PDA

View Full Version : New electrolysis technology created by mimicking leaves



ExAm
July 31st, 2008, 08:47 PM
Article here (http://www.forbes.com/energy/2008/07/30/nocera-solar-power-biz-energy-cz_jf_0731solar.html)


MIT professor Daniel G. Nocera has long been jealous of plants. He desperately wanted to do what they do--split water into hydrogen and oxygen and use the products to do work. That, he figures, is the only way we humans can solve our energy problems; enough energy pours down from the sun in one hour to power the planet's energy needs for a year.
In January, only a month after reevaluating his methodology in the face of a frustratingly slow process, he finally found a way. "For six months now I've been looking at the leaves and saying 'I own you guys!'"
Nocera's discovery--a cheap and easy way to store energy that he thinks will be used to change solar power into a mainstream energy source--will be published in the journal Science on Friday. "This is the nirvana of what we've been talking about for years," said Nocera, the Henry Dreyfus Professor of Energy at MIT. "Solar power has always been a limited, far-off solution. Now we can seriously think about solar power as unlimited--and soon."
Plants catch light and turn it into an electric current, then use that energy to excite catalysts that split water into hydrogen and oxygen during what is called photosynthesis' light cycle. The energy is then used during the dark cycle to allow the plant to build sugars used for growth and energy storage.
Nocera and Matthew Kanan, a postdoctoral fellow in Nocera's lab, focused on the water-splitting part of photosynthesis. They found cheap and simple catalysts that did a remarkably good job. They dissolved cobalt and phosphate in water and then zapped it with electricity through an electrode. The cobalt and phosphate form a thin-film catalyst around the electrode that then use electrons from the electrode to split the oxygen from water. The oxygen bubbles to the surface, leaving a proton behind.
A few inches away, another catalyst, platinum, helps that bare proton become hydrogen. (This second reaction is a well-known one, and not part of Nocera and Kanan's study.)
The hydrogen and oxygen, separated and on-hand, can be used to power a fuel cell whenever energy is needed.
"Once you put a photovoltaic on it," he says, "you've got an inorganic leaf."
James Barber, a biochemistry professor at Imperial College London who studies artificial photosynthesis but was not involved in this research, called the discovery by Nocera and Kanan a "giant leap" toward generating clean, carbon-free energy on a massive scale.
"This is a major discovery with enormous implications for the future prosperity of humankind," he said. "The importance of their discovery cannot be overstated."
Nocera's discovery arose from frustration. Disappointed with the pace of his lab's progress, Nocera and his team decided in December to question some of the basic assumptions they had made in setting up earlier experiments.
Chemists, it turns out, are always worrying about the stability of their catalysts and end up doing backflips to try to synthesize materials that won't corrode. Photosynthesis, though, is so violently reactive that the catalysts involved break down every 30 minutes. The leaf has to constantly rebuild them. Maybe, thought Nocera, instead of fighting corrosion, he should work with it. "It's a bias a lot of scientists have. We want something to be structurally stable. But all it has to be is functionally stable."
This thinking led Nocera to try his cobalt-phosphate mixture. He knew it wouldn't hold together, but he thought it might still work. Sure enough, Nocera's catalyst breaks down whenever the electricity is cut, but it assembles itself again when electricity is reapplied.
Nocera's discovery is still a science experiment. It needs plenty of engineering before it can be a useful device. The cobalt and phosphate at the center of Nocera's work is cheap and plentiful, but the hydrogen reaction uses platinum, which is rare and expensive. The electrode needs to be improved so the oxygen-making process can speed up. And the system needs to be integrated into some kind of electricity-producing device, ideally powered by solar or wind on one end and a fuel cell on the other.
But splitting the oxygen away from the water was the hard part, and Nocera has done it. "Now we can start thinking about a totally distributed solar [photovoltaic] system," he said. "We couldn't have a solar economy unless it could produce energy 24/7. Now we can."
His hope is that because unlike traditional electrolysis devices, which are expensive and require toxic alkaline solutions, his system is so cheap, simple and benign that scientists and engineers around the world will be able to improve it quickly.
For his part, Nocera says he will work to understand and improve both sides of his new discovery. His lab will try to learn every detail about just how his catalyst is making the oxygen. And he is going to work with his engineering colleagues at MIT to try to integrate his storage device into systems that he hopes one day will power homes and cars all day and all night.


Discuss.

Zeph
July 31st, 2008, 08:54 PM
Oil companies will buy it.

Disaster
July 31st, 2008, 08:57 PM
^ lol This looks very promising though. If only the government and energy companies will give it a chance.

Hotrod
July 31st, 2008, 09:56 PM
This sounds pretty cool, I hope that it actually gets used, unlike a lot of good ideas.

itszutak
July 31st, 2008, 10:05 PM
This is a good step forward.

Honestly, solar is the only way to go. It's readily available, and produces no negative pollutants associated with pretty much every other form of energy. Wind is also viable, but more difficult to obtain-it isn't as constant and predictable as solar.

