Using Sun's Energy to Split Water Means Solar Power All Night 557
phorm writes "Reuters is carrying an article about a recent MIT development which may pave the way for solar-energy to be collected for use in low-input periods. According to Reuters, the discovery of the a new catalyst for separating hydrogen+oxygen from water requires only 10% of the electricity of current methods. This would allow storage-cells to function as a form of battery for other forms of energy-collection, such as solar panels. The new method is also much safer (and likely environmentally friendly) than current methods, which require the use of a dangerously caustic environment, and specialized storage containers." sanjosanjo points out coverage of the process at EE Times, which features the MIT group's press release.
I have my doubts... but, (Score:5, Insightful)
If that is true (although I definitely have my doubts, as tales and empty promises of the past have made all of us highly skeptical when we read something like this), then it should open the road for a significantly more efficient means of producing hydrogen for hydrogen powered cars / devices. Hell a car equipped with a solar cell could just bake during the day to recharge itself and be ready to go for the commute home come 5pm. Though until I hear a confirmation of MIT's findings from another university/respected source, I hold on to my severe doubts about this.
Benefits not just solar . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
This would be a big win for any kind of "environmental" energy source (wind, waves, caged toddlers) that isn't always on.
Heck, it would make a great general-purpose home UPS and/or load leveler. If properly integrated, a home equipped with this would be less vulnerable to brownouts and blackouts. Local storage would make the job of power companies easier too.
Fingers crossed.
Re:I have my doubts... but, (Score:1, Insightful)
> I'd rather that we spend the money on bike paths. We all need the exercise.
There's a practical limit on how far you can bike to/from work.
Some people drive an hour or more to/from work - can you imagine how much time they would waste biking each day?
Never mind that - some people have disabilities or medical conditions that prohibit strenuous exercise. Some people live in hilly areas. Some areas have poor weather most of the year.
I'm all for building more bike paths, even if only to benefit the minority that can actually use them.
Re:I have my doubts... but, (Score:5, Insightful)
"Though until I hear a confirmation of MIT's findings from another university/respected source, I hold on to my severe doubts about this.
MIT isn't really in the habit of making unsubstantiated claims of new discoveries. That's pretty much the purview of startup companies in need of funding and no-name universities looking for grants. MIT et al stake their reputations on their discoveries, and do not generally cry wolf.
Great. So when do we see it? (Score:5, Insightful)
According to Reuters, the discovery of the a new catalyst for separating hydrogen+oxygen from water requires only 10% of the electricity of current methods
Great. So when do we see it? If it's anything like almost every other "alternative energy" advancement, it will either get snapped up by an oil-company owned holding company, or strangled by licensing fees/requirements/exclusivity deals.
Seriously- let's take a look back. Have there been any major advancements in solar energy technology in the last fifty or so years?
MIT = MIT Technology Licensing Office, and I used to work there. Six figure checks to professors were not uncommon...and it was the only part of the university that turned a profit.
It'd be really refreshing to see scientists develop a bit of altruism. It's the ultimate Open Source, and they'd be guaranteed decades, if not centuries, of good will and fame. That's worth a lot more than a few *possible* royalty checks.
Re:Great. So when do we see it? (Score:2, Insightful)
Have there been any major advancements? I'm don't know, because I have no idea what major means to you, but the costs have come way, way, way, way down, and they continue to get lower.
Hell, solar panels even net energy these days.
I think the article probably misunderstood (Score:2, Insightful)
Ok wait, I looked it up and we're currently at 70% efficiency on the electrical energy it takes to split water. I believe we lose even more power to compress the gas in to liquid form for storage.
Now let's say we're only at 10% efficiency now on electrolysis. If you decreased the amount of electricity needed by 90%, you're talking about 10 times that efficiency making the electrolysis system 100% efficient which is impossible. If we're currently at 20% efficiency, then we're up to 200% efficiency which is ludicrous.
I read that lower voltage electrolysis is an active research area that increases the efficiency of electrolysis. Now perhaps what this researcher has found is a way to perform electrolysis with 90% less voltage which would improve electrolysis efficiency from 70% to maybe 85% or something in that ballpark range. That would be far more believable. I'm very much inclined to believe that the story should have reported that this new electrolysis process requires 90% less voltage; not 90% less electricity to produce the same amount of hydrogen and oxygen.
Re:Great. So when do we see it? (Score:5, Insightful)
>> It'd be really refreshing to see scientists develop a bit of altruism. It's the ultimate Open Source, and they'd be guaranteed decades, if not centuries, of good will and fame. That's worth a lot more than a few *possible* royalty checks.
Altruism neither pays for the scientists' mortgages nor pays for all the equipment they use to develop their theories.
I'm all for smacking down ridiculously-long copyrights, invalidating silly trademarks or getting rid of obvious patents (one-click shopping?), but this is the _exact_ thing that patents is supposed to support. These scientists (and by proxy, their granteurs (sp?)) took a gamble on developing a technology and they were successful. They should be rewarded for that success like any other person in society. Without that potential for gains, there's no reason to even try.
