Researchers at Glasgow University have created a new technique for producing hydrogen fuel from water. The process is thirty times faster than current methods.
From the journal:
By using a liquid sponge known as a redox mediator that can soak up electrons and acid we've been able to create a system where hydrogen can be produced in a separate chamber without any additional energy input after the electrolysis of water takes place.
The paper can be found here.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Researchers Claim Hydrogen Energy Advance
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 17 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by g33kgirl on Saturday September 13 2014, @12:08AM
Its a safer way of producing hydrogen that separates the hydrogen and oxygen so there's no risk of explosion. This could be great news for electric vehicles - using electrolysis/fuel cell instead of batteries. All we need now is a way of storing the hydrogen...
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Saturday September 13 2014, @12:41AM
Wasn't there also someone doing electrolysis with a triple A battery [stanford.edu] posted on SN a week or two ago?
Mr. Sponge, meet Mr Battery. Here's a bag of chips, a pizza, and some Mountain Dew. Get in that lab and don't come out till you have this all worked out.
Tired of hearing about breakthrough of the week, which disappear never to see the light of day.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by axsdenied on Saturday September 13 2014, @12:42AM
Somehow there is quite a contradiction between your "already" in "Tesla obsolete already" and "All we need now is a way of storing the hydrogen..."
(Score: 4, Informative) by resignator on Saturday September 13 2014, @12:50AM
"All we need now is a way of storing the hydrogen..."
I thought carbonized chicken feathers were already being tested for storing it. No joke:
http://www.udel.edu/udaily/2009/jun/feathers062309.html [udel.edu]
"Chicken feather fibers are mostly composed of keratin, a natural protein that forms strong, hollow tubes. When heated, this protein creates crosslinks, which strengthen its structure, and becomes more porous, increasing its surface area. The net result is carbonized chicken feather fibers, which can absorb as much or perhaps more hydrogen than carbon nanotubes or metal hydrides, two other materials being studied for their hydrogen storage potential, Wool says. Plus, they're cheap"
(Score: 2, Informative) by RamiK on Saturday September 13 2014, @01:42AM
This is both a hydrogen storage and production solution. It's a two step approach using an intermediate carbon-free fuel which is converted back into usable hydrogen in a low-pressure chamber safely, efficiently and quickly. So quickly and efficiently that it can be done in a car.
It's even better since electrolyzers require high voltages and pressured chambers for 30 times slower hydrogen production while this approach doesn't require high voltages to produce the fuel or any voltage to reconvert it back into energy. Meaning you can use air-turbines and solar panel to produce the fuel without conversions while safely transporting and using the fuel.
Honestly, it's sounds way too good to be true so I probably just misunderstood something.
compiling...
(Score: 1) by zosden on Saturday September 13 2014, @02:04AM
From what I was reading is that the process is still horribly inefficient, but is a great stride in the correct direction.
When I'm walking I worry a lot about the efficiency of my path ~ Randall
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 13 2014, @03:44AM
Well, inefficient in what way and compared to what? Gasoline has a rather inefficient production process in the sense that we spent a few million years or so making it and then burn it all away in a century or two...
Batteries I suppose are relatively efficient, but take quite a long time to charge and do tend to waste away with time.
I suppose nuclear fusion it pretty efficient... Just need to get that in my car and we're all set.
But yeah, efficiency does matter. It's not like we have a renewable power source floating about over our heads that we could use in some inefficient manner...
Oh, wait...
(Score: 1) by zosden on Saturday September 13 2014, @04:21AM
The major issues with solar power is that it only works when your side of the earth is facing the sun. We could solve this problem if we had a good way of storing that energy gathered through-out the day, unfortunately we don't.
When I'm walking I worry a lot about the efficiency of my path ~ Randall
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday September 13 2014, @06:47AM
It seems the thread starter of the "tesla obsolete" thread has totally disappeared?
Whats up with that?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Saturday September 13 2014, @03:47PM
I'm not seeing a missing parent; was there a comment above g33kgirl's Tesla obsolete already [soylentnews.org] post?
Cue the conspiracy theorists saying, "of course you don't see it, that's how you know it's missing!" Lol
Perhaps it's your filter - I'm looking at your sig here. Have you recently changed to browsing at +2 after finding out how good +1 was? The thread starter is currently at +1 as I write this, and if I switch my filter to +2 and above then g33kgirl's post disappears. Alternately, maybe it had been downmodded to 0 temprarily and it's back now; can you see it again?
The site appears to be operating as expected.
