Slashdot Mirror
Highly Efficient Oxygen Catalyst Found
eldavojohn writes "As detailed in the journal Science (abstract), a new compound composed of cobalt, iron and oxygen with other metals presents us with the most efficient way (found so far) of splitting oxygen atoms from water. These ten known compounds provide a reactivity rate that is at least an order of magnitude higher than what is currently known as the gold standard in such reactions. During their research, the team discovered that the reactivity is dependent on the configuration of the outermost electron of transition metal ions, which they exploited to develop this efficient catalyst. For rechargeable batteries and hydrogen fuel, this is exciting work from MIT's Jin Suntivich, Kevin J. May, Hubert A. Gasteiger, and Yang Shao-Horn, and the University of Texas's John B. Goodenough."
But I thought it was hydrogen we wanted from water. What good is being able to split off oxygen?
Is there a good theory on how catalysts work, so that scientists can use it to actually design new catalysts rather than "try a whole bunch of stuff and hope one works better"?
First, "at a rate 10 times the previous gold standard" is interesting, but meaningless. What is the actual rate, and how is it measured?
Second, what is the cost and availability of the materials needed for the catalyst? Does this require some kind of unobtainium? The article is very vague here.
Third, Is this something we can practically manufacture in any kind of real scale or are we talking microscopic results measurable only in the lab?
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
That last guy has the greatest name ever.
Don't know about best, but Goodenough.
Do you still run electricity through the water, but first you 'dope' the water with the catalyst, and the hydrogen/oxygen separation happens with same rate with less energy input/faster rate with same input?
They mentioned something in the article about an "artificial leaf", so does that mean that you use sunlight as the energy input instead of electricity, and the sunlight drives the reaction with the catalyst?
Wait, so you're saying that we were already at 100% efficiency? My understanding of it (which may be flawed), is that previously, with electrolysis, a lot of energy was being *wasted*? That is, it wasn't being used to split they water, but I dunno, generate waste heat or something?
So, unless you are at 100% efficiency, you should be able to generate hydrogen with less energy if you can find a way to reduce the *wasted* part of the energy. There is, sure, an upper limit on how low the energy can go, since I do agree that there is an absolute amount of energy always necessary to split the compound apart.
So, does this catalyst reduce the waste?
In case you aren't just being an ass, I'll avoid being one (just this once) and ask...
How does your list of ecological atrocities compare to that for the extraction of fossil fuels? Unless it is wildly out of balance (and it's not), the net gain comes from not injecting X amount of mega-million-years-old sequestered carbon per joule created into the atmosphere.
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
A defense is actually fairly easy because you're trying to compare apples (infrastructure) and oranges (fuel) when saying they don't save us much.
The turbines, panels, reflectors, etc are 'infrastructure' which exists in the current system of power plants as well. So generally speaking those cancel each other out - obviously not exactly but since you have to build multiple power plants composed of massive amounts of steel and other components. That requires significant mining and other processing before it is available which is the same as the infrastructure for renewable.
Both systems have infrastructure that has to be built.
Two areas that renewable shines brightly are:
location - your power plants can be on your own roof/backyard, so much less transmission capacity is needed.
fuel - they don't have the ongoing fuel requirements that conventional systems have. Which of course requires mining and the other processes you talk about.
On top of that renewable generally doesn't pollute the environment during operation like fossil fuels do. (Nuclear doesn't pollute (much) during operation but has significant risks when things go bad. A windmill just falls over. It doesn't render the area inhabitable for decades.)
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
This is wrong. It's not wrong that you can put solar panels on your roof. What's wrong is that you still need all the same infrastructure PLUS your solar panels
Correct. However I think you'll agree you'd need less of the infrastructure for power transmission because more power is being generated at the point of use. This is a significant reduction in what renewable needs versus conventional.
Some buildings are not suitable for being powered by rooftop solar panels
Solar film panels that stick to the windows are already in production. Now every window is a solar panel. Again reducing the energy you need to generate/transmit.
you need about 3 and a 1/2 times as much 'nameplate capacity' for wind or solar to equal a fuel-based power plant.
Refuting my assumptions with your own unsubstantiated statements isn't much of a refutation ;-) I am saying that you don't have fuel requirements with renewables, fossil fuels will always have them. Given the hundreds of millions of dollars individual power plants generally cost to build, I'd venture you could easily cover that cost through renewable installations over the lifespan of the systems since there is no fuel for the renewables. Hell, normal residential solar panels pay for themselves in 10-15 years, less for larger systems. Small to big doesn't always follow for correlation, but it's a pretty good indicator that significant savings exist to be had.
Nuclear is a different animal entirely. It will have to be part of our solutions for the next 100 years or so I'm guessing. The risks associated with it though are not worth the benefits long term if you can provide the same energy at the same costs. There's just no reason to use nuclear except perhaps on long space voyages where fuel/sunlight aren't readily available.
The costs of nuclear are mostly in the risks. Without the government backing the loans, nobody would build them - the risks are simply too great financially. Then there's the waste storage issue - something we still haven't solved. Modern society hasn't existed for more than a century and yet we need to store this stuff 'safely' for up to 1000 years. I just don't see that as a sustainable path forward.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
You are making the assumption that "one nameplate" costs exactly the same for all types of power generation. Perhaps solar costs more, perhaps less, for a "namepate" (a weird term I have never seen before). It does not confirm or deny your argument.
Also your capacities for solar are comparing them to how much energy they would generate if they faced the sun at a right angle for 24 hours a day. You might as well mark the capacity of a coal plant based on the potential energy of every C+H bond in the coal, not on what is expected to be burnt.