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.

Comments

I have my doubts... but,

[pwnies]

"...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.

Re:I have my doubts... but,

[mpoulton]

"Though until I hear a confirmation of MIT's findings from another university/respected source, I hold on to my severe doubts about this.

MIT isn't really in the habit of making unsubstantiated claims of new discoveries. That's pretty much the purview of startup companies in need of funding and no-name universities looking for grants. MIT et al stake their reputations on their discoveries, and do not generally cry wolf.

Re:I have my doubts... but,

[lgw]

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. In any case, you don't let any researcher (or institution) off the hook because of his popularity - what kind of science would that be?

Re:I have my doubts... but,

[ArcherB]

Actually you can bike a lot further then you think. In addition it's not a waste of time in places with traffic congestion and you can travel faster by going a constant 15 mph as opposed to a stop and go 25mph. The roads would still exist obviously for an infinite amount of reasons but bike pathways and then offshoots of those pathways into may places of business would ease traffic and promote health and limit pollution.

Can you ride 30 miles to work in Texas without smelling so much like ass that you boss has to ask you to go home? Then, of course, ride 30 miles home where your wife has to hose you off before letting you in the house?

Oh, and then there is the rain, occasional ice, cold wind and so on that tends to inhibit normal people from riding bikes to work. Did I mention the hills? Lance Armstrong is from around here, ya know. Guess where he learned to ride up Mountains?

Of course, then we have to worry about how much stuff we can pack for the trip. First, we need a change of clothes so we don't smell like ass. Of course, we can't let them get wrinkled. Next, we need a towel to dry off with after we shower (assuming we have a shower at work). Of course, we'll need soap and shampoo to wash the sweat off. This doesn't include a notebook or briefcase that is required for work.

Now, of course, if we all lived downtown, it wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately, because so many people want to live downtown so they can feel smug about riding their bikes to work that it has driven up the price of homes within bike distance of the jobs so much that it costs way too much for way too little living space. Sorry, but I don't make half a million a year, so I can't afford to live downtown.

So, forgive me if it seems as if I'm coming down on you. It's not just you, but everyone else who tells me how I too could ride my bike to work. But seriously, please, don't give that crap about how wonderful it is to live in a Utopian society where all our jobs are within 5 minutes of our homes. That's only the case in Tom Hanks/Meg Ryan movies and does not reflect reality. Also, don't get me wrong, I would love it more people rode bikes to work. That would free up the free ways so I could get to work in less than an hour. Of course, if that were the case, all the freeways would still be jammed they would all be one lane government works.

Re:I have my doubts... but,

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh???

I don't know what kind of cave you guys live in, but (not meaning to be politically incorrect here) I have AC in my house. 1 kilowatt is only ten 100 watt light-bulbs. Yeah, yeah, I've switched out to low energy fluorescents, but there are still more than 30 light bulbs in my house, and since there are seven people living here (three kids, two parents and two grandparents) you can bet that most of those bulbs are on simultaneously at one time or another. Plus the A/C. plus we like to actually cook our food before we eat it...

Bottom line, we use about 200 KWh per DAY. In other words, 10 KW times 20 hours. And I've got the utility bills to prove it.

It's easy to be critical when you're a college kid living poor, but get a bunch of kids, try supporting your parents too, and get a little bit of affluence under your belt, and you start to see things differently.

No, I'm not one of the "burn it all!" blue-sky republicans. Nor am I a 'let's go back to the golden days of agrarian societies" types. Jeeze, do your homework and see what that low-energy society was REALLY like!

No, Civilization needs one thing for sure. MORE ENERGY! But clean, and cheap, and abundant. We need solar, nuclear and anything else that will fit the bill, but conservation as an energy strategy is a mistake. It helps, but it will not solve the problem.

Look up the Kardashev scale, and think about how energy consumption has changed in the last 50 years, 100 years, 200 years... Now project 50 and 100 years hence. Now 200 years. You can't conserve your way to that.

1 kilowatt, 5 kilowatts, 10 kilowats... The sun produces billions and billions of megawatts and hurls them all at us. Let's spend more effort learning how to catch them and use them.
 

Re:I have my doubts... but,

[Toonol]

It's rather snotty to flatly contradict a statement you disagree with, and then claim to have "fixed" it.

I'd mod that +1 informative if I could... there's a lot of slashdot posters who don't seem to realize how rude it is... and how rudeness undercuts real discussion.

Benefits not just solar . . .

[StefanJ]

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.

Great. So when do we see it?

[SuperBanana]

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.

Re:Great. So when do we see it?

[bucky0]

>> 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.

Re:Good solution but wrong problem.

[ceoyoyo]

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.

Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

> 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.