Slashdot Mirror
Mimicking Photosynthesis To Split Water
plantsdoitsocanwe writes "An international team of researchers led by Monash University has used chemicals found in plants to replicate a key process in photosynthesis, paving the way to a new approach that uses sunlight to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. The breakthrough could revolutionize the renewable energy industry by making hydrogen — touted as the clean, green fuel of the future — cheaper and easier to produce on a commercial scale." This was a laboratory demonstration only and the researchers say they need to bring up the efficiency.
This was a laboratory demonstration only and the researchers say they need to bring up the efficiency.
Shame on you, submitter. This is Slashdot, you're supposed to write a sensational story and let the comments tell us why it actually won't work. If you're going to write things that make sense and treat us like adults, you're missing the entire point.
We are in a phase similar to the Cambrian Explosion, when all sorts of lifeforms with weird body plans gave it a shot . . . but which were winnowed down to a few by the time things started to crawl on land. Chances are just a few of the many alternative energy techniques being fooled about with will pan out commercially . . . but this is a necessary process.
Now, cue the cranky "Gee, Slashdot posts stories about dramatic advances in solar energy all the time; why doesn't my car run on solar cells yet?" posts.
yawn...
We hear about so many "breakthroughs" that turn into vapors that you really can't believe any of them anymore. Try sticking to solutions that we can implement today, especially conservation initiatives that are guaranteed to produce cheap, green fuel by simply not using them.
This was a laboratory demonstration only and the researchers say they need to bring up the efficiency.
There have been numerous such laboratory demonstrations on different ways to produce hydrogen easily. But the attempts to bring up efficiency are just what failed.
The largest prime factor of my UID is 263267.
Let's give them some credit at least. They've managed a break through in science and just because it's not perfected yet, you feel the need to disregard it completely? They obviously know it needs more work, they admitted so in TFA.
Give 'em a break man.
Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett
Papers always suggest more work. I've not once in my life seen a paper that said "Nope, that's it, we're done here" :)
It is easy to get a breakthrough in one criteria if you shaft the other ones.
As an example, you could very well produce hydrogen very efficiently from sunlight without any fancy tech by simply focusing enough sunlight to raise the temperature to 2500 C, at which point water spontaneously separates into hydrogen and oxygen through thermolysis. This would be possible completely without moving parts, no toxic materials, and no new technology.
Problem? It would be much more expensive than making hydrogen from natural gas.
This is why these vapourware stories are so useless. There will be a vast number of ways to convert solar energy into hydrogen or electricity, I could start listing various ways to do it in all kinds of elabourate manners, but it does not mean any of them are good, nor does it mean any one of them is likely to be more efficient than simply using a conventional steam turbine and solar concentrators.
Seriously, what you are attempting to beat is something which, depending on temperature achieved, can have up to 40% conversion efficiency, economies of scale, and uses well tested technology. When you can beat solar thermal then you can start trying to have a go at nuclear or coal, which have a number of other advantages. Simply finding yet another way to convert solar energy into useful work is quite a different thing from solving our energy problems.
Why not just put in a solar panel? 3x the efficiency of the best plants and none of those messy chemicals, plus much better applicability.
I want better batteries, none of this hydrogen crap.
Just make better batteries and a good number of our energy problems go away!! Chemists, why aren't you losing sleep over this!!!
BATTERY!!!
Just like listen to Master of Puppets every morning to remind yourself of what we need.
It is. Only the degree to which the various mechanisms influenced the path are debatable.
I agree with you. How about these guys?
http://web.mit.edu/chemistry/dgn/www/research/e_conversion.html
They bounced into the news a few weeks ago.
The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
In order to match the best application, with the best method, you often times have to make a trade off. For example, a satellite gets some power from solar cells because it's more efficient than bringing all the fuel it would need with it, or running a really long power cord.
I imagine that this new method might find applications where there is plenty of both sunlight and water. Perhaps large ocean liners, and offshore drilling rigs.
On a slightly less silly note, I like this development. And wierd body plans suit the laboratory environment quite well.
I imagine we could move away from the great black poison in the dirt eventually, if our good wierdly-planned bodies in the laboratory keep up the good work.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Actually, your answer to why your car doesn't run on solar yet is rather simple. Because we haven't needed solar power to win a war yet. Nuclear got everything it needed to get off the ground, working, demonstrated, and dropped. It was needed to fight a war. Radio, space ships, etc? Same things. The US Military is just starting to come to the conclusion that half their vehicles exist solely to deliver fuel and supplies to the other half(the fighting half) and that there is a huge risk in running tankers full of Diesel and gas to forward areas, as they become very easy targets. Destroy the supply lines, and those 70Ton M1A tanks become very large, immobile targets. Add to that, the skyrocketing cost of fuel the military has to buy. (not to mention, the huge costs of keeping 50% of your peopled tied up in support roles).
THat is why the military is starting to look at things like solar, small nuclear plants, etc. They are looking at hybrid vehicles that work like a train, the whole powertrain is electric, powered by a generator. Some of these vehicles are pretty cool, they could sit there and idle at the forward CP, and you just plug all your radios and equipment into the truck. No need to lug a generator with you.
I have a feeling things are going to improve quite quickly over the next few years. Nothing improves technology like fat government contracts!
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
When a scientist tells you he has all the answers in his field, he's a liar.
This sounds like a bit of a red herring to me.
