SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A joint research team, affiliated with UNIST has introduced the Hybrid-Solid Electrolysis Cell (Hybrid-SOEC) system with highest reported electrochemical performance in hydrogen production. The proposed system has attracted much attention as a new promising option for the cost-effective and highly-efficient hydrogen production, as it shows excellent performance compared with other water-electrolysis systems.
This breakthrough has been led by Professor Guntae Kim in the School of Energy and Chemical Engineering at UNIST in collaboration with Professor Tak-Hyoung Lim of Korea Institute of Energy Research (KIER) and Professor Jeeyoung Shin of Sookmyung Women's University.
A solid oxide electrolyzer cell (SOEC) consists of two electrodes and an electrolyte that are all in solid-state. They are strongly desired as novel candidates for the hydrogen production, as they require no need to replenish lost electrolytes, while eliminating the corrosion problems. Besides, SOECs also operate at relatively high temperatures (700-1000 °C), which helps to offer reduced electrical energy consumption.
Professor Kim and his research team have been seeking ways to improve energy efficiency of hydrogen production, using SOEC. In the study, the research team has demonstrated the novel concept of Hybrid-SOEC based on the mixed ionic conducting electrolyte, allowing water electrolysis to be occurred at both hydrogen and air electrodes.
[...] The layered perovskite with excellent electrochemical properties was used as the electrode of Hybrid-SOEC. By adding an excellent electrode material on mixed ionic conducting electrolyte, resulting in enhanced electrochemical performance. As a result, the corresponding yields of hydrogen produced were 1.9 L per hour at a cell voltage of 1.5 V at 700 °C. This is four times higher hydrogen production efficiency than the existing high-efficient water electrolytic cells.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NewNic on Wednesday December 27 2017, @07:31PM (7 children)
What's the energy efficiency?
Since there are no numbers given for this, not even an estimate, should I assume that it isn't significantly greater than current electrolysis methods? If so, YAWN!
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 27 2017, @08:20PM (1 child)
I agree with you. And the problems about a hydrogen based economy are not only related to production, which in itself is quite costly and will remain costly. Hydrogen is the simplest atomic structure element and the smallest, it is very difficult to contain and will leak out of containers that don't leak *anything else*. This means very high maintenance costs and very high precision in construction.
It is also highly reactive towards most other elements. It loves to combine and bind with the others at any time, under a lot of different conditions. And it enjoys doing that by exchanging non ignorable amounts of energy. Which can be a bit problematic for safety. Aka eating more $$$.
I found this quite long ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy [wikipedia.org]
It is very informative.
As I see it, hydrogen will definitely be used in a lot of situations. But upscaling it will always be problematic and there will always be cheaper and simpler alternatives to it.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Wednesday December 27 2017, @08:34PM
If you absolutely need hydrogen, this might be portable enough that you could pour in a gallon of water and plug it into the mains and get a few liters an hour. Continuous production eliminates a lot of storage issues.
If you were looking for a general purpose fuel: forget it.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Wednesday December 27 2017, @08:28PM
Whole thing reads a little junk-science-ish if you ask me.
The "Following Story" link does show some diagrams, but their lab looks like this was a nano-scale test environment, seems unlikely to scale.
1.9 L per hour at a cell voltage of 1.5 V at 700 °C, (no amperage given, and no indication of how they raised and maintain that temperature (1292 °F) which exceeds the melting point of aluminum. Even the charts and graphs are obscure, probably intentionally so. One chart [unist.ac.kr] seems to indicate they just break even - which would be amazing in itself.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by FatPhil on Wednesday December 27 2017, @11:25PM (3 children)
To get funding, the story was "to generate hydrogen, which could be used as an alternative fuel".
When I heard he was using temperatures well over 1000C, I asked how efficient the process was (he knew I had a moderate scientific background, and had no intentions to try to bullshit), he responded "laughably bad".
"Will you ever come even anywhere close to unity?"
"Not in a million years!"
I was a hard-working taxpayer. His funding came from the government. I was also the one subsidising his rent.
Did I laugh along with him when he guffawed out his "Not in a million years!"? Take a guess...
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 28 2017, @12:35AM
I'm of mixed opinions about this. On one hand, if he's trying to use fraud or something else to trick money from others, it's shameful and they should be shamed. On the other hand, most basic research doesn't have very much obvious immediate practical use, and I think basic research is substantially underfunded in general.
This "not in a million years" could inspire something something which is "not in a thousand years," which in turn inspires something for the "maybe in 20 years with dedicated funding" which turns into a "getting electricity is easy; just plug your lamp into the mains." Or it could turn into a flop dead-end. I think it's worth at least some effort to try out... certainly more than another scanner in the airport or another subsidy to (insert industry here).
(Score: 3, Informative) by Aiwendil on Thursday December 28 2017, @08:12AM (1 child)
Immediate and efficient use of high temperature chemistry is a good source for laughs, but if you hope that politicians will allow the build of new nuclear into 2035 then it makes sense for researchers to cover it - some nuclear designs allow for output heat well into this region (and up to about 750c we can actually build it with today's materials) (and also allows for brayton cycle turbines).
Kinda looking forward to when the enviornmentalists realise that the only good way to get clean hydrogen is with nuclear.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/industry/nuclear-process-heat-for-industry.aspx [world-nuclear.org] is worth skimming through for a quick primer of different options that opens at what temperatures and which reactors can be used for it.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday December 28 2017, @08:59AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves