Here Comes The Sun!

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
harvey- have u looked into the japanese water car?? i wonder if their "membrane" is anything like what u posted. sounds alittle different but very cool.

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/e...WS_EN/20080613/153276/

or youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrxfMz2eDME

The basic power generation mechanism of the new system is similar to that of a normal fuel cell, which uses hydrogen as a fuel. According to Genepax, the main feature of the new system is that it uses the company's membrane electrode assembly (MEA), which contains a material capable of breaking down water into hydrogen and oxygen through a chemical reaction.
With the new process, the cell needs only water and air, eliminating the need for a hydrogen reformer and high-pressure hydrogen tank. Moreover, the MEA requires no special catalysts, and the required amount of rare metals such as platinum is almost the same as that of existing systems, Genepax said.
Unlike the direct methanol fuel cell (DMFC), which uses methanol as a fuel, the new system does not emit CO2. In addition, it is expected to have a longer life because catalyst degradation (poisoning) caused by CO does not occur on the fuel electrode side. As it has only been slightly more than a year since the company completed the prototype, it plans to collect more data on the product life.

Sounds like all of these "new" break throughs will either stay in "study" mode or quietly dissapear as usual.

 

[PokerGuy]

Interesting. I'm no chemical engineer (or any kind of engineer for that matter!), but it seems plausible. I'm sure there will be a lot of work left to be done before it becomes viable on a scale, but still. Perhaps I need to start looking into buying shares in a cobalt-producing company.......

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Considering expense is one of the greatest hurdles to alternate energy (even at $150/bbl, oil is incredibly cheap power) any decreases to price is a big step forward.

And no one is arguing that. However, the price of the catalyst isn't really what has held this techology back. It is the hesitation to implement the infrastructure, peoples' distrust of hydrogen storage methodologies (largely due to ignorance, thanks to journalism), and myopic policy.

Also the fact that the electricity needed to power the electrolysis cell has to come from somewhere and the process itself isn't very economical/efficient even with reduced catalyst costs because of how power intensive it is.

Considering how solar electricity is still among the most expensive ways to generate power I wouldn't consider this a monumental advancement though it is progress.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: daniel49

The key component in the process is a catalyst -- cobalt metal, phosphate and an electrode, placed in water


cool now the russians and canadians can screw us
Worlds top colbalt producers

I welcome our new Russian overlords.

On another note, if this does become the breakthrough that we outside of the oil industry have all been waiting for....looking at your link...

How long will it be until we kick the Cuban-American voting sector to the curb to make nice with Raul Castro to get cheap cobalt?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: K1052
Also the fact that the electricity needed to power the electrolysis cell has to come from somewhere and the process itself isn't very economical/efficient even with reduced catalyst costs because of how power intensive it is.

Considering how solar electricity is still among the most expensive ways to generate power I wouldn't consider this a monumental advancement though it is progress.

Definitely. There are significant improvements upcoming in solar technology, though they are still a long way from being competitive with oil for transportation purposes.

 

[herm0016]

as i have posted in other forums about this:

the "revolutionary energy storage" that MIT came up with reminds me of the article that claimed MIT researchers came up with the parabolic reflector when all they did was bend a few mirrors. They may have made the process slightly more efficient but every elementary school kid has seen electrolysis with a 9volt and 2 sections of copper wire in a beaker of water. the article claims "artificial photosynthesis" after having stated that they use the same principals as basic electrolysis, and then states that its not electrolysis because electrolysis does not have anything to do with the conditions under which photosynthesis operates???? huh??? and when did something being expensive have anything to do with how it operates?
the catalyst metals will end up in the water as ions anyway( because they are pushing current through them) making the water that is left over full of heavy metals. Great job on the research, but don't claim you came up with ancient technology. It seems that MIT's news articles are very good at mis-characterizing their research.

this process still uses electricity and basic concepts, with a new catalyst.

quote of an entire paragraph:
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.

this has nothing to do with photosynthesis other than the guy mentioning it. last time i checked a tree does not have to be plugged in to grow. if they really came up with a purely chemical way to convert something to hydrogen for fuel it would be a big deal, but this is not.

the original article from MIT: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

 

[Xavier434]

This is definitely much more promising than previous methods that I have read about. I really do hope that it takes off. Mastering and optimizing the utilization of solar power will most likely be a really big revolution when it comes to energy. That day will come. It makes far too much sense for it not to come.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: herm0016

this process still uses electricity and basic concepts, with a new catalyst.