Are you saying that we should abandon any new idea or technology if, in its infancy, it isn't better than what we already have? I think that would put an end to a great deal of innovation that we could benefit from in the future.
TFA says that a voltage of 1.2V is required, along with sunlight. The theoretical voltage required to split water is 1.23V. The energy supplied by the electrodes at 1.2V is obviously way more than you could practically retrieve from the H2 (which maxes out at 1.23V but you have to factor in efficiency). So this device is of no practical value even if scaled up. Online I see that as far back as 1981 (ahref=http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v46/i17/p1153_1rel=url2html-26843http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v46/i17/p1153_1>) a method was published that used sunlight and an electrode potential of 0.65V to split water. So I don't understand the fuss about the current paper.
The
they must be working up to the atom. this means war! bomb the crap out of those planty bastards.
Messy chemicals... in plants? Like the ones you eat?
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v46/i17/p1153_1
The
Gas as in gasoline is rarer the hen's teeth in the US Army, the only place I remember it being used is in the mess for running stoves, ovens, and water heaters; and I retired back in 1985. I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't new stoves that ran on JP4, military jet fuel and or water-clear kerosene by now. Gasoline is just nasty dangerously flamable stuff especially around bombs and bullets.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
As an example, you could very well produce hydrogen very efficiently from sunlight without any fancy tech by simply focusing enough sunlight to raise the temperature to 2500 C, at which point water spontaneously separates into hydrogen and oxygen through thermolysis.
This is why these vapourware stories are so useless.
According to your first point, these stories would be called gasware stories instead of vaporware stories.
So how are those Saudi Aramco stocks of yours going?
Take what ye can. Give nothing back!
either that or they are trying to sell you something ~
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the idea to be able to store solar energy this way? Even with solar-driven steam turbines, you can't generate any power at night and afaik, there's no effective way of storing energy. Making hydrogen to run fuel cells at night or when extra power is needed wouldn't really compete with any power source, only supplement them.
Well you have to ask yourself what they are going to do with the hydrogen. They are going to burn it to make water. So basically it is storing the sunlight as chemical energy in the hydrogen. And then turning it back into water to get the energy back out. So there is no need to worry.
i think when hydrogen burns, it gets converted back into water. You probably would want to use non potable water for this as well, rather than cut into potable supplies.
More importantly, why doesn't my solar cell have wheels on it yet?
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
I think this is awesome news personally.
Next stop: Cold fusion! :)
If they have something that is viable then they will say so. But then again, they'd probably be doing the rounds trying to sell the technology rather than sitting around writing up the paper for a journal.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
30 years?
I think that is a bit long. If you think tech takes 30 years from initial lab stages to general practice I think you've missed some history classes. Try reading up on the Manhattan Project and Computers sometime.
While it is true that development can take decades it often goes much quicker.
Or his field is really narrow.
If you had to apply a potential of 1.2V to catalyse the reaction then that is OK so long as the process is chomping very little current and is instead getting the bulk of the energy from the light.
Of course if it is using a lot of electrical energy and just a small amount of light energy then it isn't really much improvement over electrolysis.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
How about we let them work out the bugs before posting to slashdot?
Seems a lot of the stories get posted to get into "the media" without having the required science/adverse analysis/hostile counterpoint process done.
Well, that's what we need right now, isn't it? Isn't that what all the complaining is about? We need a technology that is marketable, and we're more than a little tired of "huge breakthroughs" that come with "it's still in the pipe" at the end. They're starting to smell alot more like false hope now.
This doesn't deserve to be in the same basket as cold fusion. 250 000 species of plants can't be wrong!
I’m old enough to remember 16K of memory being described as “whopping”
Me thinks its first post bragging rights. Sound familiar?
I think focusing sunlight to thermolyse water in that way might violate thermodynamics. I think you'd need to get closer to the sun. Maybe someone can give us hard numbers...
How about we let them work out the bugs before posting to slashdot?
Two reasons:
1) The possibility is interesting even if the probability is currently uncertain. ("Of what use is a baby?")
2) Even if it was obvious that the process couldn't be scaled up in any economically feasible manner, it's still interesting to some people on a basic science level.
Anyone know how the efficiency compares to the MIT work reported a few weeks ago?
Science can't get public support if the public doesn't know about it. Even in intimate stages like this it's better for us to know that something is being worked on, and something like this certainly has the potential to be "groundbreaking."
No, I'm merely saying that the fact that you can invent many different ways of doing soemthing is in no way an indication that fundamental problems with it will suddenly vanish. It is not rational to expect solar to suddenly become a silver bullet merely because there is a lot of proposed ways to make solar cells.
Perhaps an analogy is in order. There are LOADS of ways to convert nuclear energy into electricity. There's turbines, direct electrostatic conversion, magnetohydrodynamics, thermoelectric solid state devices, sterling engines, brayton cycles, thermochemical hydrogen production, high temperature electrolysis, etc etc...
Now despite of this you don't see people randomly assuming the price of nuclear is going to drop by a factor of ten within "a few years", because people know that with nuclear, as with solar, and as with coal, the most efficient ( in watts/dollar terms ) generation scheme is to heat one side of a turbine and cool the other one. The other techniques, while interesting from a scientific perspective, are simply inferior in one way or another. They may be inefficient, fragile, may not scale, may involve expensive materials / maintainence etc...
