Possible Breakthrough In Hydrogen Energy

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).

Comments

What happens at night?

[R3d M3rcury]

Using sunlight rather than electricity [...]

What happens if I run out of hydrogen at night?

Re:What happens at night?

[wizardforce]

If you want to store energy at night you'd probably be better off going with solar thermal + liquid salt thermal storage + water thermochemical cracking. Hydrogen is better used as a chemical fuel or used in synthesizing other chemicals. It's very good at reducing things or powering fuel cells but as a method of storing solar energy on a daily basis, not so much.

Re:What happens at night?

[masshuu]

OR he could just buy another tank so he doesn't run out again.

Yeah, wonder how safe that is. The neighborhood has a couple thousand tons of hydrogen in buried tanks.

Re:What happens at night?

[feepness]

What happens if I run out of hydrogen at night?

You have to make H while the sun shines.

Re:What happens at night?

[ArsenneLupin]

You have to make H while the sun shines.

And where the sun doesn't shine, you can always make CH4...

Re:What happens at night?

[ooshna]

They already made a vehicle like that. IT

Re:What happens at night?

[Wonko the Sane]

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.

Re:What happens at night?

[jonnat]

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.

Re:What happens at night?

[drinkypoo]

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

Doesn't the effective energy density of hydrogen depend on the pressure to which you can reasonably compress it, and the pressure at which you can effectively store it?

Re:What happens at night?

[EsbenMoseHansen]

That is a concern for vehicles, certainly. Not so much for buried tanks.

Re:What happens at night?

[Ex-MislTech]

If it is used in the presence of pure oxygen that is correct.

If it has access to other elements then you will get some pollution,
but it beats everything we are currently using in green terms.

Re:What happens at night?

[drinkypoo]

That is a concern for vehicles, certainly. Not so much for buried tanks.

It is less of a concern in stationary installations, but you have to compress the gas, and since we're using methane as a comparison, it's dramatically easier to store methane simply because it's a larger molecule, and it's easier to use due to lack of problems with hydrogen embrittlement. You can convert existing gasoline engines to run on methane, though nobody does because it's not sufficiently available. Instead, they do it with propane, from which the difference is probably a re-jetting, or perhaps a change in working pressure. But converting existing engines to hydrogen would fail because the metals are not treated to resist embrittlement, and extended use would lead to engine destruction. Presumably, valves would go first, and frequently.

The simple truth is that hydrogen is not a satisfactory energy storage mechanism until we figure out how to better store it. And it's looking more and more like the storage mechanism is going to be something with a lot of surface area rather than an empty tank. That means more mass overall, further reducing the potential lead of hydrogen over batteries. Given that practical fuel cells are perpetually 5-10 years away, the total efficiency of a system using hydrogen today would be extremely poor due to the use of an internal combustion engine, and since hydrogen engines are in their infancy compared to gasoline or diesel engines, they could be expected to be highly unreliable for a time.

Or in short, it makes far more sense to make biodiesel right now than to do anything else. In the medium term, perhaps full-EVs will be the best value proposition for most people; If the Nissan LEAF takes off it could bring about real change. Maybe in twenty or thirty years we can use hydrogen.

Re:What happens at night?

[Wonko the Sane]

So how much energy does it take to cool hydrogen to liquid form and keep it there? Do you expect carry around liquid hydrogen in your car?

Re:What happens at night?

[networkBoy]

I already do this.
I story my hydrogen in a liquid for ease of use. This way I can use hoses to get it to my engine where I then allow it back into a vapor form (by pushing it through small nozzles at about 135 bar.
My storage method is really cool:
I stick 34 hydrogen atoms onto a chain of 16 atoms of element 6.
Best thing is that this method of storage is nearly explosion proof, even with a 20% oxygen atmosphere around my fuel storage, I can put a lit match out in it while it is in it's liquid state. It is only under extreme pressure that it detonates, and that is how I drive my car.

Re:What happens at night?