Incidentally, I find your comment confusing, since you're replying to the post you claim to not see; did you click through one of the child posts' "parent" links to post that? Just curious.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday September 14 2014, @02:32AM
Actually When I did reply to the thread starter, it was there. Then some fool modded it troll, which was completely unwarranted, and it disappeared for a while.
My question was more a hint that someone appears to have gotten butt hurt by the mere suggestion that there may be an alternate power source for Tesla, not to mention that it came from one of our newest members.
The post you replied to occurred later and was not a reply to anything.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Sunday September 14 2014, @05:53PM
Huh, seems like an odd way to complain about mods on crack, but I can dig it.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 1) by g33kgirl on Saturday September 13 2014, @08:13PM
When I've got nothing to say, I don't say it. If only everybody did the same.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday September 13 2014, @02:00PM
Hydrogen storage and transport is likely to remain a problem for a long time.
In the end, we might be better off using it to synthesize methane or propane, both of which we already have significant infrastructure to transport, store, and use.
(Score: 3, Informative) by zeigerpuppy on Saturday September 13 2014, @01:06PM
silicotungstic acid–mediated H2 evolution from water.
Hydrogen generation is the most important transitional technology away from fossil-fuel reliance. This technology is the core but the intermediary fuel is likely to be ammonia, not gaseous hydrogen. Ammonia has the potential to provide a bridge from Hydro-Carbon to Hydro-Nitrogenous fuel. The advantages are that the whole fuel cycle can be decarbonified. Also, ammonia has approximately 40% the energy density of petrol (by volume). Ammonia can be burnt in an engine (diesel engine once it is preheated). But combustion is wasteful. Fuels of tomorrow will be generated by electrolysis/fuel-cell cycle. In Ammonia's case, this looks like:
Water, air and sunlight gives oxygen and ammonia. And in reverse it gives power and no toxic waste products. Ammonia becomes like a battery, it can be stored in a compressed form (at similar pressures to liquified petroleum gas). Then it can deliver high energy protons for hydrogen generation or direct power generation. There is also an existing reticulation and transport system for ammonia with provision for handling issues (you definitely don't want to be too close downwind of a leak). The main issues with these technologies have been the cost of electrolysis, either due to the cost of the consumables (read platinum electrodes!) or the low efficiency of the process per unit energy. However, these are not insurmountable, recent experiments have shown iron and nickel micro-particles to be good catalysts too. More importantly, an ammonia cycle can be off-grid making efficiency per watt of sunlight less critical to utility. It can be used to buffer solar power generation and also be useful as a liquid fuel or fertilizer byproduct (or if you're really adventurous, as a lift gas). Lastly some links:
(Score: 2) by Foobar Bazbot on Saturday September 13 2014, @08:20PM
Sure, ammonia. When we're already pressuring farmers to use other fertilizers to inconvenience methamphetamine makers, I really can't see us implementing NH3 roadside filling stations.
Unless/until we see some major changes in the war on drugs, H2 from this process + atmospheric CO2 --> carbon-neutral methanol seems a much more likely route, at least here in the USA.
(Score: 1) by jheath314 on Sunday September 14 2014, @04:24AM
While I applaud this advance in technology, I think it's important to remember that when we're talking about hydrogen, we're talking about an energy transfer medium, rather than a fuel that can be extracted in an energy-laden state like oil or uranium. Moreover, as a transfer mechanism, it's decidedly inefficient.
In this case, we're taking electricity (a very high quality form of energy) and storing some of that energy into the hydrogen molecular bonds via electrolysis of water (with the rest of the energy going to waste). After somehow getting the hydrogen into your car (incurring more losses as you compress, transport, and transfer it), you transform some of the stored energy in the hydrogen into motive power to move the car, while the rest gets wasted as heat (out the radiator, out the tailpipe, etc.) Thermodynamically speaking, you'd be better off taking that electricity at the beginning and using it to power your car directly. Transmission line losses, battery charging, and electric motor efficiency are all vastly superior in efficiency to the comparable stages for hydrogen fuel. (That's not to mention we have transmission lines and outlets everywhere, while the infrastructure for widespread distribution of hydrogen doesn't exist. Moreover, building one would be ludicrously expensive... hydrogen is explosive at a wide range of ratios with air, and is a notorious escape artist... but I digress.)
I should also note that electrolysis of water accounts for only 4% of hydrogen production. Most of it is produced via steam reformation of methane... decidedly not carbon neutral, and again, less safe and efficient than simply burning the methane as a fuel itself.
TL;DR building a hydrogen economy would involve massive new infrastructure to building something that's less safe and less efficient than our existing energy transfer technologies. It's not an energy source, it's a transfer medium, and a lousy one at that.