SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A cheap, emissions-free device that uses a 1.5-volt AAA battery to split water into hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis has been developed by scientists at Stanford University ( http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/august/splitter-clean-fuel-082014.html ).
Unlike other water splitters that use precious-metal catalysts, the electrodes in the Stanford device are made of inexpensive, abundant nickel and iron.
“This is the first time anyone has used non-precious metal catalysts to split water at a voltage that low,” said Hongjie Dai, a professor of chemistry at Stanford. “It’s quite remarkable, because normally you need expensive metals, like platinum or iridium, to achieve that voltage.”
http://www.kurzweilai.net/a-low-cost-water-splitter-that-runs-on-an-ordinary-aaa-battery
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140822/ncomms5695/full/ncomms5695.html
(Score: 1) by andersjm on Sunday August 24 2014, @07:58AM
You're nitpicking, water vapor is not a greenhouse gas emissions problem, which is obviously their point. Nitpicking right back at you, the quoted statement doesn't actually say that water vapor isn't a greenhouse gas.
It also has very high energy density by weight - 142 MJ/kg. In comparison, diesel is only 45 MJ/kg. So the problems may be worth while trying to overcome.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday August 25 2014, @02:18AM
Wasn't there some thought of having gaseous hydrogen embedded in a spongelike solid to make it more manageable as a common fuel? That's about all I remember; maybe somone recalls what I'm talking about.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Monday August 25 2014, @02:45AM
Wasn't there some thought of having gaseous hydrogen embedded in a spongelike solid to make it more manageable as a common fuel?
Yes, there are about twenty different chemistries [wikipedia.org] that bind hydrogen within solids. Those methods are expensive in many aspects, and majority of them haven't left the labs. I do not know if any of them will ever be successfully used in a venicle. The linked article points out that research is continuing in this direction.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday August 25 2014, @04:09AM
Not very promising. :( Seems like the only realworld-practical method use would be just-in-time splitting that feeds directly into the combustion chamber, but in that case is there any net energy gained??
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Monday August 25 2014, @04:37AM
Seems like the only realworld-practical method use would be just-in-time splitting that feeds directly into the combustion chamber, but in that case is there any net energy gained?
Not really. There is no net energy gain anywhere in electrochemical Hydrogen cycle simply because you cannot mine Hydrogen (without a ramscoop [wikipedia.org], at least.) Please see this comment [soylentnews.org]. If you have an electric battery in the vehicle, you would be better off just powering an electric motor with its energy - you'd have fewer moving parts and smaller losses.
But even though Hydrogen is only usable as storage of energy, it might be an attractive one due to absence of harmful products. Still, burning of Hydrogen requires a thermal engine - and those are not very efficient. Storage and distribution of liquid Hydrogen would require a new industry, and it will be a dangerous one due to potential for massive fires and explosions. And with all that it would be nothing more than an intermediate step between today's Teslas and EVs of tomorrow. I just do not see Hydrogen as a fuel for vehicles 20, 30 or even 100 years down the road. In my estimate, all vehicles will be by then operating on electric power. It's very possible that even today an EV, considering all related costs, would be cheaper to run than a Hydrogen car. If so, the time of Hydrogen has already gone.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday August 25 2014, @05:08AM
Thanks for the info. Not the best of prospects outside of specialty uses.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by tftp on Monday August 25 2014, @02:58AM
It also has very high energy density by weight - 142 MJ/kg. In comparison, diesel is only 45 MJ/kg. So the problems may be worth while trying to overcome.
Perhaps. I don't want to sound too negative on Hydrogen energy storage. However anyone can easily imagine a small can with a bit more than a liter of diesel fuel, and anyone can hold it in one hand. What will it take to capture and store a kilogram of Hydrogen, the lightest chemical element? At pressure of 1 atmosphere it would be a balloon that contains 12 thousand liters, or 3200 gallons. This is why one has to carry Hydrogen in liquid form, or as slush (still experimental,) or as a bomb (a high pressure tank.) Filling with such fuel is also more complex than merely sticking a hose into a hole. I cannot even imagine what kind of a connector will repeatedly survive 10,000 psi while being operated by an untrained car owner, and what kind of reinforced hose will it require. Any crack in any of that will blow up pretty good; a cloud of Hydrogen will be released. If fueling is done in a confined space, the operator may suffocate. If any spark is found, the thing will explode like thermobaric ordnance.