[networkBoy]

you were using BD and it tripled your maintenance costs? Either I call BS or you were using common rail injection systems over 16KPsi, which are specifically *not* compatible with BD above 5%.
If your injection system runs at a lower pressure then your maintenance costs should have gone down, as BD is an awesome solvent and tends to clean things out quite well. There will be a spike in maintenance on older engines as the gunk cleans out (mostly fuel filters and earlier oil changes) but once you're past the hump, cost should fall quite nicely.

That or you used rubber hoses... Viton all the way if using BD, much like if converting a gas engine to E85 or higher, exhaust and fuel delivery components have to be changed out.

Re:What happens at night?

[szilagyi]

If we can demonstrate an 800-bar compressor that's relatively efficient, and carbon fiber composite or other tanks to store hydrogen, and somehow make room for the still-3x-bigger fuel tank [http://planetforlife.com/h2/h2swiss.html] in a subcompact car, and also reclaim the energy that's necessarily used to compress the hydrogen when we release it (because otherwise it will really be too inefficient to store compared to the alternatives), that's awesome.

In fact, if we can just get people to pay for engines using inconel or ceramics and recuperators, that would also be awesome, since we could substantially increase the efficiency of existing engines using existing materials and technology. We could burn the fuel hotter to raise the Carnot limit and reuse more waste heat. At least we're pretty close to getting them to switch to turbine-electric drive trains, which is even better. (We already do mass-produce inconel turbine blades in the form of turbochargers, so we're in good shape to mass-produce Capstone-style microturbines. They are already produced at some scale. If only recuperators didn't weigh and cost so much...)

Until then, it makes some sense to at least talk about compounding hydrogen with carbon, if we have the hydrogen. We have relatively good ways to collect the carbon from the air in a well understood, not yet industrial-scale, process [http://academiccommons.columbia.edu:8080/ac/handle/10022/AC:P:6744], to obtain carbon neutrality. (I say "relatively" because you're really climbing a hill on that one, with the low concentration of CO2 in the air. That's why plants are so inefficient, and why they respond so strongly to more CO2, and why the latest evolutionary arms race is in collecting CO2 - see C4 plants [http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/C/C4plants.html].)

Or, as the GP suggests, let algae do the job for us, although I think we're already near the point where we can beat the land-to-wheel (system energy efficiency per unit land used) and dollar-to-wheel ROI of algae with industrial processes (limestone cycle above for the carbon, Fischer-Tropsch-style synthesis with reverse water-gas shift on the back end, solar thermal collection for energy in). (I am personally swayed by the arable land use drawbacks of biofuels, but, it really comes down to the numbers to know what's really more land-efficient. Anyway, algae have some potential to sidestep these arguments.)

So, we actually have a pretty good idea how to run a car on sunlight via hydrocarbon fuels, it's just not as cheap as pumping oil out of the ground, so we don't. We can even run a car on sunlight via various high temperature fuel cells, if you prefer more of a closed-loop system. None of these is really that efficient, but at least we can make favorable comparisons to, e.g., the corn ethanol boondoggle. (And we can, on that basis, for example, pretty much punt the zinc cycle due to the inefficiency of that particular calcination reaction.) What we can't compare to is gaseous hydrogen, because we don't even know how to build several components in that fuel chain, so we don't know exactly how bad it will be. Sure, it looks bad, but I can't claim it's guaranteed to be worse.

So, let's do research on light, high pressure (800-bar) tanks and thermodynamically efficient 800-bar compression / decompression cycles. (And especially on thermolysis and photolysis to produce the hydrogen.) But let's not pretend it's already done, and let's also work with what we have. When oil really starts to get expensive, we have several mature possibilities already on deck, which fit well into our existing infrastructure. We also have H2 in the future, when and if those problems are solved satisfactorily. And then, I hope, direct mass-energy fuel systems, for even more density and land use / environmental benefits than we can ever get from our pathetic chemical fuels.

(I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are claiming CO2-free combustion is good because it avoids

Re:What happens at night?

[Sooner Boomer]

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.

