'Major discovery' from MIT primed to unleash solar revolution!!!!!!

[Ichingcarpenter]

Anne Trafton, News Office
July 31, 2008

In a revolutionary leap that could transform solar power from a marginal, boutique alternative into a mainstream energy source, MIT researchers have overcome a major barrier to large-scale solar power: storing energy for use when the sun doesn't shine.

Until now, solar power has been a daytime-only energy source, because storing extra solar energy for later use is prohibitively expensive and grossly inefficient. With today's announcement, MIT researchers have hit upon a simple, inexpensive, highly efficient process for storing solar energy.

Requiring nothing but abundant, non-toxic natural materials, this discovery could unlock the most potent, carbon-free energy source of all: the sun. "This is the nirvana of what we've been talking about for years," said MIT's Daniel Nocera, the Henry Dreyfus Professor of Energy at MIT and senior author of a paper describing the work in the July 31 issue of Science. "Solar power has always been a limited, far-off solution. Now we can seriously think about solar power as unlimited and soon."

Inspired by the photosynthesis performed by plants, Nocera and Matthew Kanan, a postdoctoral fellow in Nocera's lab, have developed an unprecedented process that will allow the sun's energy to be used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen gases. Later, the oxygen and hydrogen may be recombined inside a fuel cell, creating carbon-free electricity to power your house or your electric car, day or night.

Article with video:http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

[InternalDialogue]

1. Some of the most groundbreaking ideas are the most simple.

Brilliant.

[Ichingcarpenter]

2. These means it would be possible to have your home as your fueling station

and leave the oil and power companies out of the equation.

[smoogatz]

4. 'magine dat.

I'd love to be off the grid in the middle of town.

[johnlal]

28. Or...

It means that you don't have to buy expensive solar panels or wind turbines on your house in order to take advantage of solar electricity. You can buy fuel cells and snap them into place in your basement.

[Occulus]

69. And legislation will soon follow which will require permits so expensive

the average homeowner will not be able to afford them. But the oil companies, OTOH...

(My cynicism knows absolutely no bounds at this juncture.)

[philb]

70. Honda has been developing a home fueling station using solar to generate hydrogen like this

They have demonstration models operating in Japan and California
plan to start selling them at some time

heats and cools your house, provides hot water, and hydrogen for your car

This was a part of their development of a hydrogen powered car, they are starting to exhibit and use in California.

[smoogatz]

3. Fingers crossed.

Let's hope this pans out. On a selfish note: where do I invest?

[InternalDialogue]

6. Ha!

That was one of my thoughts, too. "MIT? Hmm, they won't be turning a profit on this themselves, will they?"

But it also underscores a point I have been trying to make with friends lately, and that is that the linchpin to any successful alternative energy plan will be storage. With effective storage, even the smallest contribution to an energy grid or home-use setup will contribute to the whole. It removes the "cure-all" requirement of any one system of energy collection.

[Ichingcarpenter]

7. Solar Panels Companies.. Solar Tracking Mechanisms

Fuel Cell Technologies, electric car companies (not the big three).

It sounds like this is a major breakthrough.

[Ichingcarpenter]

26. Cobalt Mining ? Going for $45 a pound right now.. as far as I can see now

Cobalt is not found as a native metal but generally found in the form of ores. Cobalt is usually not mined alone, and tends to be produced as a by-product of nickel and copper mining activities. The main ores of cobalt are cobaltite, erythrite, glaucodot, and skutterudite.

In 2005, the Democratic Republic of the Congo was the top producer of cobalt with almost 40% world share followed by Canada, Zambia, Russia, Brazil and Cuba, reports the British Geological Survey.

[philb]

71. They don't need much for this; and its not used up in the process

[Warpy]

5. Well, DUH, I've been saying this for months and months

so it's really too bad they didn't read DU---or watch PBS.

PBS had a brief snippet on one of their science shows of a pilot project house that used solar panels during the day to power the house and to provide energy for hydrolysis. At night, the hydrogen and oxygen produced by hydrolysis powered a fuel cell which in turn powered the house through the night.

Yes, it was a small house and the combination hydrolysis and fuel cell plant outside the house was almost as big as the house itself, but it was easy to see the possibilities for a neighborhood of houses with PVC roofs providing adequate electrolysis for a neighborhood fuel cell power plant, or for large industrial applications.

A lot of research out there is maturing. What is necessary is putting the pieces together to create a whole workable power system. Then the seed money to build it needs to be wrested from the hoarders.