What gets on my nerves with the way these solar technologies are described as major breakthroughs is that they ALWAYS, without exception, are described as something which will revolutionise the energy situation, without as much as a shed of proof that they will even be economical, durable, efficient... They are always along the lines of "Here is yet another way to use solar energy, IF it turns out to be cheap ( which we have no evidence suggesting it will be ) THEN it will change the world.".
That's not a breakthrough, it's speculation of greener grass with no evidence to back it up.
The sun's surface temperature is more than 5000 C , so the laws of thermodynamics certainly don't prevent you from reaching 2500 C using the light emitted from it.
You know what a joke during the early times of the Newcomen steam engine was? You need three mines to run a steam engine. One mine where you apply it, one coal mine to fire it and one silver mine to pay for it.
Know what? It changed.
If people would've taken the position you have now and ignore Newcomen's development, the industrial revolution would not have happened, at least not in the way we know it. Yes, the steam engine was horribly inefficient and in most cases uneconomical until Watt made his improvements. After that, though... well, you know history I'm sure.
What we have here is not even yet the equivalent of a Newcomen machine. This has a long, long way to go, give it a decade and good funding and this can go a long way.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Papers always suggest more work. I've not once in my life seen a paper that said "Nope, that's it, we're done here" :)
Maybe when we get a Grand Unified Theory... :-)
In the late 1980s a mountaineering stove came out that could run on those fuels - the whisperlight international. Admittedly one of the first of them was hurled into a crevasse on Mt Erebus in Antarctica by a critic. However the later ones were better and there have been lot of other multi-fuel stoves since then.
Can you give us an example of something you believe is finished, done, unimprovable?
How many plants move around? How many animals use photosynthesis to get the energy to move around? What is the ratio of plannts / animals in the world?
If evolution is a teacher it is telling us that sunlight is so diffuse that you need vast areas of collectors to power even a small number of things that move about. Unfortunately, we want to move a lot of stuff using minimal impact on our surroundings, so we want something less diffuse in nature.
The difference is that the technique you're describing, while it would work, would be very difficult to improve the efficiency of. The technique described in the article has a pre-existing example of a high efficiency implementation.
Is there really a difference?
I like my beverages with warning labels!
Seems a lot of the stories get posted to get into "the media" without having the required science/adverse analysis/hostile counterpoint process done.
I like to read the hostile counterpoints here. :)
There are three crucially important characteristics here:
(1) stored energy,
(2) direct from sunlight, and
(3) zero carbon footprint.
(1) Is important because:
(a) stored energy can be used as a fuel (in this case, it IS a fuel), and
(b) stored energy can be used at times when the primary source is not available (an energy buffer).
(2) is important because:
(a) only one process is involved. There is no "convert to electricity, then electrolyse water" type of two-step process. Improve one efficiency, and the whole process is improved.
(3) is important because: ... only water. That water is replaced back into the environment when the fuel is eventually burned in a fuel cell. No greenhouse gasses, only gasses which occur naturally anyway.
(a) there is no release of carbon compounds into the environment.
(b) In fact, one could release oxygen and hence replace the role of lost forestation. A double bonus.
(c) unlike producing hydrogen from natural gas, there is no carbon compound as a first source
All three are important because ... it makes for a closed cycle. Energy from the sun (which was going into the planet as heat anyway) is temporarily stored and then ultimately re-released, with people benefitting along the way.
All in all, this is a first but crucially important step on the way to a hydrogen economy, and replacing the oil industry.
Because it is "replacing the oil industry" ... expect to hear a tremendous amount of artificially-generated corporate-origin naysaying over this topic.
Unless you were touching the Sun. I believe the point of maximum efficiency is reached once the thing that you are heating radiates as much heat as is incident upon it (per unit area). Because of the distance between us and the Sun, the intensity of light reaching is is lower. Say you build a setup of lenses and mirrors on Earth, and that this setup focuses the sun's rays onto some object, and that this beam has intensity X, heating the object to the Sun's temperature. X is therefore also the intensity that the object is radiating, and for sake of argument, say it is given by s T^4 (Stefan-Boltzmann). Moving this set-up closer to the sun increases the incident intensity by a factor of (R_f/R_i)^2. Since the set-up of lenses hasn't changed, the object must now radiate more to stay in thermal equilibrium, and so it's temperature must increase. By assumption, it's temperature was as high as thermodynamically possible, and we arrive at a contradiction.
That is very much how the motor car industry started out - you had well over 3000 startup companies all across North America and Europe, experimenting with the combustion engine, and inventing different improvements (carburettor, cooling fan, 2-stroke, 4-stroke and 8-stroke engines). Eventually, over time they merged together to form larger companies and eventually forming a handful of corporations.
How many solar panels would they need on a car to have a completedly closed system (solar panels to generate electricity to split water into hydrogen, a compressor to force the hydrogen and oxygen into the engine, and a collector to recycle the used water from the exhaust)?
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Photosynthesis has a maximum theoretical efficiency of about 11% from sunlight into energy stored in biomass (eg. the plant). But in the wild, it's only 3-6% efficient.
Familiar PV cells already get 15-25% efficiency; experimental concentration cells get over 45%. And the PV outputs electric current, not just biomass to burn inefficiently.
Those cells cost a lot more energy to make than plants do, but they last over 30 years, while most plants don't.
I'm not so sure that mimicking photosynthesis is such a great way to go.
--
make install -not war
Thermal Depolymerization...
They said "See we did it here"
(of course they did say) Now we can make it BETTER!
but that's just any product/process lifecycle.
That clearly depends on its tensile strength.