Every time I hear people say that combustion "only results in water", I am extremely frustrated. Unless you're piping pure oxygen into the combustion chamber, you're burning/combusting using air. Air is 70% (or so) nitrogen. Combustion in nitrogen results in the creation of nitrous/nitric oxides. You can't get away from this simple fact: you're still going to make pollutants. Of course this doesn't apply to fuel cells, but the fuel cells fall under the rule that rates of chemical reactions double/halve for every 10 degree C rise/fall in temperature.

which is better

[drDugan]

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.

Re:which is better

[init100]

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.

Re:which is better

[cgenman]

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.

Re:which is better

[wizardforce]

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

Re:which is better

[Merls the Sneaky]

Who says we have to restrict ourselves to the surface?

Re:which is better

[Black Gold Alchemist]

You start. Turn of your computer. We'll have another industrial revolution and you'll be left in the dust with that kind of attitude. Would you like to move to Africa or Cuba?

Re:which is better

[Black Gold Alchemist]

170 petawatts. We use 10 terrawatts. But our energy demands are fixed. Even the hated USA uses 10 kW per person. And as societies get more industrial, people have less kids (apparently, people like cars, computers, cell phones, etc. more than kids). The best way to conserve energy is to promote economic development, so we start to reduce population growth. One thing about the sun though is that if you fill the whole planet with solar panels, you do not run out of energy. You just get 170 petawatts. We can't use it up until peak solar in the year 1 billion (approx) because the sun will start to explode. When we do, I think we won't care about sunlight anymore, except to light our crew cabins :-p.

Re:which is better

[fryjs]

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).

Re:which is better

[Black Gold Alchemist]

The amount of hydrogen that escapes that way will be very small. That's wasting money, and no self-respecting capitalist pig would let that happen! But seriously, most of the hydrogen would be reacted with CO2 to create the liquid fuels we all know and love.

Re:which is better

[Shakrai]

Africa is his best bet. Life expectancies in the 40s. That should be suitable pre-industrial age nostalgia.

Re:which is better

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd take Cuba, at least they have universal healthcare.

Re:which is better

[fractoid]

Then its a bit like putting the Earth at the focus of a mirror. We would need to find a source of cooling at the same time. Don't want wind up like the Puppeteers.

Two heads and your brain in your ass?

Re:which is better

[wye43]

The surface area of the Earth is finite. Our appetite for energy is not.

Don't take infinity so lightly. Our current appetite for energy is definitely finite. If you intended to say that from an infinite timeframe point of view, many things are infinite, and while humanity's appetite for energy in an infinite timeframe is possible to be infinite, it’s improbable, as it's over optimistic to assume we are going to exist forever.

Re:which is better

[Rogerborg]

When we run out of cheap, easy energy sources, the "new culture " is going to be based on grabbing what's left, same as every "old culture" we've ever had.

We can choose two futures: Star Trek, or Mad Max. The difference is availability of energy.

Re:which is better

[khallow]

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?

Clearly the former. Because without attempting that sort of thing, you don't understand what "our means" are.

Re:which is better

[demonlapin]

I have no idea what your personal political views are, so this is not a commentary on them - just something your comment reminds me of. I have always found it incredibly amusing that hard-core socialists and communists have pointed to the US trade ban with Cuba - i.e., insufficiently free trade - as the source of so many of the island's ills..

Re:which is better

[Bongo]

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."

Re:which is better

[Ex-MislTech]

the jet stream currents could handle all power needs,
but getting it back down to earth is posing a problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_stream#Future_power_generation

Re:which is better

[Ex-MislTech]

Sometimes what you are told is not actually what is going on.

The healthcare in cuba has limitations.

Some procedures that can be done in the US are not available in Cuba.

I totally agree our healthcare system has turned into a profit chasing nightmare,
but I think both sides are using disinfo to sell their agenda.

Both sides are fundamentally corrupt and flawed.

We need something like a co-op for health care, by the ppl for the ppl
and run as a not for profit so it is not even taxed.

This would drop the costs massively, and lawsuit reform would get
the malpractice insurance out of orbit cost wise.

I hate to say it but greed is killing citizens, and the corporations
and the government will not fix that for you.

Re:which is better

[Bemopolis]

I hope that you meant that as a joke because right now as we speak money is being wasted into the Gulf of Mexico at a rate that makes capitalist pigs the world over weep in pain.

Bite your tongue. The current disaster is a triumph of capitalism's frugality. BP and the other oil companies spent millions buying congressmen and putting their champions in the White House in 2000. In exchange they got a ridiculously low damages cap and no requirement to install a $500,000 shutoff valve on offshore rigs. Not only is that a shining example of captialism, they are going to teach this case in business school for decades to come.

Re:which is better

[Almost-Retired]

In a way that relates to long term survival of mankind, I have to look at the consequences of this when it has replaced about 95% of the petro-crap we use now to run everything. That could happen as the petro becomes ever harder to extract in a safe mode, which as we are seeing, doesn't seem to be the case for deep sea drilling.

Hydrogen, once split, is a very small molecule, and like helium, is hard to store in a pressure vessel because it will slowly walk right through the walls of the vessel, even Monel metal ones. Since the other side of the vessel wall is at local atmospheric pressure, and hydrogen, being even lighter than helium, will head skyward as fast as its weight difference can make it go in the presence of the viscosity of the air. And AFAIK, it never stops, escaping into space because we don't have gravity sufficient to retain it by a factor of 20+.

Why is this important? Simple, really. Eventually we will run out of the raw material to make water, and since we are breaking it down to make this fuel, if this leakage is not being re-combusted, therefore giving the planet back its water, there will come a time when water will become scarce. Fresh water for human consumption already is a problem in some locales.

Since hydrogen can be stored in a manner similar to the acetone soaked foam filling in a bottle of welding acetylene, at very low pressures compared to direct storage as a compressed gas, such storage should be mandated from the gitgo as it will reduce this loss by 95+%...

I don't see us running out of water nearly as quickly as we have run out of petro stuffs, but in the Lazarus Long view, it may well happen. We will have made a replica of the planet Dune and I don't think that is what the folks promoting this envision. Too many will see this as a short term profit generator, and will not care what happens 100k years in the future, its not their watch. Those folks should not be trusted with your investment dollars.

--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
  soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

Re:which is better

[geekoid]

Communism is not opposed to free trade.

Why you even bother to put socialists in the same sentence does lend itself to the idea that you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

Re:which is better

[BreazySpeculation]

No, referring to humans as an "infestation" even in the third person is human hating. I just knew it before I got to the last sentence.

efficiency

[wizardforce]

This is from what I've read on the subect, quite impressive in terms of how it works however, this isn't a technology that is very likely capable of exceeding the efficiency of a few other methods of producing Hydrogen. 10% solar => Hydrogen efficiency would be impressive for a biological system but well within reach of other technologies like solar thermal + water thermochemical cracking This technology might be of use if alternatives remain comparatively expensive.

Re:efficiency

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who both worked on this biological route and saw this thesis defense (FYI, this is a dupe of an earlier story), and someone who is now working on the solar thermal route, I agree so heartily I was amazed to actually read this comment here. This is exactly the correct analysis -- extremely cool science, brilliant work, but no chance of being an actual engineering solution. As far as "comparitively expensive", the solar thermal routes we work on use metal oxides like FeO/Fe2O3 which is completely recovered while the biological route we use incorporates IrO2... and degenerates after 4-5 cycles. This seems like a no-brainer to me. However, the quantum efficiency trends due to cross coupling, the gel method of suspending wires, etc were all absolutely fascinating ideas.

I should probably start logging in at some point so that people actually read my comments. A shame I can't be bothered to remember my password.

Re:efficiency

[Black Gold Alchemist]

I should probably start logging in at some point so that people actually read my comments. A shame I can't be bothered to remember my password.

Yes you should. This is very very interesting that someone who works on thermochemical reads slashdot!!! Are you on the CR5 at Sandia? I'm a highschool student who spent a lot of spare time looking at various thermochemical schemes. Trying to understand the chemical engineering behind them. You can read my conclusions if you want. Please keep in mind that I have no real lab and haven't done any experiments.