Terin
August 1st, 2008, 12:09 AM
Once again, what's the negative downside that will make it not consumer viable? It can't be THAT simple! Oil companies have to have a flaw that they can exploit to make it not become a main source of energy! :tinfoil:

itszutak
August 1st, 2008, 01:29 AM
Once again, what's the negative downside that will make it not consumer viable? It can't be THAT simple! Oil companies have to have a flaw that they can exploit to make it not become a main source of energy! :tinfoil:
Not consumer viable=ridiculously expensive at the moment. The article mentions that a major component of the technology is platinum, the most expensive non-radioactive metal.

ExAm
August 1st, 2008, 01:31 AM
The system is still considerably cheaper than standard electrolysis systems. Read the article.

Chewy Gumball
August 1st, 2008, 01:35 AM
One day oil companies will run out of oil.

itszutak
August 1st, 2008, 01:37 AM
It could be significantly cheaper and still not match the cheapness of oil.

Edit: Bah ninja'd.

ExAm
August 1st, 2008, 05:41 AM
It could be significantly cheaper and still not match the cheapness of oil.

Edit: Bah ninja'd.Yes, but you only have to build it once, and it never runs out. LOLSUNLIGHTROFL

itszutak
August 1st, 2008, 12:45 PM
Yes, but you only have to build it once, and it never runs out. LOLSUNLIGHTROFL
Uh, wrong-you'd have to build thousands, if not millions of these things to relpace oil as a energy gathering technology.

We already do have a solar technology, and that's been mass-produced.

Unless I'm misunderstanding the comment. >_>

Rob Oplawar
August 1st, 2008, 04:13 PM
Three problems:

Solar cells are expensive, except for the cheap ones that are inefficient. Sure, you could power the entire united states with solar cells-- you would need a surface area the size of New Mexico.
I argue that the surface area is available on buildings, but solar cells do not make good weather-proof exterior paneling.

There is also the storage issue. You still have to store hydrogen somehow. I doubt it would be common for homes to have hydrogen tanks, but I suppose it would be plausible for it to be stored at/around the solar fields.

The real issue is what do you do with the hydrogen. Do you burn it to drive turbines? At best you're going to be getting something around 10% efficiency from your solar cells, and you lose energy in the electrolysis process, you'll lose more energy transporting and storing the hydrogen, even more will be lost due to leakage in most mass storage solutions, and then you have to convert it back to electricity.
The alternative to burning it to drive generators is of course to use fuel cells, but guess what, fuel cells use materials that are exotic, expensive, and quite limited. I bet you that the materials required to make any plausible fuel cell solution are not present and unallocated in the quantities required to power the world. We'd run out of them before we ran out of fossil fuels.

I just thought of another problem- say you had a massive solar field out in one of the practical locations for a solar field in the US- midwest desert. You have to provide water, which is already expensive and limited enough as it is there.

And it's probably not a problem, but I was just wondering, say you had a massive solar field producing hydrogen via electrolysis- I wonder if all the extra oxygen created in that process would cause or exacerbate corrosion on the equipment.


So the reason I keep trying to poke holes in all these alternative energy schemes is not because I hold millions of dollars invested in oil- it's because I actually quite like the possibility of alternative energy, and like to keep myself up-to-date on it. No solution is perfect, and no solution will come easily, and those solutions that sound too good to be true almost always are. Engineering is only interesting because there are obstacles to overcome. I look forward to seeing if and how these many obstacles are addressed.

p0lar_bear
August 1st, 2008, 05:41 PM
you would need a surface area the size of New Mexico.

New Mexico sucks. Problem solved. :haw:

This is a good advance. Hope it leads to something less expensive for consumers.

Rob Oplawar
August 1st, 2008, 05:54 PM
Oops, lol, in all that naysaying I never got around to saying what p0lar said. So, er, ^ and/or . and/or "what he said".

Mr Buckshot
August 2nd, 2008, 11:27 PM
Looks super cool. Hope it makes it to market before oil companies begin to ravage Canada and possibly Antarctica for more oil. Canada does have nearly as much oil as Saudi Arabia, just that at the moment no one is allowed to fully exploit it.

About the oxygen by-product, can't that just be donated to companies who make oxygen tanks? Like scuba diving tanks and hospital oxygen cylinders?

I agree with previous posts about the usefulness - and expense - of solar power. Solar power is too expensive to be a global solution. I have seen rich men's houses equipped with private giant solar cells that would probably cost as much as, if not more than, the house itself.

Hydrogen, IMO, is the most promising solution. Hydrogen fuel cells are expensive, but not as expensive as many other methods. Bio-fuel is another possibility, but it still has an emissions problem.

Up here in BC, Canada, all my power is clean, since BC has tons of rivers and windy areas, so I don't really need to worry about energy :P

Mass
August 3rd, 2008, 07:13 PM
And it's probably not a problem, but I was just wondering, say you had a massive solar field producing hydrogen via electrolysis- I wonder if all the extra oxygen created in that process would cause or exacerbate corrosion on the equipment.

Not without water as a catalyst. And extra oxygen might help with the Ozone, although probably in an extremely minor way.