FTFA: This process of "oxidizing" water generates protons and electrons, which can be converted into hydrogen gas instead of carbohydrates as in plants.
Well, hydrogen is nice and all, but I can see an equally compelling reason to work on generating carbohydrates (preferably edible) with this method instead. Especially in places with no plants where having a food source would be awesome - places like long-range manned space flights, as-yet-un-terraformed planets like Mars, and god-forsaken hell-holes like the middle east and the Sahara.
"Soylent green is...well, it's sunlight and carbon dioxide...and 1.2 volts"
Nothing worthwhile ever happens before noon
Except the only difference is now you have millions of high school kids that understand steam engines, combustion, solar and wind power, nuclear reactions, electricity, thermodynamics, mechanics, and even photosynthesis. The laws of physics aren't a little understood mystery yet to be harnessed, they're common knowledge applied everyday to engineering problems.
They say they need to bring up the efficiency, but I didn't see where they are at. Are they at .1%, 1%... what's up? I think a plant is 10% while a photovoltaic cell commercially available is around 10-20%. Just wonder how far they have to go.
This is my sig.
What I'm wondering is, is it any more efficient than using the 1.2 volt potential to just electrolyze the water?
...then it can be thought as crossed alpha stage and entered beta stage.
The largest prime factor of my UID is 263267.
We still use JP for our mil vehicles, but we use a lot of NTVs (non tactical vehicles) now which are from I have seen over the last few years a fairly even mixture of gas and diesel.
The stoves, heaters, and yes, we have a/c now in even the training tents, all run off electricity which comes from generators that are fueled by something brought in by contracted companies. Diesel? Gas? I don't know because I haven't seen the paperwork for the contracts. It all depends on who we contract out for the generators and what kind of generators they bring in for us.
I think that was the biggest change in Army ideology over the last 20 years or so... they've shifted a huge portion of the green suiters' work onto civvie companies and contractors.
Lisa: Dad, look what I made for the science fair!
Homer: What good is that? It just keeps spinning and spinning.
My version of hydrogen fuel- all spin, no substance. (of course Lisa had invented a perpetual motion maching)
"How about we let them work out the bugs before posting to slashdot?"
What bugs? Did they NOT mimic photosynthisis? - Did you find a methodology error in their paper? Do you know of published contra-evidence?
"Seems a lot of the stories get posted to get into "the media" without having the required science/adverse analysis/hostile counterpoint process done."
The science has been published in a respected peer-reviewed journal and comes from two leading scientific institutions down here in Oz. Did you have some other 'process' in mind?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Nah, after GUT there's still TOE to shoot for. And after TOE we can really start developing theories about parallel universes with twisted GUTs and ticklish TOEs. There's always more work.
And if all else fails, there's always the "soft" humanist sciences. There's as much work there as you can make up.
porn.
everything's been done in porn...
They are not claiming a breakthrough in energy production, they claim to have made a breakthrough in artificial photosynthisis, no small feat IMHO. Also the CSIRO are not in the habit of making unsubstantiated claims and their evidence has been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
It's pretty obvious you are looking for a different breakthrough and it's a certainty you won't find it if you are unwilling to entertain NEW knowledge that MAY be relevant.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
This wasn't an engineering design, it was pure research. "Can we do this?"
The answer is yes. Now the engineers can try to find a way to do it within constraints, whether environmental, economical or both.
TANSTAAFL GIGO Acronyms to live by!
...Flywheels! Spin them up with PV cells or at a recharge station.
An added bonus with this technology is that, as flywheels can discharge really quickly, you can carry out high-energy physics experiments on your way to work or even attach a railgun to the roof. Then you'll have a good way to relieve pressure when stuck behind a careful driver and be saving the environment.
The problem is that you're actually talking about two different things. One is a power plant, one is a fuel source.
I submit that if you could use this process to economically produce hydrogen and oxygen, you could create power plants that use these as fuel, and possibly create electrical energy better than nuclear or coal. Better due to greatly reduced environmental impact.
And fuel cell cars are known to be feasible right now, the main problem with them is finding an economical, non-fossil fuel source for the hydrogen.
Another use for this technology would be a sort of energy pack that goes on the roof. A water line goes in, hydrogen comes out and is stored in a fuel cell which powers the house. Problem is what to do with all the waste oxygen.
TANSTAAFL GIGO Acronyms to live by!
How many animals use photosynthesis to get the energy to move around?
Ultimately, all of them.
What is the ratio of plants / animals in the world?
It is extremely high, necessarily.
Compact energy sources are finite and have quite significant impact on our surroundings. In order to move the most amount of stuff possible, humans must learn to disintermediate plants.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
I think you are lacking in imagination to say the least. There is much to be improved. However, it probably is the furtherest along... still...
Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
When a scientist tells you he has all the answers in his field, he's a liar.
And if he tells you 'more work is required' he's just after more grant money?
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Good luck raising cash for investment while being extremely sober in your analysis!
Stop the brainwash
There is quite some variation. We are still waiting for the fusion reactors. In regards to the computers, it all depends on what you mean by initial lab stages and general practice. If you consider Babbage's difference engine (proposed 1822) as an initial lab stage and the availability of affordable computers for the masses (1970 sometime), the computers took 150 years.
So far as I understand TFA, the claims of artificial photosynthesis aren't well founded - what they have actually done is to use manganese as a catalyst to improve the efficiency of electrolytic hydrogen generation.