In the end, I came to the conclusion that I liked FeO/Fe2O3 the best. The problem I saw was passivation of the iron oxide. So I looked many ways to get rid of this problem. By either misting molten FeO, grinding FeO into smaller particles, reaction with acids, etc. But one I found that I think has not been considered is the disproportion of the FeO. FeO disproportionate at temps below about 500 C as 4FeO -> Fe + Fe3O4. I have no idea what the resulting mixture looks like mechanically when this happens, but according to stuff I read it does indeed happen. Thermodynamic calculations with NIST data show that the reaction is favorable. Metalic iron reacts much better with steam than FeO, AFAIK.

The next cycle I liked was the ISPRA mark 2 sodium manganese cycle:

1. Na2O.MnO2 + H2O -> 2NaOH(a) + MnO2 at 100 C
2. 4MnO2(s) -> 2Mn2O3(s) + O2(g) at 487 C
3. Mn2O3 + 4NaOH -> 2Na2O.MnO2 + H2(g) + H2O at 800 C
This seemed quite good except for that high temperature NaOH.

This weird cycle came up in one of Ken Schultz's papers and I found it quite interesting. It's all liquid, and it seems quite strange. Could it work? I have no idea. There could be corrosion problems, with the KOH.
1. K2O2 + H2O -> 2KOH + O2 at 100 C
2. 2KOH + 2K -> 2K2O + H2 at 725 C
3. 2K2O -> 2K + K2O2 at 850 C

Another idea I had was what I call the thermoelectrochemical engine. Here's how it works. You have two metals, A and B. A can be smelted from it's oxide by hydrogen or CO, and B can reduce water or CO2. There is a non-trivial potential difference between the two metals. For example, A = iron, and B = tin. I'm guessing you can see where this is going.
1. 2Fe + SnO2 -> 2FeO + Sn + 0.5ish V in aqueous electrolyte
2. Sn + 2H2O -> SnO2 + 2H2 at some slightly elevated temperature.
3. 2FeO + 2H2 -> 2Fe + 2H2O at some elevated temperature
There are probably better metals than iron and tin but I picked them because I'm pretty sure they'd work.

Thanks for reading. I'm thinking that FeO is better than sulfur-iodine because there's no high temp separation, and no corrosives running around at high temperature.

Re:efficiency

[wizardforce]

The UT-3 cycle + the ferrite cycle might work better in combination. Ferrite water cracking until the material is passivated at which point UT-3 takes over in a separate reaction chamber

Re:Nanoscale Viruses?

[wizardforce]

The only reason viruses are hard to deal with has to do with the fact that we can't accidentally kill the host trying to "kill" the virus. Since there isn't a host worth worrying about in this design, we don't have to be nice; we can just wipe the virus out without mercy.

Efficiency doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

This could be a winner even if efficiency isn't great.

Yes, there are nightmare problems handling hydrogen (invisible flame, leaks through many materials)

BUT - provided it's durable and cheap you have Solar power that works 24 hours/day. Turn electricity to hydrogen by day, burn hydrogen or run a fuel cell by night.

 

Re:Efficiency doesn't matter

[jobst]

wonder how many current (global/giant/energy) firms will be trying (very VERY hard) to clobber this ... starting with large advertising campaigns aka "this will not work blah blah blah"! I have got solar power on my roof and I hear a lot of people saying "not efficient enough" ... well bugger them, at the current rate I will have paid this off in 5 years time and from then onwards ...

Re:Efficiency doesn't matter

[zippthorne]

Ahh, but how long until you have the unsubsidized price paid off?

It might be good for *you* because other people are paying for it, but it's not as good for *everyone*.

it's nothing, kapitalist dogs!

[justleavealonemmmkay]

North Korea has achieved fusion

Re:it's nothing, kapitalist dogs!

[morty_vikka]

Yes, that's why it's so bright at night .

Dupe! And Unobtianium Alert!!!

[Black Gold Alchemist]

This story appears to be a dupe.

Iridium, a form of unobtainium, is used. This costs upwards of $13,000 per kg. About 3 tons are produced a year.

