Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Possible Breakthrough In Hydrogen Energy

Posted by kdawson on from the doing-what-comes-naturally dept.

destinyland writes "MIT researchers have developed a method of splitting a water molecule by emulating the way blue-green algae separates oxygen from hydrogen. One chemistry professor called it 'an extremely clever piece of work' that addresses 'the nanoscale organization of the components.' Using sunlight rather than electricity to make hydrogen from water could greatly improve the efficiency of the process. The hydrogen can be stored for generating electricity or burned as fuel for cars. The project is being led by the winner of a 2004 MacArthur Foundation genius grant, who uses genetically engineered viruses as templates for nanoscale electronic components. 'Suddenly, I wondered, what if we could assemble materials like the abalone does — but not be limited to one element?'" Here is the press release from MIT; the research paper is available only to subscribers of Nature Nanotechnology (or those willing to part with $18).

9 of 326 comments (clear)

  1. which is better by drDugan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Would it be better to find new and amazing ways to create energy from resources now, or would it be better for humanity to first learn to live within our means as oil runs out?

    Humans have shown over and over that in large groups we use all the resources available, don't slow or restrain ourselves in time to save ourselves, and unless there are consistent, strict rules and provisioning in place, we exhaust available resources.

    I think it would be better for the long term survival of the species if we ran out of cheap, easy energy sources for several generations, and we designed new culture based on long term sustainability instead of constant growth. If discover or invent an even cheaper, easier way to get energy out of water now, we'll have another "industrial revolution" type of growth, and come to an even worse dead-end when that runs out too.

    1. Re:which is better by init100 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If discover or invent an even cheaper, easier way to get energy out of water now, we'll have another "industrial revolution" type of growth, and come to an even worse dead-end when that runs out too.

      Except sunlight isn't expected to run out in a timeframe that humanity can fathom.

    2. Re:which is better by cgenman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Considering that all life on this planet has a tendency to expand to consume all available resources, I wouldn't count on a cultural change to rectify the consumptionist problem.

      But don't cry a tear for poor H20. The water is not consumed when you create Hydrogen; when recombined with Oxygen it forms water again. You're not getting energy "out" of water. You're getting energy out of solar radiation. The water is merely a temporary medium to be broken apart to store energy, and re-combined to release it.

      --
      The ______ Agenda
    3. Re:which is better by wizardforce · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Clearly the solution is to both develop advanced cheap energy and work to "live within our means."

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    4. Re:which is better by fryjs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, how horrible it would be to have another "industrial revolution" type of growth where the abundance of cheap energy allows another massive increase in standard of living. If you are actually concerned about the long term survival of the species, we need ever cheaper and easier sources of energy to expand into the galaxy, and the quicker the better (in terms of odds).

    5. Re:which is better by Bongo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Would it be better to find new and amazing ways to create energy from resources now, or would it be better for humanity to first learn to live within our means as oil runs out?

      Humans have shown over and over that in large groups we use all the resources available, don't slow or restrain ourselves in time to save ourselves, and unless there are consistent, strict rules and provisioning in place, we exhaust available resources.

      I think it would be better for the long term survival of the species if we ran out of cheap, easy energy sources for several generations, and we designed new culture based on long term sustainability instead of constant growth. If discover or invent an even cheaper, easier way to get energy out of water now, we'll have another "industrial revolution" type of growth, and come to an even worse dead-end when that runs out too.

      I also think it would be better if children skipped ages 1 to 12 and started life as 13 year olds. No even better, as 21 years olds.

      Whilst it would be nice to imagine a new culture which transcends material growth, our development thus far has come along side material growth. The material side is related to the cultural side. It is no accident that the most underdeveloped cultures (female genital mutilation, widespread corruption as a daily fact of life, religious intolerance, deep racism and sexism) are all places that are materially poor. Like, green grass is a luxury. Clean water is a luxury.

      So when you champion "living within our means", you're talking about your current cushy oil based lifestyle. If you took that away, how do you know that the next generation won't develop a harder culture? In history, men and women segregated because life was dangerous and the men were sent to do the most dangerous jobs. In South Africa, Apartheid started because the white poor miners were on the verge of losing their jobs to even poorer native Africans. In Zambia, my own mum couldn't get a driving license because the "driving test" was dinner with the examiner. In Pakistan, life is still essentially feudal today, with forced arranged marriages and family members being disowned for not following the strict traditional rules. I mean, there's places where it is not so bad, and some are more progressive, but my point is, it is easy to forget how tenuous is our hold on rational liberal secular humanistic culture.

      it is not that those other cultures are "bad", they are just the best that ordinary humans can manage when the living conditions are harder.

      The way to sustainability is better technology that can do more. Anything else is stagnation and eventual devolution to death.

      If we fail to invent that new technology, we will fail to progress culturally beyond nation states and dogma.

      There is a line in Pygmalion where the well-to-do gentleman asks the thief, "have you no morals man??"

      And the thief replies, unashamed, "can't afford them."

  2. All the buzzword by oldhack · · Score: 3, Insightful

    MIT, hydrogen, green, McArthur grant winner, genetic engineering, nano something or other, all these buzz bullshit in the short summary paragraph.

    Stinks of bullshit to the high heaven.

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
  3. Re:Isn't electrolysis 60+% efficient? by Ihlosi · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Yes, electrolysis is 70%+ efficient. But, it first must go through that pesky and pricey 20% efficient solar panel,

    True. But there are other renewable source with intermittent output that can be used for electrolysis, like wind power. And where I live, the potential power from wind is about five times that of solar.

    Also, you don't want methane. You want gasoline. By the time you end up with methane, you have gasoline.

    Yeah, yeah, I know. I'd be happy with methane first, since it's already much easier to handle than plain hydrogen. Synthesizing longer chain hydrocarbons might make the fuel more convenient, but also requires more effort.

    Baking soda is a carbon dioxide capture system.

    The problem with CO2 is that you'll need _lots_ for the industrial process, and there's only very little of it air (300-something ppm). Extracting that is a major pain in the rear (i.e. requires lots of energy).

  4. Re:What happens at night? by jonnat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The energy density of hydrogen as compared to liquid hydrocarbons is pathetic. The best use of hydrogen would be to to synthesize hydrocarbons, of course at that point you'd wonder why you bothered with hydrogen at all instead of just making biodiesel from algae.

    First time I hear of a molecular property being described as pathetic.

    Nonetheless, you are wrong. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_content_of_biofuel) is kind enough to show us that the specific energy density of hydrogen (120-140 MJ/kg) is much higher than that of hydrocarbons (55 MJ/kg, Methane). The low density of hydrogen makes it less energetic only in volumetric terms

    Furthermore, the crucial advantage of hydrogen is the lack of carbon atoms, its combustion (or catalyzed oxidation, as in a fuel cell) resulting only in water.