[Auggie]

9. I saw something similar on "This Old House" years ago. But WOW - great news!

[pnwmom]

63. This MIT research is groundbreaking. It's nothing you've been saying for

months and months.

The whole problem up until now is that the known processes weren't nearly efficient enough. MIT is using a NEW technology, not one you thought up or heard about on PBS, that should make solar panels far more useful in many more situations.

From the link at the OP:

"James Barber, a leader in the study of photosynthesis who was not involved in this research, called the discovery by Nocera and Kanan a "giant leap" toward generating clean, carbon-free energy on a massive scale.

"This is a major discovery with enormous implications for the future prosperity of humankind," said Barber, the Ernst Chain Professor of Biochemistry at Imperial College London. "The importance of their discovery cannot be overstated since it opens up the door for developing new technologies for energy production thus reducing our dependence for fossil fuels and addressing the global climate change problem."

[AlbertCat]

64. A lot of research out there is maturing.

Which explains all the money grabbing we see in the current energy businesses and their beneficiaries like politicians.

[TheWraith]

8. How is this new?

All I see is a lot of vague hype statements, that sound like the kind put out in press releases when a laboratory needs more funding. Solar power has been around for decades. So has electrolysis. They can claim all the "catalyst" benefits they want, it doesn't change the underlying reality. Storage of the energy is only one part of the problem for solar power: the other is that it doesn't produce nearly enough energy. And electrolysis is very lossy: you're going lose half the power you put into it, meaning you need twice as many solar cells as you would on a watt for watt production basis.

Plus, the whole press release is rife with nonsense statements. Take this:

--
Currently available electrolyzers, which split water with electricity and are often used industrially, are not suited for artificial photosynthesis because they are very expensive and require a highly basic (non-benign) environment that has little to do with the conditions under which photosynthesis operates.
--

First off, photosynthesis has nothing to do with this. It's electrolysis, pure and simple. Photosynthesis produces sugars, not hydrogen. Second, electrolysis doesn't require a "non benign" environment. It requires water (preferably salt water) and electricity. That's all. It goes on like this... the whole thing sounds like the kind of pseudo-scientific technobabble that people use when trying to sell water-powered cars on eBay.

[phantom power]

10. Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!

Forget it, he's rolling.

[StevieM]

68. It was the Japanese who bombed Pearl Harbor (eom)

[BlueEyedSon]

13. Agree with Wraith. PV + Electrolysis... so?

Maybe the conversion efficiency is higher, but I saw no mention of that.

[shraby]

14. To my recollection, MIT is a credible

leaning institution and isn't prone to hyping anything. If they say they have conquered the storage problem they have.

[TheWraith]

46. MIT doesn't endorse every press release issued by somebody on campus.

That's what this is. It's a press release by a research group that operates there. That doesn't give them special powers, or make them any more honest than any group issuing a press release to try and pump up their profile.

[arendt]

50. Let's see. Head of NSF Chem Div likes it. Other heavy hitter chemists like it.

Luis Echegoyen, director of the National Science Foundation's Chemistry Division in the US, says the simplicity of the process is amazing. 'These chemists may have given us a future way to efficiently obtain oxygen by splitting water,' he commented. (article in #24)

But YOU are not impressed. Who are you to blow away the entire chem establishment? May I see your papers please?

arendt

[TheWraith]

51. Emphasis on "may have" and "future," which are far from "revolutionary breakthrough!"

Any any comment can be taken out of context. His next sentance could easily have been "But this doesn't really do things that much differently than electrolysis, other than keeping the hydrogen in solution."

Also, he's talking about oxygen production, not producing fuel.

When they can explain why it's so much better than standard electrolysis, then maybe they'll have something worth talking about.

[arendt]

53. Bait and switch. Your original gripe was no endorsement. Now its "not revolutionary"...

and, you are taking the standard understatement of scientific discourse out of its context. Their is a huge difference between how scientists speak and how it impacts the world.

Face it, the scientific community does endorse this work.

You show up here in constant attack mode. Someone rebuts argument A, and you completely ignore the substance of the rebuttal, fixate on some minor part of it, and start up argument B. I am totally sick of this kind of one-sided attack discourse. It has ruined honest debate in this country.

arendt

[TheWraith]

58. Sigh. Do you bite this hard on every bit of nonsense that comes through here?

We see this exact same tripe day in, and day out. Group X claims massive revolutionary breakthrough, and everybody cheers. Problem is it was always 90% hype, and never makes it out of the lab, but they announced it anyway because it sounds sexy and gets them free PR. We have seen this literally hundreds of times. Any rational person should expect to apply a little basic scientific reasoning to these things to find out whether they hold water.