The major difference, here is, once the system is built, the solar power to run the process is essentially free... during daylight hours. This is essentially a process that overcomes that limitation. It's a means of storing the otherwise transitory solar power for use during dark hours.

Even if a catalytic material is intrinsically toxic, if it's not expended or changed in the process, it won't contribute pollution into the environment. I don't expect 100% effectiveness, but if it yields enough power for the cost of building it, it's a great concept and a possibly great step toward cleaner power.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: herm0016

this process still uses electricity and basic concepts, with a new catalyst.

The major difference, here is, once the system is built, the solar power to run the process is essentially free... during daylight hours. This is essentially a process that overcomes that limitation. It's a means of storing the otherwise transitory solar power for use during dark hours.

Even if a catalytic material is intrinsically toxic, if it's not expended or changed in the process, it won't contribute pollution into the environment. I don't expect 100% effectiveness, but if it yields enough power for the cost of building it, it's a great concept and a possibly great step toward cleaner power.

Exactly. On top of that, the solution here is supposed to be much cheaper than previous solutions which means it might actually be adopted after a little more refinement.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: herm0016

this process still uses electricity and basic concepts, with a new catalyst.

The major difference, here is, once the system is built, the solar power to run the process is essentially free... during daylight hours. This is essentially a process that overcomes that limitation. It's a means of storing the otherwise transitory solar power for use during dark hours.

Even if a catalytic material is intrinsically toxic, if it's not expended or changed in the process, it won't contribute pollution into the environment. I don't expect 100% effectiveness, but if it yields enough power for the cost of building it, it's a great concept and a possibly great step toward cleaner power.

Solar energy is always free, the capture of it is what costs huge amounts of money.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: herm0016

this process still uses electricity and basic concepts, with a new catalyst.

The major difference, here is, once the system is built, the solar power to run the process is essentially free... during daylight hours. This is essentially a process that overcomes that limitation. It's a means of storing the otherwise transitory solar power for use during dark hours.

Even if a catalytic material is intrinsically toxic, if it's not expended or changed in the process, it won't contribute pollution into the environment. I don't expect 100% effectiveness, but if it yields enough power for the cost of building it, it's a great concept and a possibly great step toward cleaner power.

Solar energy is always free, the capture of it is what costs huge amounts of money.

Yes, and this article is suggesting that it can be done very easily and not cost very much.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: herm0016

this process still uses electricity and basic concepts, with a new catalyst.

The major difference, here is, once the system is built, the solar power to run the process is essentially free... during daylight hours. This is essentially a process that overcomes that limitation. It's a means of storing the otherwise transitory solar power for use during dark hours.

Even if a catalytic material is intrinsically toxic, if it's not expended or changed in the process, it won't contribute pollution into the environment. I don't expect 100% effectiveness, but if it yields enough power for the cost of building it, it's a great concept and a possibly great step toward cleaner power.

Solar energy is always free, the capture of it is what costs huge amounts of money.

Yes, and this article is suggesting that it can be done very easily and not cost very much.

Not really, they've perhaps found a way to reduce the cost of electrolysis through cheaper catalysts but not the energy that you input into it in the first place which is still substantial.

 

[herm0016]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: herm0016

this process still uses electricity and basic concepts, with a new catalyst.

The major difference, here is, once the system is built, the solar power to run the process is essentially free... during daylight hours. This is essentially a process that overcomes that limitation. It's a means of storing the otherwise transitory solar power for use during dark hours.

Even if a catalytic material is intrinsically toxic, if it's not expended or changed in the process, it won't contribute pollution into the environment. I don't expect 100% effectiveness, but if it yields enough power for the cost of building it, it's a great concept and a possibly great step toward cleaner power.

Solar energy is always free, the capture of it is what costs huge amounts of money.

Yes, and this article is suggesting that it can be done very easily and not cost very much.