That's good, but the fact that they used manganese doesn't mean it's photosynthesis just because chlorophyll also happens to have manganese in it.
It's just a fancy catalyst in this implementation.
One swallow does not a fellatrix make
What country do you live in? In mine - the U.S.A. - most high school kids would be stumped to name the last 10 presidents, much less described in detail all of those types of energy sources and the related processes of their typical usage.
Cows move about. They get their energy to do so by eating grass.
So indirectly, cows are solar-powered, aren't they ?
The Bigger The Headache The Bigger the Pill
I don't think you understand... the journal was peer-reviewed. That means its an amazing breakthrough just like "I can't believe its not butter" means it taste good.
Hm. Have they also found plant chemicals to facilitate cryogenic storage of this hydrogen? After all, making hydrogen isn't exactly rocket science, but getting it where it's needed economically is the ticket.
Science isn't about creating marketable stuff. Having said that, just take a moment to look around you and compare what you see with how the world was 50 years ago. Just because you don't 'see' technology advance in real-time doens't mean it isn't moving.
If only they used recycling, by burning the methane they produced, then they might be able to live using LARGE areas instead.
This cow runs on methane and grass!
Papers always suggest more work. I've not once in my life seen a paper that said "Nope, that's it, we're done here" :)
Its a self limiting thing, papers that fail to say/discover anything new tend not to get published (except in [insert discipline you consider most worthy of mockery])
So indirectly, cows are solar-powered
This solar-powered Ribeye is delicious.
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
It's better than that. If you take non-potable water and produce pure hydrogen, then when you burn the hydrogen you get potable water. One popular demonstration of the "greenness" of hydrogen cars is to catch the water dripping from the tailpipe in a glass and drink it. I'd only try that if your hydrogen is pure, of course. ;-)
I still favor electric vehicles over hydrogen, however, at least for the next few decades. Electrics have only one significant problem stopping mass deployment - energy density of batteries. Hydrogen has many - the cost of producing hydrogen, the cost of compressing or liquefying the hydrogen, the impermanence of liquid hydrogen ("venting"), the safety concerns of carrying around enough hydrogen to power a car without a "Hindenburg effect", and the cost of a new infrastructure to transport megatons of hydrogen to fueling stations scattered across your country.
Or maybe that's just my EE degree coming through.
It is energy storage.
Deleted
They can't ensure 100% safety. I wouldn't want to be in the neighbourhood when a rocket with plutonium explodes. And there is nowhere enough nuclear material to provide for the whole world.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Hydrogen has many - the cost of producing hydrogen, the cost of compressing or liquefying the hydrogen, the impermanence of liquid hydrogen ("venting"), the safety concerns of carrying around enough hydrogen to power a car without a "Hindenburg effect", and the cost of a new infrastructure to transport megatons of hydrogen to fueling stations scattered across your country.
Or find an efficient way of extracting CO2 from the air or from seawater, and use that and hydrogen to make liquid fuels that are entirely compatible with the existing infrastructure.
Liquid fuels will always be easier to handle than gaseous fuels. And of the latter, hydrogen is one of the more problematic ones.
We need a technology that is marketable, and we're more than a little tired of "huge breakthroughs" that come with "it's still in the pipe"
Who exactly is "we"? Are you speaking for all slashdotters? Incredible, as I didn't realize the masses has gained a single voice as of yet.
And I already drive a solar powered car. Because when you stop and think about it, all of the energy on Earth comes from the Sun.
Kiteboarding Gear Mention slashdot and get 10% off!
You've got 35% efficiency right there. Burn them in a CHP plant and you have 80%+ efficiency right there.
Because it is "replacing the oil industry" ... expect to hear a tremendous amount of artificially-generated corporate-origin naysaying over this topic.
The oil industry got where it is today because oil is a superb fuel. You drill a hole in the ground and energy comes pouring out. You don't have to do bugger all to it. Hydrogen on the other hand... Well first you've got to make the stuff...
Deleted
So in future, our cars or other gas needed devices does not work with gasoline (diesel, bensine etc) but with water....?
So we use water to move things and power up things...?
Water... what is already very important for living... And countless of people need to get just their drinking water and water to make their food, by walkin many kilometer every day... and same time western countries would use water to powerup computers to play World of Warcraft, Fast cars to get "hit" girls, or have cellphone so they can speak to their friend who they are about to see in 5min in person.... Please proof that I'm totally mistaken here :-)
We've gone from destroying food to make fuel to destroying water to make fuel.
Ibid.
Is there enough energy in sunlight to make it a worthy opponent of non-renewable energy that is sitting around the planet?
Yes. But that's not the question. The questions are:
How do we efficiently get this energy to where it's needed ?
How do we efficiently turn this energy into a form that we can store and take with us ?
OTOH, solar energy has not had anywhere near the same investment or subsidy so is an immature field with many interesting possibilities to be investigated. Many of these 'breakthroughs' may not work out. Some may. It's exciting to watch this new field develop.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
As a ColdFusion developer I resent that remark, you insensitive clod!
I'm not from the US, but even I can (with some error, I'm sure) name most of the presidents in the 20th century. I can't imagine someone who learns pretty much ONLY US history throughout his school career would fail at something like this.
C'mon, US schools aren't the pinnacle of education, but they aren't a waste of time either.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I think that was the biggest change in Army ideology over the last 20 years or so... they've shifted a huge portion of the green suiters' work onto civvie companies and contractors.
I love the military industrial complex; it is the coolest thing ever!