The language of their claims alone is scientifically nonsensical, striking me as something more akin to marketing than an actual scientific description. The provide no explanation for what is "revolutionary" about doing something that people have been doing in one way or another for 180 years. And they provide a few out-of-context quotes about what might someday be useful about it, as well as some enthusiastic gushing from the researchers themselves. If this were a press release from some corporation about their great new clean coal technology or the like, EVERYBODY here would know to be suspicious, but the collective IQ turns off when it's "green."

You can trumpet anything coming out of a lab as "revolutionary." That doesn't make it TRUE, or even practical. We've had "breakthroughs" in solar power for 30 plus years, and not one of them has ever made it truly practical on a grand scale. So to put it bluntly, I have reality backing me up.

[arendt]

61. Do you bash every peer-reviewed science paper from MIT this hard? Or just the ones that threaten you

All you got to bash is bad writing from trade press hacks. Nothing new about that.

Read the scientific paper itself...it is technically sound. It is a major advance in splitting water CHEAPLY and at room temperature.

What is it that you want? More oil? More nukes? Every chemist I have talked to today, Friday, thinks its a big deal. And, yes, I do talk to a bunch of chemists in my company.

Methinks you scream too loudly, trying to tie this solid science to the Brittany Spears of "cold fusion".

arendt

[TheWraith]

72. This is NOT A SCIENCE PAPER. It is a PRESS RELEASE.

If you can't tell the difference, or can't make the distinction between a discovery claimed in a lab and an actual application, then you're deliberately shutting your eyes.

[kristopher]

75. Maroon is your color...

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1162018

Published Online July 31, 2008
Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1162018

Science Express Index
Reports

Submitted on June 19, 2008
Accepted on July 18, 2008

In Situ Formation of an Oxygen-Evolving Catalyst in Neutral Water Containing Phosphate and Co2+
Matthew W. Kanan 1 and Daniel G. Nocera 1*

1 Department of Chemistry, 6-335, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139–4307, USA.

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Daniel G. Nocera , E-mail: nocera{at}mit.edu

The utilization of solar energy on a large scale requires its storage. In natural photosynthesis, energy from sunlight is used to rearrange the bonds of water to O2 and H2-equivalents. The realization of artificial systems that perform similar "water splitting" requires catalysts that produce O2 from water without the need for excessive driving potentials. Here, we report such a catalyst that forms upon the oxidative polarization of an inert indium tin oxide electrode in phosphate-buffered water containing Co2+. A variety of analytical techniques indicates the presence of phosphate in an approximate 1:2 ratio with cobalt in this material. The pH dependence of the catalytic activity also implicates HPO42– as the proton acceptor in the O2-producing reaction. This catalyst not only forms in situ from earth-abundant materials but also operates in neutral water under ambient conditions.

[arendt]

17. This is charge separation by sunlight; not electrolysis. Here's the abstract:

The utilization of solar energy on a large scale requires its
storage. In natural photosynthesis, energy from sunlight is
used to rearrange the bonds of water to O2 and H2-
equivalents. The realization of artificial systems that
perform similar “water splitting” requires catalysts that
produce O2 from water without the need for excessive
driving potentials. Here we report such a catalyst that
forms upon the oxidative polarization of an inert indium
tin oxide electrode in phosphate-buffered water
containing Co2+. A variety of analytical techniques
indicates the presence of phosphate in an approximate 1:2
ratio with cobalt in this material. The pH dependence of
the catalytic activity also implicates HPO42– as the proton
acceptor in the O2-producing reaction. This catalyst not
only forms in situ from earth-abundant materials but also
operates in neutral water under ambient conditions.

----

From skimming the article (its on Science Express. You can read it now if you have a subscription.), they verified (by putting the whole system under helium) that the hydrogen had to be coming from water, not from the air. They took electron micrographs of the formation of the catalytic surface, which is only 2 microns thick. The catalytic surface forms spontaneously when cobalt ions are added to plain water in which an Indium-Tin-Oxide electrode is placed.