Re:I have my doubts... but, (Score:5, Insightful)
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. In any case, you don't let any researcher (or institution) off the hook because of his popularity - what kind of science would that be?
Re:I have my doubts... but, (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm all for building more bike paths, even if only to benefit the majority that can actually use them.
There, fixed that for you.
Re:I have my doubts... but, (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You still have to be careful (Score:4, Insightful)
See, for example, the claims on cold fusion some years back.
Conservation? (Score:3, Insightful)
This seems very interesting and I hope it goes well for them. But I can't help but feel there are simpler solutions.
Yeah. How about using less stuff? It works 100% of the time, is 100% effective, anyone can do it, it uses current technology, and you can start right now. Sure, I love computers. But I only have one. I like TV, but I decided to save money and just watch shows through the web instead of getting cable and buying a TV. I love driving my car, but I try not drive unnecessarily. (As a side benefit I was able to cancel my gym membership and get exercise and commute at the same time.) I like steak, but I only eat red meat a few times a month because it's so damaging to the environment. I could do much more, but the important thing is getting started, and I've realized that my quality of life has improved with my reduction of material goods and extraneous entertainment.
Not saying the R&D should cease... but at some point we have to ask ourselves, "How much is enough?" The planet simply could not support a world full of Americans. The fact that this doesn't appear to alarm us is a grave indicator of our stewardship of spaceship Earth.
Re:I have my doubts... but, (Score:4, Insightful)
People often fail to realize the great energy density of gasoline and the amount of solar energy which hits a small area (such as the footprint of a car.)
My Honda accord has a footprint of 7 square meters.
IIRC the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth's surface at noon, at the equator is 1KW per square meter.
Assume a 8 hour work day, 50% efficient solar panels (better than current best), 100% efficient splitting of water and 1KW per square meter all the working day long.
That gives you 28 kilowatt hours worth of energy = 100,800,000 joules.
A gallon of gasoline contains 130,000,000 joules.
0.71 gallons of gas.
A more realistic scenario taking into account actual insolation (not my wacky 1KW the entire 8 hours) and the latitude most car owners live at gives us more like 400 watts per square meter (assuming you tilt the panels appropriately), 50% efficiency, 8 hours = 11.2 kilowatt hours = 40,320,000 joules = 0.31 gallons of gasoline equivalent.
Not only are there not many drivers who could commute on such little energy, the economic value of such small amounts would take a long time to offset up-front costs of the system.
Re:I have my doubts... but, (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually you can bike a lot further then you think. In addition it's not a waste of time in places with traffic congestion and you can travel faster by going a constant 15 mph as opposed to a stop and go 25mph. The roads would still exist obviously for an infinite amount of reasons but bike pathways and then offshoots of those pathways into may places of business would ease traffic and promote health and limit pollution.
Can you ride 30 miles to work in Texas without smelling so much like ass that you boss has to ask you to go home? Then, of course, ride 30 miles home where your wife has to hose you off before letting you in the house?
Oh, and then there is the rain, occasional ice, cold wind and so on that tends to inhibit normal people from riding bikes to work. Did I mention the hills? Lance Armstrong is from around here, ya know. Guess where he learned to ride up Mountains?
Of course, then we have to worry about how much stuff we can pack for the trip. First, we need a change of clothes so we don't smell like ass. Of course, we can't let them get wrinkled. Next, we need a towel to dry off with after we shower (assuming we have a shower at work). Of course, we'll need soap and shampoo to wash the sweat off. This doesn't include a notebook or briefcase that is required for work.
Now, of course, if we all lived downtown, it wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately, because so many people want to live downtown so they can feel smug about riding their bikes to work that it has driven up the price of homes within bike distance of the jobs so much that it costs way too much for way too little living space. Sorry, but I don't make half a million a year, so I can't afford to live downtown.
So, forgive me if it seems as if I'm coming down on you. It's not just you, but everyone else who tells me how I too could ride my bike to work. But seriously, please, don't give that crap about how wonderful it is to live in a Utopian society where all our jobs are within 5 minutes of our homes. That's only the case in Tom Hanks/Meg Ryan movies and does not reflect reality. Also, don't get me wrong, I would love it more people rode bikes to work. That would free up the free ways so I could get to work in less than an hour. Of course, if that were the case, all the freeways would still be jammed they would all be one lane government works.
Re:Good solution but wrong problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would you want to provide hydrogen for powering vehicles if you've got such great batteries?
Because batteries aren't so great. They're only reasonably efficient when they're nice and warm, they're heavy, they're expensive, and they wear out fast.
Re:I have my doubts... but, (Score:1, Insightful)
I think the point he's trying to make is that rather than letting them off, simply don't dismiss them offhand as one might with a company seeking VC funding or a "scientist" claiming that major theories are wrong and he's being silenced by main-stream science.
Re:I have my doubts... but, (Score:4, Insightful)
Huh???
I don't know what kind of cave you guys live in, but (not meaning to be politically incorrect here) I have AC in my house. 1 kilowatt is only ten 100 watt light-bulbs. Yeah, yeah, I've switched out to low energy fluorescents, but there are still more than 30 light bulbs in my house, and since there are seven people living here (three kids, two parents and two grandparents) you can bet that most of those bulbs are on simultaneously at one time or another. Plus the A/C. plus we like to actually cook our food before we eat it...