"Hey look kids, all we need to do is start another war and we'll get the old economy roaring again! YEEEEEHAW!"
I thought my post was attached to a post that treated it like technology, not science.
If not, apologies.
I was trying to address the fact that despite it being in the science section, slashdot was going to treat it like technology, and comment on applicability, instead of theoretical merits.
I'm all for mimicking natural processes(nature's got many more testing and debugging hours than humans do, as a rule), in how we do things. Nature has us beat in the self-replicating, energy-efficient gizmo department though.
Artificial hydrocarbons? My recent research into alternative technology for automobile propulsion didn't reveal any approaches that look feasible in the near-term (by which I mean Obama's proposed 10 year window). If I missed something, could you please provide a cite? Thanks in advance.
Titanium dioxde does this same thing (breaking water into hydrogen and oxygen using only light) and that was discovered more than 30 years ago.
We already know the answer is 42 tho.
DON'T PANIC.
Artificial hydrocarbons? My recent research into alternative technology for automobile propulsion didn't reveal any approaches that look feasible in the near-term (by which I mean Obama's proposed 10 year window). If I missed something, could you please provide a cite?
Well, the technology itself is almost a century old (Fischer-Tropsch process and Sabatier process), the only real problem is finding a source of carbon or (relatively pure) carbon dioxide that's not a fossil fuel in the first place or requires prohibitive amounts of energy per unit of C/CO2 produced.
I assume that hydrogen could be used to augment the yield of existing biomass-to-liquid processes, since biomass probably contains a carbon surplus. Especially if the BTL process aims to produce short hydrocarbons.
"It's just a fancy catalyst in this implementation."
Hmmm, they invented a novel polymer membrane that mimics "a key process in psynth", wasn't it a novel kind of membrane that made fuel cells possible? IANA Industrial Chemist, their contact details are all over the article.
"That's good"
That's the point! It helps 'self-educated' geeks tell the difference between science, psudeo-science, and hype outside their sphere of expertise (or lack therof), OTOH there maybe no hope for those like the troll who replied above. 'Tommorow' there will be a slashdot story about bigfoot's carcass (or a dupe even?). The less discerning amoung us will be pursuaded by your eloquence to tar everything from bigfoot to the moon landings with the same brush, thus the same crap you rant against will continue to flow.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Well shouldn't the TOE by definition include the rules that control the interaction of parallel universes and the sub or supra-universal structures?
Make the plutonium storage container out of the same stuff they make the black boxes out of.
Problem-o Solved-o
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
What a depressing thought.
Since porn drives innovation, the end of progress in porn means the end of progress in society. And also no more new porn.
Just because this has been done before using a different technique doesn't invalidate the story.
One of the major problems in our modern society is that we are dependent on portable power. We need relatively compact energy stores to power cars, buses, trucks, and airplanes (in addition to smaller devices). There are a variety of stationary power-generating ideas, some in current use, others still in development. But, we will still need portable power unless we abandon these modes of transport in favor of either broadcast power (likely to be inefficient) or ground-based, connected to power-grid systems, which have their own high infrastructure costs and require societal change on a large scale. So, technologies that offer the ability to store energy in a portable form, usable by existing vehicles with minor modifications (e.g., H2), have great promise. And, since different technologies may achieve similar goals by different means or using different resources doesn't mean we have to abandon all but one of them. The ability to generate usable quantities of H2 by biological means may have advantages in certain parts of the planet where more technologically-advanced (value judgment there too) methods may be more practical elsewhere.
Not all raw research offers short-term advantages; but the growth in human knowledge may pay off in many unexpected ways.
If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? If I am only for myself, what am I? If not now, when?
Not nuclear. At least, not from our sun.
http://www.mhall119.com
A manganese cluster is central to a plant's ability to use water, carbon dioxide and sunlight to make carbohydrates and oxygen.
Chlorophyll has magnesium as its central ion, not manganese. Probably a typo in TFA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorophyll
I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
Yes, there is.
Not saying this discovery wouldn't be useful, though.
No offense, but the MIT is un doubtedly fmailiar with all of the points you raise. The reason why this technological development is interesting is not because it is revolutionary, but because it is cheap as well as efficient.
If your read the article, you'll see that whole point is that they've found a way to electrolyze water at room temperature with inexpensive materials. Previously, electrolysis required high temperatures and/or expensive catalysts like platinum for the annodes. Well, that's a pretty big hudrle they've overcome, since high temperatures reduce efficiency (gotta get the energy to elevate temperatures from somewhere...) and obviously cost is a primary obstacle. On this basis, it certainly deserves the title of 'breakthrough', though of course there is still more work to be done.
A-Bomb
can they mimic fermentation to make synthahol?
Sounds like great research. If anybody can do something smart when it comes to cool science projects, it's the plants and animals that are ALREADY doing it. Mother nature is a lot smarter than man, but maybe we can learn, once again, something from her, this time about photosynthesis.
How does "photosynthesis" crack hydrogen?
You can use the animated crib sheet here http://www.johnkyrk.com/photosynthesis.html for all those pesky enzyme and phosphor details.
The truth seems to be, the Aussies managed to trap a manganese (Mn) catalyst in an unusual photolytic reaction in a membrane, hardly analogous to using a magnesium (Mg) atom in a photon sensitive chlorophyll molecule. Somebody's PR department decide to dumb it down for us masses, did they?