--------------------------

FWIW, this is real science, not BS. Whether it pans out or not is a different question.

arendt

[Ichingcarpenter]

19. Thanks, I lost my subscription to Science which is peer reviewed

I was looking for anything else other that the news leak I found.

[RufusTFirefly]

32. Thanks for the additional info, arendt! n/t

[Dead_Parrot]

39. No, it's still electrolysis

It's presumably more efficient with the catalyst, and doesn't use the the usual electrolytes, but it's still good old-fashioned electrolysis.

Not quite the revolution it's made out to be - more of an evolution.

[arendt]

41. You're right. See #38. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

57. Improving electrolysis is a admirable goal.

At least they didn't call it cold fusion, I suppose.

[RufusTFirefly]

31. I was confused by this, too.

Like you, I wasn't sure what was new. (I've heard electrolysis and fuel cells being discussed in the context of storing wind energy) and I thought the mention of photosynthesis was kind of a non sequitur.

[truedelphi]

55. Thank you for offering some scientific background on what sounded like techno-babble to me.

Glad you stepped in to clarify the things my mind "thought" were wrong with this press release.

Plus what type of fuel cells would each house have to have?? And how expensive would those be??

[TheWraith]

73. Probably insanely expensive.

Solar systems are already not known for their cost-effectiveness: adding some kind of cobalt/platinum based electrolyzer and a hydrogen fuel cell would spike the price even more. Besides which, any kind of chemical storage is going to be lossy. It would be both cheaper and more efficient to use batteries for energy storage--SLA or Lithium Ion.

[kristopher]

74. Solar is a hell of a lot cheaper than nuclear...

[TheWraith]

76. No, it's not. Not that that's the point, but you're still wrong.

Solar, in the most optimistic projections, costs about 12-15 cents per kilowatt-hour. Nuclear costs 4 cents. In fact, there's no form of electricity in common use that's more expensive than solar. Wind, gas, hydro, coal, thermal, nuclear, even oil, all are cheaper per kilowatt than solar. The fact that some people are still obsessed with solar power really speaks to the inability to do basic math.

[kristopher]

77. As usual, our nukenut friends ask the wrong question...

The question isn't how much does solar cost now under current market and policy conditions, the question is how much will each technology cost as we restructure away from fossil fuels?

Solar infrastructure (plants for producing PV panels) is dramatically less expensive than nuclear over both the short and long term.
For the price of the proposed florida nuclear plant (12-15 billion and rising) how many PV plants can we build?
NanoSolar is producing a $1.65 million printer that can produce 1 GW per year of thin film panels with a 14% capacity factor.

$12,000,000,000 buys how many of these printers and what do you get? About 7,200 printers capable of producing 7,200 GW of panels EACH YEAR - and that is for the (very, very conservative) overnight cost of ONE (1) nuclear plant with two (2) reactors.


There is no technological reason solar should be expensive. To date, it hasn't attracted investment because of cheap fossil fuels - that has changed.

Both wind and solar have EROEI numbers that currently DWARF nuclear's EROEI and the future is one where nuclear's EROEI continues to decline while solar and wind continue to increase.

To transition from fossil fuels for transportation and electricity is unquestionably cheaper with wind and solar than with nuclear.

[TheWraith]

78. Okay, that's completely wrong. Let me explain.

"The question isn't how much does solar cost now under current market and policy conditions, the question is how much will each technology cost as we restructure away from fossil fuels?"

In other words, how much will it cost if we're talking about imaginary numbers and imaginary technology? That's what you're really saying. Facts on the ground: solar power tech has not improved significantly in decades, and hype aside there's no reason to believe it's going to. Therefore, current conditions are the ones that we need to work with. Maybe you're content to wait another 20 or 30 years for solar to suddenly spring up like magic before we start working on the problem. I'm not.

"Solar infrastructure (plants for producing PV panels) is dramatically less expensive than nuclear over both the short and long term."

No, actually it's vastly more expensive. A nuclear plant costs about $2 billion to build. That means that we could displace all other forms of power in the US for about $600 billion dollars. Solar power, on the other hand, would cost about $7.4 TRILLION for the same wattage. All you have to do is apply basic math to the situation.

Bearing that in mind, and the fact that we have a very limited number of hydro power stations, there are only two viable carbon-free options for future power. Nuclear and wind. Only an idiot would pay $7.4 trillion when nuclear and wind can do it for $600 billion or $900 billion respectively. The fact that solar is still the obsession of certain people despite decades of repeated failure is mindboggling.

