientists develop a bit of altruism. It's the ultimate Open Source, and they'd be guaranteed decades, if not centuries, of good will and fame. That's worth a lot more than a few *possible* royalty checks.
Altruism neither pays for the scientists' mortgages nor pays for all the equipment they use to develop their theories.
I'm all for smacking down ridiculously-long copyrights, invalidating silly trademarks or getting rid of obvious patents (one-click shopping?), but this is the _exact_ thing that patents is supposed to support. These scientists (and by proxy, their granteurs (sp?)) took a gamble on developing a technology and they were successful. They should be rewarded for that success like any other person in society. Without that potential for gains, there's no reason to even try.
-Bucky
See, for example, the claims on cold fusion some years back.
I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
This seems very interesting and I hope it goes well for them. But I can't help but feel there are simpler solutions.
Yeah. How about using less stuff? It works 100% of the time, is 100% effective, anyone can do it, it uses current technology, and you can start right now. Sure, I love computers. But I only have one. I like TV, but I decided to save money and just watch shows through the web instead of getting cable and buying a TV. I love driving my car, but I try not drive unnecessarily. (As a side benefit I was able to cancel my gym membership and get exercise and commute at the same time.) I like steak, but I only eat red meat a few times a month because it's so damaging to the environment. I could do much more, but the important thing is getting started, and I've realized that my quality of life has improved with my reduction of material goods and extraneous entertainment.
Not saying the R&D should cease... but at some point we have to ask ourselves, "How much is enough?" The planet simply could not support a world full of Americans. The fact that this doesn't appear to alarm us is a grave indicator of our stewardship of spaceship Earth.
Why would you want to provide hydrogen for powering vehicles if you've got such great batteries?
Because batteries aren't so great. They're only reasonably efficient when they're nice and warm, they're heavy, they're expensive, and they wear out fast.
But would you have any difficulty making it commercially viable on an industrial scale? That's the million dollar question.
> Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.
No, extraordinary claims require ordinary proof that has been vetted extraordinarily well.
Otherwise, someone can arbitrarily declare claims 'extraordinary' and simply raise the bar every time the proof meets their old standard. You know, like they do with global warming, or evolution.
Sorry, but that soundbyte just gets to me.
The breaker-box is rated for 100A, so 25KW at the voltage here. But that don't mean we -use- even close to that, indeed if we did we would use aproximately 18000 kwh/month, whereas in reality we use aproximately 1000Kwh/month.
Half of that is heating. There are easier ways of turning hydrogen into heat than using a fuel-cell....
25kW times a generous $5 a watt = $125k, the price of a small house. Even if you assume that you only need to be able to provide half of that, that's over $60k. And this ignores the price of all of the other components, too. By contrast, PbA batteries are about $0.20/Wh and automotive li-ions, which will last for decades, about $0.50/Wh (they should approach PbA over time; their raw ingredients are cheap). Let's go with $0.50/Wh to be pessimistic. The average home uses around 30kWh a day, most of that during "peak hours" when there's sun out. But hey, let's assume that you need 50kWh for *non*-peak hours. That's $25k. Oh, and 50kWh of LiP batteries would be able to provide about 1 1/2 *megawatts* of power output.
There's really no excuse for fuel cells for applications like this at this point in time, or in the foreseeable future.
"He's a god; it'll take more than one shot." â" Lady Eboshi, Mononoke Hime
I didn't get the connection to leaves and electrolysis. What's the connection?
More efficient solar energy conversion to useful energy than photosynthesis.