Not so fast . . .

[NicknamesAreStupid]

The algae have hired a lawyer and are suing the viruses, bacteria, and MIT for patent infringement.

Re:Not so fast . . .

[BluBrick]

Wait, what? The pond scum is not the lawyer?

Over-rated

[Anonymous Coward]

Some genuinely incredible work has come out of the labs at MIT; however, the work described in this article is pedestrian. Frankly, Prof. Belcher is a seriously over-rated, one-trick pony. Don't get me wrong, it's a hugely impressive trick - essentially directed evolution of viruses to get their capsid (i.e., proteinaceous component) to selectively bind to [whatever], but she applies it to whatever the current hot topic is, such as the photocatalytic splitting of water, and has absolutely done it to death. It's her hammer for the world of research nails.

Some of you may recall one of her papers a few years ago on virus-based lithium ion batteries. That work was also Belcher's brainchild, used the exact same techniques as are found in this Nature Nanotech paper, and was also ridiculously over-rated.

The problem with MIT is shameless self-promotion - and it's self-perpetuating because people (even the MIT professors spouting their own greatness) believe it. Another example is Robert Langer, whose work is fine but unremarkable. However, because he's so well known and great at self-promotion, he gets papers in Science/Nature/etc. As a result, his fame continues and the accolades continue to pour in.

It's frustrating to watch, knowing that fame and accolades are often undeserved when brilliant work from lesser known researchers goes unnoticed, but there's really no solution other than to point out when particular academics get more recognition than they deserve and hope that others reading agree and spread the word.

Re:Over-rated

[rubies]

Thanks Sheldon, say hi to Penny for me.

All the buzzword

[oldhack]

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.

Hydrogen == Battery

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not getting energy "out" of water. You're getting energy out of solar radiation.

Yup, hydrogen is just a battery: you charge it by removing the oxygen, then discharge it by burning it (which recombines the oxygen atoms and reforms water).

(unless, of course, you're doing fusion, then hydrogen IS a power source)

Re:Isn't electrolysis 60+% efficient?

[Black Gold Alchemist]

Yes, electrolysis is 70%+ efficient. But, it first must go through that pesky and pricey 20% efficient solar panel, so you get %14 solar to hydrogen. Wouldn't it be great if we could skip that solar panel and all the associated pricing, and go right to hydrogen? That's what this is about.

Also, you don't want methane. You want gasoline. By the time you end up with methane, you have gasoline. Baking soda is a carbon dioxide capture system. We pretty much already have the technology, and I wish someone with a real lab (not me) would do a tech demo.

Re:Isn't electrolysis 60+% efficient?

[Ihlosi]

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).

Beat my idea

[zmollusc]

Damn, I thought i had the perfect way of breaking water molecules up: lending them to teenagers while saying 'be careful with these molecules' . Sadly, when it came to harvesting the hydrogen atoms, they had become lost or 'there was no atoms in the molecules' or 'what water molecules?'.

Re:I like my consumer electronics virus-free

[jamesh]

What could possibly go wrong?!

Nothing. Didn't you notice the word 'harmless' appear twice in TFA? That was all the reassurance I needed. I'm sure the chance of the virus invading your body and splitting apart your molecules when you step out into the sunlight is very close to zero.

Re: Don't want wind up like the Puppeteers.

[MRe_nl]

Inventing Stepping Disks, the Quantum II Hyperdrive, and the General Products Hulls?
No, we should really try to avoid that ; ).

Re:Isn't electrolysis 60+% efficient?

[M8e]

Powerplants can burn other things containing carbon than fossil coal, for example garbage and waste from food- and wood-production.

Some time in the future we might also burn a lot of biproducts from when making ethanol, biodiesel and other biofuels.

Re: Don't want wind up like the Puppeteers.

[fractoid]

Quiet or I'll tasp you! ;)

Dr. Belcher

[ionymous]

Of course Dr. Belcher would be an expert on making gas.

Re:Nanoscale Viruses?

[somersault]

Why do you sign your name on your posts when it's right there in the username, or could be put in your signature? I'm merely curious :P