"For the price of the proposed florida nuclear plant (12-15 billion and rising) how many PV plants can we build?"

To supply the energy needs of the United States, we'd need to build a solar plant covering more than half of Nevada. Again: basic math. Watts per square meter versus energy demand means that you'd need solar cells covering an area of 47,000 square miles. Add in room for maintenance facilities and roads, and you've got most of Nevada paved over.

"NanoSolar is producing a $1.65 million printer that can produce 1 GW per year of thin film panels with a 14% capacity factor."

And if they actually manage to build that "printer," let me know. But startup companies have been parting investors from their money for decades on stuff like this, and these miraculous breakthroughs never materialize. So don't come to me with Stirling engines and solar cell printers. Don't act like a press release is the same thing as having the technology in your hands. Because it's not. If it were, I'd be tooling around in a flying car powered by vacuum energy.

"$12,000,000,000 buys how many of these printers and what do you get? About 7,200 printers capable of producing 7,200 GW of panels EACH YEAR - and that is for the (very, very conservative) overnight cost of ONE (1) nuclear plant with two (2) reactors."

Actually no, that's the cost of a boondoggle. If anybody's actually talking about paying that for a reactor, then they're fucking morons and should be kicked out of whatever office they occupy.

"There is no technological reason solar should be expensive."

Yes, there is, and it's quite obvious. The technology for converting sunlight into electricity is extremely inefficient, and all signs are that it will continue to be for the forseeable future. That means large areas are required to capture energy, which means large production lots. More production, more energy invested, higher cost.

"To date, it hasn't attracted investment because of cheap fossil fuels - that has changed."

No, it hasn't attracted investment because it's not even remotely cost effective. Do you really think that with millions of investors in the country, solar would have been ignored as completely as it has if it were really viable for large-scale power generation? Do you think that those wind farms which are springing up across the country are magically exempt from the conditions applied to solar power? Of course not--it's because they're cost effective. Solar power isn't.

"Both wind and solar have EROEI numbers that currently DWARF nuclear's EROEI and the future is one where nuclear's EROEI continues to decline while solar and wind continue to increase."

Don't throw acronyms around like you know what they mean. Talking about energy return, a nuclear plant returns its cost in 18 months. A wind turbine, in two years. Solar power takes over four years. The EROEI of solar power is terrible compared to any other alternative. It only becomes good if you assume that a solar panel will last 50 years, when it's known that their actual lifespan is 20 to 25 years. In other words, if you fake the numbers.

"To transition from fossil fuels for transportation and electricity is unquestionably cheaper with wind and solar than with nuclear."

Well, reality doesn't agree.

[kristopher]

79. Please tell me you don't believe what you wrote...

If you think a nuclear plant costs $2B, you are seriously misinformed. This is typical of the worldwide situation:

Assessing Nuclear Plant Capital Costs for the Two Proposed NRG Reactors at the South Texas Project Site
Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D.

March 24, 2008

A. Main Findings and Recommendations
NRG, a merchant electricity generating company, proposes to build two new nuclear power
reactors, totaling 2,700 megawatts at the South Texas Project site near Bay City, Texas. NRG
owns a part of the two units that already exist at that site. CPS Energy, San Antonio’s electricity
and gas municipal utility, which owns a 40 percent share of the two existing units proposes to
purchase a 40 percent share of the proposed new reactors. This analysis is a preliminary report
on the likely capital costs of the two reactors, as best they can be determined at the present time.
It also contains some preliminary observations regarding efficiency and distributed renewable
energy sources to put the CPS decision that might be made regarding investment in the NRG
plant into context.

Central conclusion and recommendation
overall finding of this report is that NRG’s range of $6 billion to $7 billion is obsolete.
The best available estimates indicate that capital costs would likely be about a factor of two
or more higher, even without taking into account the potential for real cost escalations
during construction, delays, and other risks risks to CPS, as a municipal utility and to
its ratepayers as well as to the taxpayers of San Antonio are great. Due diligence demands
that CPS participation in the project should not be pursued until an independent, detailed
study with current cost estimates of the plants and alternatives to it are complete and have
been publicly disclosed and discussed.