Bottom line, we use about 200 KWh per DAY. In other words, 10 KW times 20 hours. And I've got the utility bills to prove it.
It's easy to be critical when you're a college kid living poor, but get a bunch of kids, try supporting your parents too, and get a little bit of affluence under your belt, and you start to see things differently.
No, I'm not one of the "burn it all!" blue-sky republicans. Nor am I a 'let's go back to the golden days of agrarian societies" types. Jeeze, do your homework and see what that low-energy society was REALLY like!
No, Civilization needs one thing for sure. MORE ENERGY! But clean, and cheap, and abundant. We need solar, nuclear and anything else that will fit the bill, but conservation as an energy strategy is a mistake. It helps, but it will not solve the problem.
Look up the Kardashev scale, and think about how energy consumption has changed in the last 50 years, 100 years, 200 years... Now project 50 and 100 years hence. Now 200 years. You can't conserve your way to that.
1 kilowatt, 5 kilowatts, 10 kilowats... The sun produces billions and billions of megawatts and hurls them all at us. Let's spend more effort learning how to catch them and use them.
Re:trade secret (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
> Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.
No, extraordinary claims require ordinary proof that has been vetted extraordinarily well.
Otherwise, someone can arbitrarily declare claims 'extraordinary' and simply raise the bar every time the proof meets their old standard. You know, like they do with global warming, or evolution.
Sorry, but that soundbyte just gets to me.
Re:I have my doubts... but, (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I have my doubts... but, (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I have my doubts... but, (Score:1, Insightful)
Feel free to pay for my moving costs, find me a decent place to live that doesn't have insane homeowner fees, and find me a safe place to raise kids in the inner city, and I perhaps would consider it. Suburbs are not perfect, but they give kids places to play in that are relatively safe.
Then, maybe I would move.
Re:I have my doubts... but, (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm sorry, you have SHOWERS at your OFFICE?
And how do you get your work clothes to work without wrinkling them? Not all of us (can) work in jeans-and-a-t-shirt.
Also, maybe you missed the word "Texas" - but that's super-secret code for "it's really fucking humid and you can barely go to the end of your street without looking like Steve Ballmer" (and yes, I'm in great shape and have a good diet, doesn't work).
Re:I have my doubts... but, (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact that so much roadspace is dedicated to cars, and so little to bikes, that it discourages people from using bikes. Instead of bikes being viewed as a perfectly normal means of transport excellent for short- and medium-distance travel, they're viewed as dangerous, for greenies or for fanatics. If there was a larger proportion of roadspace dedicated for bikes, many, many more people would be riding.
(You might be inclined to bring up creekside paths or tiny bike lines on the roads; such things would never be considered adequate for car commuters, so why should the be considered adequate for bike commuters? Take a look at bike lanes in Copenhagen for an idea of where we should be. A nice wide lane — letting faster cyclists pass slower ones — separated from both pedestrians and cars, with minimal or no risk of being hit by a car door or stray vehicle and travelling along streets i.e. destinations.)
I don't know how effective their protesting methods are. I do know that in my city more and more bike facilities are being built, particularly on roads that had too much space. I'm sure every bike advocacy group wants to take the credit for this, and I'm sure most of them deserve at least some.
As for me: From what I can see cycling is usually only a poor choice in unusual circumstances and when cities have been built expecting people to drive everywhere. It will be a long and tiresome process to fix this, but it is also very likely to be necessary — and if not, then I still think it's desirable.
Re:I have my doubts... but, (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd mod that +1 informative if I could... there's a lot of slashdot posters who don't seem to realize how rude it is... and how rudeness undercuts real discussion.
Re:To put it another way... (Score:4, Insightful)
The breaker-box is rated for 100A, so 25KW at the voltage here. But that don't mean we -use- even close to that, indeed if we did we would use aproximately 18000 kwh/month, whereas in reality we use aproximately 1000Kwh/month.
Half of that is heating. There are easier ways of turning hydrogen into heat than using a fuel-cell....
Re:To put it another way... (Score:3, Insightful)
25kW times a generous $5 a watt = $125k, the price of a small house. Even if you assume that you only need to be able to provide half of that, that's over $60k. And this ignores the price of all of the other components, too. By contrast, PbA batteries are about $0.20/Wh and automotive li-ions, which will last for decades, about $0.50/Wh (they should approach PbA over time; their raw ingredients are cheap). Let's go with $0.50/Wh to be pessimistic. The average home uses around 30kWh a day, most of that during "peak hours" when there's sun out. But hey, let's assume that you need 50kWh for *non*-peak hours. That's $25k. Oh, and 50kWh of LiP batteries would be able to provide about 1 1/2 *megawatts* of power output.
There's really no excuse for fuel cells for applications like this at this point in time, or in the foreseeable future.
Re:I didn't get it. (Score:1, Insightful)
I didn't get the connection to leaves and electrolysis. What's the connection?
More efficient solar energy conversion to useful energy than photosynthesis.