Not really, they've perhaps found a way to reduce the cost of electrolysis through cheaper catalysts but not the energy that you input into it in the first place which is still substantial.

yes. we can use solar to make hydrogen now, this just makes the process more efficient, which is great, but the original article and most subsequent articles make ridiculous claims about the research.
this is not a new process or a way to capture solar energy. the energy to run this process still comes from traditional solar sources, the same ones we have on the market right now.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: herm0016

Originally posted by: K1052
Not really, they've perhaps found a way to reduce the cost of electrolysis through cheaper catalysts but not the energy that you input into it in the first place which is still substantial.

yes. we can use solar to make hydrogen now, this just makes the process more efficient, which is great, but the original article and most subsequent articles make ridiculous claims about the research.
this is not a new process or a way to capture solar energy. the energy to run this process still comes from traditional solar sources, the same ones we have on the market right now.

I assume you are referring to cost to collect the solar energy itself? That is actually changing a lot too. I don't have the article or video handy, but I do know that there is a lot of money and development occurring which involves making solar panels (or rather, materials which make the collection of solar energy possible) much cheaper.

No one is arguing that the discovery at MIT is the last revolutionary step necessary to bring solar into everyday use by most people, but it is one big step towards that future. That's why it is so exciting. That future will be here eventually.

 

[wwswimming]

Originally posted by: Harvey
While this is a good start, the currently available electrolyzers that 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, Nocera said.

the question is, how expensive is it energy wise ?

When electricity -- whether from a photovoltaic cell, a wind turbine or any other source -- runs through the electrode, the cobalt and phosphate form a thin film on the electrode, and oxygen gas is produced, the researchers explained.

it sounds like electrolysis.

i'd like some more info ! it sounds good.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: wwswimming

the question is, how expensive is it energy wise ?

That's the beauty of this one. We're talking about using excess solar energy to convert non-storable solar power to a storable form of potential energy as separated hydrogen and oxygen. It uses available solar power above that needed to run separation process and supply the needs of the city/state/planet in real time. Once the infrastructure is in place, it's essentially free.

When electricity -- whether from a photovoltaic cell, a wind turbine or any other source -- runs through the electrode, the cobalt and phosphate form a thin film on the electrode, and oxygen gas is produced, the researchers explained.

it sounds like electrolysis.

It is. The difference is the added efficiency provided by the catalyst which is non-polluting and theoretically is not consumed by the process.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Harvey
That's the beauty of this one. We're talking about using excess solar energy to convert non-storable solar power to a storable form of potential energy as separated hydrogen and oxygen. It uses available solar power above that needed to run separation process and supply the needs of the city/state/planet in real time. Once the infrastructure is in place, it's essentially free.

That infrastructure cost a LOT of money to build, thus nothing theoretically produced out of it is "free" by any means. A substantial amount of energy will still be lost in the electrolysis process form whatever the energy source is.

You could do the same exact thing by installing electrolysis cells at base load power plants which work most efficiently at high capacity (read nuclear) instead of throttling them down. This isn't done because the most efficient room temperature electrolysis hasn't approached the efficency/cost of steam reforming natural gas to produce hydrogen.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Harvey
That's the beauty of this one. We're talking about using excess solar energy to convert non-storable solar power to a storable form of potential energy as separated hydrogen and oxygen. It uses available solar power above that needed to run separation process and supply the needs of the city/state/planet in real time. Once the infrastructure is in place, it's essentially free.

That infrastructure cost a LOT of money to build, thus nothing theoretically produced out of it is "free" by any means. A substantial amount of energy will still be lost in the electrolysis process form whatever the energy source is.

You could do the same exact thing by installing electrolysis cells at base load power plants which work most efficiently at high capacity (read nuclear) instead of throttling them down. This isn't done because the most efficient room temperature electrolysis hasn't approached the efficency/cost of steam reforming natural gas to produce hydrogen.

Do we really know how much it will cost to build the infrastructure using what MIT has come up with here? Even if it is a lot, that will change in due time. The scientific community is already working hard at making this sort of thing happen and the infrastructure that you speak of is already getting cheaper gradually. This is nothing more than a giant puzzle. Most of the larger pieces have already been put together. We only have a few more to go. Even the article in this thread mentions that it will be another 10 years before this sort of thing can be brought into the individual's daily life.

The point here is that what they do have is a way to use electrolysis in such a way which realistically can be used and stored inside of a fuel cell and it can work even at night. That is huge and shouldn't be discredited.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: K1052

That infrastructure cost a LOT of money to build, thus nothing theoretically produced out of it is "free" by any means. A substantial amount of energy will still be lost in the electrolysis process form whatever the energy source is.

That's a given no matter what future energy source we pursue. The advantage is, once it's in place, the catalyst. itself, is low maintainance, the energy source, itself is free, and the overall system is non-polluting.

You could do the same exact thing by installing electrolysis cells at base load power plants which work most efficiently at high capacity (read nuclear) instead of throttling them down.

Unlike nuclear sources, this process doesn't generate toxic leftovers that glow for thousands of years.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Harvey
That's the beauty of this one. We're talking about using excess solar energy to convert non-storable solar power to a storable form of potential energy as separated hydrogen and oxygen. It uses available solar power above that needed to run separation process and supply the needs of the city/state/planet in real time. Once the infrastructure is in place, it's essentially free.

That infrastructure cost a LOT of money to build, thus nothing theoretically produced out of it is "free" by any means. A substantial amount of energy will still be lost in the electrolysis process form whatever the energy source is.

You could do the same exact thing by installing electrolysis cells at base load power plants which work most efficiently at high capacity (read nuclear) instead of throttling them down. This isn't done because the most efficient room temperature electrolysis hasn't approached the efficency/cost of steam reforming natural gas to produce hydrogen.

Do we really know how much it will cost to build the infrastructure using what MIT has come up with here? Even if it is a lot, that will change in due time. The scientific community is already working hard at making this sort of thing happen and the infrastructure that you speak of is already getting cheaper gradually. This is nothing more than a giant puzzle. Most of the larger pieces have already been put together. We only have a few more to go. Even the article in this thread mentions that it will be another 10 years before this sort of thing can be brought into the individual's daily life.

The point here is that what they do have is a way to use electrolysis in such a way which realistically can be used and stored inside of a fuel cell and it can work even at night. That is huge and shouldn't be discredited.

I'm not discrediting it, the development is another step forward in energy development. However this isn't the hydrogen silver bullet that some people are holding it up as (or even close).

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: K1052

I'm not discrediting it, the development is another step forward in energy development. However this isn't the hydrogen silver bullet that some people are holding it up as (or even close).

I don't think many here were jumping to that conclusion. Most seem to be taking it for what it is which is a very large step forward. It beats the hell out of Nuclear if it works for us. I would much rather see us dump a lot of money into this sort of research than building a bunch of Nuclear plants.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: K1052

That infrastructure cost a LOT of money to build, thus nothing theoretically produced out of it is "free" by any means. A substantial amount of energy will still be lost in the electrolysis process form whatever the energy source is.

That's a given no matter what future energy source we pursue. The advantage is, once it's in place, the catalyst. itself, is low maintainance, the energy source, itself is free, and the overall system is non-polluting.

You could do the same exact thing by installing electrolysis cells at base load power plants which work most efficiently at high capacity (read nuclear) instead of throttling them down.

Unlike nuclear sources, this process doesn't generate toxic leftovers that glow for thousands of years.

Producing photovoltaics is not pollution free by any means. There are a goodly number of heavy metals and other toxic byproducts left to deal with.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: K1052

I'm not discrediting it, the development is another step forward in energy development. However this isn't the hydrogen silver bullet that some people are holding it up as (or even close).

I don't think many here were jumping to that conclusion. Most seem to be taking it for what it is which is a very large step forward. It beats the hell out of Nuclear if it works for us. I would much rather see us dump a lot of money into this sort of research than building a bunch of Nuclear plants.

It is a step forward but without huge leaps in efficency and materials for photovoltaics it's premature to claim it as an economically practical solution.

 

[herm0016]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: K1052

I'm not discrediting it, the development is another step forward in energy development. However this isn't the hydrogen silver bullet that some people are holding it up as (or even close).

I don't think many here were jumping to that conclusion. Most seem to be taking it for what it is which is a very large step forward. It beats the hell out of Nuclear if it works for us. I would much rather see us dump a lot of money into this sort of research than building a bunch of Nuclear plants.

It is a step forward but without huge leaps in efficency and materials for photovoltaics it's premature to claim it as an economically practical solution.

beats the hell out of nuclear? this is not a way to generate energy!! this is not a fuel source! it is a way to store energy.

 

[herm0016]

Originally posted by: wwswimming

it sounds like electrolysis.

i'd like some more info ! it sounds good.

that's all it is, with a new catalyst coating the electrodes.