You are likewise totally wrong and uninformed about solar. The thin film printers are here, now and in operation. As I said, there is no technical reason that solar should be so expensive. The reason it has remained expensive so far has been entirely a function of policy and the natural growth of an electrical grid based on thermal generation from cheap fossil fuels. There is NO *technical* reason for solar to be any more expensive than any other electrical device. There are two ways to make solar more affordable: improve efficiency and thus per unit productivity (as you said), OR bring the per unit costs down dramatically. The only thing needed to bring the per unit costs down is heavy investment in manufacturing - it's not one whit different than a TV set.

One more thing: EROI. While a nuclear plant may payback it's initial energy investment in 18 months, it is still dependent on a diminishing supply of fuel that will either require more energy than presently to mine and process, or more likely will require an energy intensive central reprocessing program. Either way, the outlook for EROI in the nuclear energy industry (presently estimated variously between 5:1 - 15:1) is declining.

Solar has a payback of between 1-4 years depending on the specific technology and then produces energy with little additional input for about 30 years. Current generation terrestrial wind farms have an EROI of about 30:1, while offshore wind is fast passing by 50:1 on it's way up.

If you'd bothered to read the Lovins' article for content instead of just pulling a Limbaugh style 'dis' of the source, you'd be a much wiser person. Why don't you chew on the real costs of nuclear and take a moment to re-evaluate your mental model of the energy landscape - it is in serious need of attention.

[Xipe Totec]

60. My thoughs exactly

MIT invents electrolysis?

One "catalyst" produces oxygen, the other hydrogen?

As far as I know, the anode produces oxygen, the cathode produces hydrogen, regardless of the material.

[northernlights]

62. not exactly...

"photosynthesis has nothing to do with this. It's electrolysis, pure and simple. Photosynthesis produces sugars, not hydrogen"

Not true. While sugars are the *end* product of photosynthesis. the initial, light-dependent phase of photosynthesis is electrolysis -- it splits water into O, H+, H+ and 2 free electrons. It occurs in Photosystem 2, where photons hit chlorophyll molecules and stretch their orbitals. The orbitals then snap back and release energy. The released energy splits water into O, H+, H+ and 2 free electrons.

(The O diffuses back to the atmosphere. The electrons move through a series of electron transport molecules by redox reaction, and the H+ is moved by protein pumps, through photosystem 1, where they all react with NADP+ to form NADPH, and then on to the C3 cycle for sugar production.)

[The Backlash Cometh]

11. This isn't an MIT prank, is it?

They've been known to be kawooshers.

[greenvpi]

12. Yawn

More bullshit publicity stunts by people seeking attention.

> split water into hydrogen and oxygen gases

Electrolysis was discovered in 1832 by Faraday. Got anything new other than a press release?

We'll never have true alternative power until the people in charge that are fighting it are put in prison or at the very least are stripped of their money so they lose influence so they can no longer be effective in the fight against alternative power.

[tinrobot]

16. It's not traditional electrolysis

Traditional electrolysis releases H2 and O2 gas. This leaves the H2 in solution.

From a New Scientist article about the same topic:

Although the catalyst does produce oxygen from water, it does not produce hydrogen gas (H2) that can be burnt in a fuel cell. Instead, the hydrogen extracted from water stays in solution as positive ions with electrons extracted transferred into another circuit.

A second electrode and a different catalyst will be needed to combine those electrons with the hydrogen ion to make hydrogen gas.

http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn14441-electrode-lights-the-way-to-artificial-photosynthesis.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news1_head_dn14441

[Duppers]

25. uh?

I only agree w/your 2nd statement, then only partially:

"....the people in charge that are fighting it ....are stripped of their.... influence so they can no longer be effective in the fight against alternative power.

That was my FIRST thought when I read the OP, i.e. how are 'they' going to kill this / keep it fr being implemented?

[TheWraith]

45. Keep what from being implemented? This is old, old technology. 180 years old.

Electrolysis was discovered in the 1830s. It's not new, it's not revolutionary, and it's not an efficient means of energy storage.

[Duppers]

56. self-deleted

-TheDuppers

[varun]

15. Many great ideas come from nature

photosynthesis from plants, fiber from spider webs, etc.

[JohnWxy]

18. recommended!

[formercia]

20. One once of Palladium powder can store enough hydrogen

equal to 9 gallons of gasoline, convert it directly into electricity and pure water and has the capability to run on hydrogen from alternate fuel sources such as methanol with a reforming unit to strip the Hydrogen. This will allow use of alternate fuels when a hydrogen station or solar recharger is not available.

http://www.stillwaterpalladium.com/fuelcells.html

[druidity33]

22. palladium?

from your link:

Today, palladium is in a unique situation. The metal is in demand from a wide range of global industries, yet is supplied by only a few mines across the world. Thus, any interruption to supply can have a dramatic impact on prices.

