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 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.