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
OK, given that hint I went here. The technology looks reasonably mature (except perhaps CO2 capture from the air), again just a cost issue to get artificial hydrocarbon prices down to petroleum price ranges (easy to say, harder to do :-).
I'm still favorable toward electrics, because we can produce electricity cheaply already from a relatively large number of mature technologies - including hydrocarbon-based fuel cells or engines - and the distribution infrastructure is multi-use (not just for engines).
But again, when you're EE, electricity always looks good. My house in Texas is 100% wind powered (sorry, Kermit, but it is easy being green :-). I even mow my yard with a Black & Decker plug-in mower and plug-in weed eater. Never needs a tune-up, or oil change, or new spark plugs, and it's high power under torque. Given my 45 mile round trip commute, I'm very interested in an electric commuter car.
Too bad people forget just how combustible hydrogen is. Instead of hydrogen, why not just make more efficient hybrids, like hydraulic hybrids? The technology is already there, without the need to worry about recycling the Li batteries in existing hybrids, and they are more efficient. I read a great article about this called "Hybrid Hummer Hums" at http://economicefficiency.blogspot.com/2008/07/hybrid-hummer-hums.html It is good to read this isn't an HHO article.
Those silly rednecks were tricked by the wily Bigfoot. He was just playing possum.
Now the moon landings are fake - and as soon as the Chinese go there for real they will provide photgraphic eveidence that there are no NASA artifacts at "Tranquility Base".
You either believe in rational thought or you don't
I still maintain that it's just a fancy catalyst, no matter that they have invented a novel substrate that facilitates the activity of the manganese.
And yes, before falling into IT, I was an industrial chemist :P
One swallow does not a fellatrix make
Instead of hydrogen, why not just make more efficient hybrids
Because you're still dependent on gasoline, obviously.
The technology is already there,
Hydraulic hybrids are less developed than even EVs and PHEVs, let alone hybrids.
without the need to worry about recycling the Li batteries in existing hybrids,
1) Existing hybrids use NiMH, not Li-ion (and certainly not Li)
2) Li-ion batteries, depending on the type, are either minimally toxic or nontoxic. NiMH should be recycled, although it's not a travesty if you don't. The types that are really critical to recycle are lead-acid and nickel cadmium.
and they are more efficient
Their regen is more efficient than NiMH regen, but not more efficient than regen with automotive li-ions or supercaps. Furthermore, regen is the *only* benefit they give you. Hybrids aren't all about regen, you know; that is just *one* energy-saving technique that they utilize.
I once listened to a Philip Glass record for an hour and a half before I realized it was skipping.
At the end of the 19th century it appeared that Newton, Faraday and Maxwell provided a complete theoretical framework for the physics of the natural world: Except for the thankless task of doing more experiments to add more digits to physical constants, it seemed to some that the end of physics was almost in sight. So, the last time there was a feeling that science was about to 'complete' a field, it proved to be the calm before the storm. Quantum mechanics, relativity and complexity theory have removed any chance of 'completing' physics. Any claim that a field of science is 'all done' would be almost immediately regretted by the scientist that claimed it. So, one reason that papers never say "Nope, that's it, we're done here" is because they never are done.
Think global, act loco
No, they're starting with the exact same (expensive) membrane used in fuel cells -- nafion. They've just taken this membrane and added a manganese-based catalyst to it.
I'm amazed that most people never point out the huge, glaring flaw in this notion of setting up big solar electrolysis plants in the sunny desert southwest. Let's ignore the problems of how corrosive the released hydrogen is to your system, which usually makes solar electrolysis have short lifespans. Let's do the same with the free oxygen. And the water. And let's ignore algae growth, which is a problem in most systems that mess with water. And let's ignore hydrogen embrittlement when it comes to raising storage and transportation costs. And let's ignore how huge hydrogen storage tanks have to be due to its very low density, a fact that makes the prior issue even worse. And let's ignore that it has a ridiculously low ignition energy, burns in almost any fuel-air mix, readily evolves deflagrations to detonations, pools under overhangs, enters pipes and follows them to their destinations, burns clear and vigorously, and so on. And let's ignore that leaked hydrogen destroys ozone. And let's ignore that fuel cell stacks are quite inefficient, and that a fuel cell stack strong enough to power a car will cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars. We're talking about *consuming lots of water in a desert* -- enough to power vehicles around the world. What the heck kind of plan is that?
Electricity is our common energy storage and usage medium. Why are we talking about "very low" efficiency, in-the-lab, probably horrible lifespan and very costly hydrogen-solar cells when we could put photovoltaic cells or solar thermal on the same land, get much better effiency from a much cheaper system, transmit the electricity efficiently (92.8% average in the US), rectify it efficiently (~93% charger efficiency), charge/discharge it efficiencly (96%-99.9% in li-ion), and convert that to kinetic energy efficiently (85-90% typical electric motor efficiency in a normal drivecycle), in a vehicle that uses batteries that cost *literally* an order of magnitude less than said fuel cells, can level-3 charge in as little as 5-15 minutes (depending on the type), and have longer lifespans to boot?
The "hydrogen economy" is just a silly concept; nothing about it makes sense in comparison to an EV economy with modern automotive li-ion batteries.