A perfect example of this occurred a few years ago. The biggest palladium supplier in the world is Norilsk Nickel in the Russian Federation, and in the year 2000, Norilsk’s deliveries of palladium became unreliable. The palladium market then was so tight that supply interruptions resulted in huge price surges. Palladium reached a high of $1090 per ounce in early 2001. Palladium is for the moment in oversupply and at less than a quarter of its high, but questions remain with many about future supply reliability.

:shrug:

[formercia]

23. It's below $400 per Troy oz. today and will become cheaper.

It's a metal that is easily recycled into new assemblies. None is lost in the process and only a couple of ounces can supply the equivalent storage of a conventional fuel tank with a great reduction in weight and volume.

[Ichingcarpenter]

27. $ 2 an OZ. for Cobalt seems a little cheaper...... n/t

[formercia]

35. But Cobalt systems are a lot bigger and heavier.

http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/jpcbfk/2002/106/i37/abs/jp020151j.html

Abstract:

To seek new potential materials for hydrogen storage, an arc-discharge method was employed to prepare nanosized nickel(or cobalt)/graphite composites, in which the nickel (or cobalt) particles were highly dispersed in a carbon matrix with particle size between 20 and 70 nm (or 5-20 nm). Quantitative TPD measurements showed that at about 500 C and 30-50 atm these nanosized composites could uptake up to 2.8 wt % H2, which can be released at 500 C and 1 atm. The addition of Ni (or Co) in C was found to largely enhance the H2 adsorption

Palladium on the other hand can absorb 800 to 900 times its weight of Hydrogen at room temperature and pressure.
It can absorb up to 960 time its own weight in Hydrogen under optimal conditions.

Calculate the weight of a cobalt-carbon system storage unit to store the equivalent to a tank full of conventional auto fuel (2 Troy oz. of Pd)


A Pd storage unit of that capacity could be built the size and weight of a carton of cigarettes when empty.

[kristopher]

21. The article is correct

In that storage is the key element of a renewable system.

Leaving aside for a moment the advance claimed, in an applications based comparison of all available options currently before us reveals batteries as being far superior to H because of 3 problems for tranportation: energy losses in a H system are large, compression is needed to achieve energy density, and no substitute for platinum has yet proved itself as a basis for the PEM in fuel cells.

In order to evaluate the significance of this new approach it is necessary to know how it impacts cost of getting power to the end user. We don't have that information yet.

It looks to me like one major point they are making is that this system is easily put together from local components. Perhaps they excited because they are thinking of it's application worldwide in areas where the benefits of this H system may outweigh the costs of a battery system - such as having a clean burning fuel for cooking. That is a big thing for many of the people in the world...

[arendt]

24. Another trade press story, with a picture of the apparatus

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2008/July/31070802.asp

[NNadir]

29. Like clockwork, every day for the last 50 years, there's a major solar breakthrough.

I personally can't wait for tomorrow's.

[arendt]

33. And I can't wait for you to acknowledge any ideas but the nuclear industry's.

This is real science, from a real place: MIT. It just happens to use everyday materials, run at room temperature, and produce no toxic waste.

That really chaps you, doesn't it.

arendt

[NNadir]

66. No toxic waste? Wow. Beejebus? We've been hearing that for 50 years too.

I have no idea who you are, and I couldn't care less, but I'm going to guess you're handwaving, as has been the case in the last 50 years of "solar will save us" and "solar isn't toxic" crap.

One pretty much needs to understand the basics of solar technology to understand nuclear technology but the inverse isn't true. Thus the nuclear scientist is necessarily broader, deeper and more widely informed than the solar scientist - in general.

But like Greenpeace always says, "this isn't about science."

Indeed it isn't. This is about illiteracy, scientific illiteracy of the first sort.

Have a nice day here in the provinces.

[arendt]

67. I know who you are - a rabid, pro-nuke ideologue who never lets facts get in the way of a rant...

Tell me how cobalt and phosphate are toxic or shut up.

Nobody EXCEPT YOU and the Wraith are bringing up nuclear. This is a story about water-splitting. It is your OBVIOUS ideological slant that is dragging nuclear into this.

If there were a new nuclear technology, I would be all ears. But, all you guys are defending is thirty year old crap. I would listen to pebble-bed or thorium-based; but water-cooled plutonium? Give me a break.

I'm in Cambridge, MA. What podunk berg are you in?

arendt

[Greyskye]

37. You feeling OK?

No name calling, no condescending remarks - just some mild snark.

Hope you feel better soon! :hug:

[arendt]

30. MIT patented it. Says so in yet another trade press story.

http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=ZDQJMRNN0OTB4QSNDLPSKHSCJUNN2JVN?articleID=209900956&printable=true&printable=true

[ElectricGrid]

34. Cool... let's hope this is the one.

[eppur_se_muova]

36. Ouch. Not a well-written article.

I doubt whether there was effective two-way communication between the chemists and the author of this article. I don't see any connection between the "catalyst" and capturing light in the text. I know enough about what people have been working on (for the last three decades) to guess that what they are describing is a new photocatalyst/electrode combination that, under illumination, produces H2 at one electrode and O2 at the other -- this has been the Holy Grail for a long time, and there have been other preliminary reports of partial success. But the article gets the concepts of photoinduced cleavage and electrolysis all scrambled together.

The most important difference with conventional PV is that this is a **direct** conversion of light to chemical energy, not light to electricity to fuel. There's a parallel with photosynthesis here, but not one strong enough to be very useful. It would have been better to have left out any mention of photosynthesis altogether.

[arendt]

38. My mistake. The experiment didn't use light. They just use 1.27 V of electricity.

If you supplied that from a PV cell, you would have "artificial photosynthesis" - but, I agree, that such a claim is hype. To be AP, the same molecule would have to capture the light and split the water - which is what the TiO2 systems do.

arendt

[eppur_se_muova]

40. Ouch. That's worse than I thought.

I gather you're getting additional info from another source. ON EDIT: Saw your citation in responses to OP. FURTHER EDIT: Sounds like they ought to call it "piggyback electrolysis" -- light is providing part, not all, of the energy, AFAICT.

[arendt]

43. #24 is the clearest story. No PV in the experiment. That's all just talk about the future. n/t

[eppur_se_muova]

44. Thanks. It is an improvement, but an incremental improvement.

"Nocera says that while platinum electrodes are quite good at generating hydrogen (combining protons and electrons), they waste a lot of energy in making oxygen - so his catalyst markedly improves the efficiency of the water splitting system."

[Dead_Parrot]

47. That's a weird thought

"while platinum electrodes are quite good at generating hydrogen... they waste a lot of energy in making oxygen"

Presumably, the new catalyst splits water into hydrogen and something else.
:crazy:

[tbyg52]

42. So, do they get McCain's "battery" prize? nt

[provis99]

48. these "researchers" are on the same level as the cold fusion clowns

Its just a sad attempt to get more funding for their silly project, so they don't have to do real work, like teaching students.

[arendt]

49. Oh, and your word is better than all of MIT's. I see. I bow to your superior wisdom. n/t

[kristopher]

52. If you are searaching for one-size-fits-all solution to energy, you might not find it

On the other hand, if you recognize that replacing fossil fuels included replacing wood and charcoal whenever possible to preserve forests as carbon sinks, then you might recognize that technologies like this may have a very small environmental footprint while making life significantly better for billions of people. The energy using habits of the USA are a poor benchmark by which to judge energy technologies and their human impact.

Because the full costs for differing applications haven't yet been determined, I don't know the value of this technology; but neither do you. That being the case, it say something about you that you automatically assign negative motives to the researchers, don't you think?

[arendt]

54. Today's Science mag has more endorsements (one "breakthrough" quote) and gives some limitations

Endorsements:

The new catalyst needs improvements before it can solve the world’s energy problems, but several outside researchers say it’s a crucial development. “This is a great result,” says John Turner, an electrochemist and water-splitting expert at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado. Thomas Moore, a chemist at Arizona State University in Tempe, goes further. “It’s a big-to-giant step” in the direction of powering industrial societies with renewable fuels, he says. “I’d say it’s a breakthrough.”

Caveats:

The catalyst isn’t perfect. It still requires excess electricity to start the water-splitting reaction, energy that isn’t recovered and stored in the fuel. And for now, the catalyst can accept only low levels of electrical current.

arendt

[L. Coyote]

59. "In 1 hr. enough sunlight strikes the Earth to provide the entire planet's energy needs for 1 yr."

[Jeroen]

65. The best news since weeks n/t