I once listened to a Philip Glass record for an hour and a half before I realized it was skipping.
porn is no where near perfected, there's all sorts of other interfaces left to explore, new media to exploit and new customers to tap, and there's always new holes to , ah nevermind
anyway, remote sensing tactile porn, it's not perfected except within about 3 feet
This Reardon Metal has the potential to be quite dangerous. While its tensile properties are considerable the possibility remains of a fissure forming suddenly and without warning at some point during its life. While we have yet to prove that this is the case, this office recommends that the use of Reardon Metal be prohibited until further studies can be conducted.
nah, I think Rule 34 applies here
The waste disposal problem would be much smaller if we were allowed to use nuclear plants that did nuclear reprocessing in the US. There would be far less waste, and it would be harmful for a much shorter period of time.
Your argument is valid at first glance... but it doesn't stand up if thought about logically:
1. They are not harvesting the plant material (like we animals do) to create energy, but converting carbon dioxide + water into hydrogen, oxygen and carbon. And they are trying to do it similarly to they way plants do it, because plants are the most efficient at it.
2. Not all plants are used to provide fuel to animals... in fact a relatively small portion are used for that purpose.
3. Using plant material as a fuel, as animals do, is far more inefficient and creates far more waste than using hydrogen. Animals that operate purely on plant material must spend most of their time processing the plant material to extract the energy from it. Most of what they ingest becomes waste.
(What's really interesting is that when you comparison on two animals, one that's active and one that is not... you find that much of the energy consumed is used by the processes other than moving that animal around; digestion, respiration, etc...). In fact digestion of cellulose is very very inefficient, thats why many animals chose to eat meat and get their solar energy twice removed.
4. Evolution has taught us exactly the opposite of what you suggest. One acre of farm land (solar collector, in your argument), can provide energy for many things that move about... especially if you were to consider the total energy in that 1 acre and not just the portion that is actually used. An acre of corn, for example, converts lots of sunlight into potential biomass energy... but only a small amount of that energy is actually used by animals... a few ounces of kernels per pound of plant. Not to mention the waste hydrogen that is created and simply released into the atmosphere.
Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
Oh yes, all human progress is triggered by governmental spending.
If only we could have another war soon. God dammit. Stupid civilians, all they do is eat, fuck and sleep.
Send your spendthrift head of state this
They are not harvesting the plant material (like we animals do) to create energy, but converting carbon dioxide + water into hydrogen, oxygen and carbon
They are not turning carbon dioxide into carbon, just water into O2 and H2.
Not to mention the waste hydrogen that is created and simply released into the atmosphere
Huh?
Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
It doesn't say it's electrolytic, just that it needs a potential difference to work. Maybe it is using electric power, but the article doesn't have many details.
Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
In which case he's definitely a liar.
but is this any better than the last slashdot article on splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen? They also said they were inspired by plants, but at least they had the good sense not to claim it was photosynthesis.
Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. -Groucho Marx
yeah... I forgot to correct some things... I started writing on one train, got interrupted, tried to salvage it, started another train of thought and appearently derailed.
The point remains however, there is plenty of evidence to support the viability of solar power as an energy source. And the arguements made in the grandparent failed when considered logically.
Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
Did they NOT mimic photosynthisis?
Nope... the article actually states that they went one better.
Photosynthesis uses CO2 + water + sunlight to make oxygen, glucose, and water.
This process instead uses a similar technique to create hydrogen? But it doesn't, contrary to the article's title, use photosynthesis.
The thing I find strange is the requirement for a supply voltage, I almost wonder if they aren't just fooling their investors by creating a simple anode + cathode + battery + water = hydrogen & oxygen collector.
Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
You can't really run a car with solar panels on the car, for a thousand obvious reasons. You can, however, run a car with solar panels covering the parking space you have at home and at work (at most lattitudes, anyway) if you can store that power densly and safely, and transfer it quickly. Plus you'd get covered parking.
The total area of parking spaces in America, if covered with the best existing technology solar cells, would on average cover all of our elecitrical needs, or the needs of the daily commute. It's making the *average* power useful that's the biggest hurdle.
In more realistic terms, we'd be much better off trying to convert our transport infrastructure away from deisel than cars from gas, but you'd need an alternative that was actually practical, not just fashionable.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
KBR is paying $80,000.00-$120,000.00 a year for bus and truck drivers; and that's tax-free.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Because solar insolation is (peak) 1KW/M^2, so unless you had a car 5 meters wide and 15 meters long, you're going to have a 1HP motor.
Doesn't work. The hippies will blow up your solar collectors because you're endangering the Desert Bumfuck Weevil.
How many plants move around?
There are a lot of plants that move. I don't know what you mean by move around. Light has a lot of energy in it, photosynthesis is just very inefficient (5%). Chloroplasts don't even try to make energy from the most common color in visible light: green!
If you're discounting all the other problems, then you may as well assume that the process can use straight seawater. We have plenty of that (just stick a pipe in the nearest ocean and build a long pipeline), and it doesn't compete with anything that requires freshwater (agriculture, human consumption, etc).
I think "TOE" is generally thought to be theory about our universe only, about the universe that started and got it's "natural laws" in our big bang (assuming the Big Bang theory is at least close to the truth).
For "multiversal TOE", we'd need a different acronym, such as TOTOE, "Theory of Theories of Everythings" ;-)
With Real photosynthesis We will Rule the Solar system with all the (Free) air and sugar!
Yessss, Oil is black and sweet. (Aaaahh the Sun! We hates it, my precious! We hates it!)
Isn't it forbidden to talk about this?
You're out of line #1321121. Stay on message or we'll have you banished to Digg.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
...at which point the Universe will instantly vanish and be replaced by something even more bizarre and incomprehensible.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace