I've always found it annoying when people refer to hydrogen as a new "fuel", especially when they're referring to hydrogen produced by electrolysis. Using electrolysis means that the theoretical limits are that you can get as much energy -out- of burning hydrogen as you put into splitting the water. The traditional meaning of fuel is the exact opposite, that you can get more energy out of combustion than you have to put into creating the fuel.

TLDR - Hydrogen is an energy storage technology, not a fuel. It competes against batteries, not against carbon fuels.

In terms of exploding or burning, probably not nearly as dangerous as gasoline. The biggest problem with it is that, since the molecules are so tiny, it's very hard to store and transport without it leaking away. Also, the standard procedure for getting hydrogen from water (electrolysis) requires considerably more energy than you get out of the hydrogen, so that's a problem. Still all that aside, if you use power from a nuclear reactor to crack the water to make the hydrogen, you have a nearly unlimited supply of a portable, energy-dense, very clean fuel. Researching and refining its use as a fuel is a Good Thing.

The description rather misses the point. The electrolysis of water into hydrogen and oxygen requires a good deal of electrical power. It's not free energy--you actually get a good deal less out of it than you put into it. The advantage to hydrogen fuel is that it is energy dense and theoretically storeable and transportable much as fossil fuels are.

The problem, though, is that it is extremely hard to store and transport because it escapes so easy (hydrogen being so tiny). I'd hazard that, left alone, all of the hydrogen would escape from that car's tanks in a matter of days.

There really is no easy solution. If you could effectively store and transport hydrogen, and use nuclear power to create it, that would solve a lot of problems. It would create new ones too.

This is, of course, not to belittle what this man has done. It is a fine engineering project, and it is people like this who will, little by little, refine the techniques and solve the problems that are necessary,

>> ^papple:

A part of me thinks that this is a beautiful piece of engineering, but another part of me feels sad that it'll only be used to drop bombs on people.


It is actually a spy plane, even so, any R&D you can point towards developing a hydrogen economy (provided we find good ways to produce hydrogen), the better!



One of the killer apps of the particular flavor of nuclear I am interested in deals with high heat electrolysis which could help in the transition to a hydrogen economy. Technologies that aid in hydrogen production will also most likely be suited for desalinization of water, which could be of great need if warming of the earth changes regional rain patters.



http://nuclear.energy.gov/genIV/documents/gen_iv_roadmap.pdf

For a professor he sure gets a lot of basic stuff wrong.
For starters he doesn't seem to know (or care) that energy and power is not the same thing. That makes it really difficult to figure out wtf he's talking about in the first half.
Then he proudly claims they discovered artificial photosynthesis only it's not photosynthesis but some kind of electrolysis (or it wouldn't need photovoltaic panels).
Sure, efficient super high density energy storage using water would be pretty awesome if it becomes widely available and cheap but it won't solve "The Energy Problem™" mostly because solar panels still suck. Even in the most sunny parts of the world covering your house with cheap-ish solar panels will probably not be enough to power everything in your house during the day without using part of the power to split water. Good luck if you live somewhere that doesn't get a lot of sunlight or if you don't own a house.
And no, water is not an energy source, energy storage maybe but not a source.

If you invent something good then talk about it, don't just make bullshit claims that you'll save the world and barely mention the actual invention/discovery like this guy does. "I'm not gonna tell you what it is." wtf?

His research is specifically in catalyzing electrolysis. Its a big improvement over the old platinum catalysts (which were good at catalyzing the hydrogen formation, but not the oxygen), and has the added benefit of maintaining the same reaction rate for a long periods of time, using non-pure water sources.

Hydrogen and oxygen...a bond not easily broken. I like this idea of using photovoltaic cells to power a form of electrolysis...but it is just so darned slow to make energy. Unless he knows something that I don't, your rooftop doesn't generate enough electricity to convert enough hydrogen and oxygen to run real time. We share the same dream though, of homes being their own power sources. I hope this solution has more weight that solutions of similar natures gone by.

^first of all, i don't think it's fair to measure the energy calculation in joules.

Solar income is by far the biggest energy contribution to the production of crops, not any human factor. we're merely facilitating a nice opportunity for the plants to convert photons to food, because we can't to that ourselves. so the whole thing rests on our metabolism being "wasteful", energy-wise.

Another reason strict caloric calulation is meaningless for farming, is that the US and EU are subsidizing their domestic agriculture industry with billions of dollars, making farming methods and yields completely divorced from the financial success of a farmer.
Here, I can mostly speak from experience in the EU, where subsidies are often given for weird, counterintuitive behavior, meant to satisfy other goals than production, such as specific, fashionable environmental concerns ("preserve hedges and enclosures!"), or simply to preserve employment in that sector. Talk about wasteful.

And why isn't the haber process sustainable? Because it's dependent on fossil fuels? it only gets the hydrogen part from natural gas, the nitrogen comes from the atmosphere. A lot of people are spending lot of money these days on developing efficient, large scale, renewable hydrogen production, such as electrolysis machines running off solar/wind/nuclear power.
When people talk about "sustainable", they often forget to take into account future developments, and proceed to make gloomy prognoses based on current technology (see: Thomas Malthus)

>> ^Stormsinger:
What a scam...it fits the mental abilities of the Fox audience, though.
It's just another one of the endless stream of con artists peddling electrolysis as the some sort of "miracle" fuel. Always ignoring the fact that you can't get more energy out of burning hydrogen than you spend breaking apart the water molecules.


While I don't dispute that this is more than a little fishy, I was listening to a story on NPR a while back about a guy who converted his garage into a solar/hydrogen power plant. Solar cells generate enough energy to power his home in a typical day, with excess energy going to a device that breaks water molecules up into hydrogen and oxygen atoms, and the hydrogen gets stored away. The hydrogen gets run through a fuel cell to provide power when there isn't enough sunlight to normally power their home. It was built entirely with commodity technology, although he had about 2 grants of $200K each to pull it off. Lemme try and dig up the link... (no luck searching through the archives, I'll post it when I can get it, though...)

So you don't have to ignore the energy it takes to break up hydrogen. You can just get it from a renewable resource, so it essentially becomes "free" energy.

The inventor is dead, heart attack.
>.>

Their method of electrolysis wasnt to just get and burn the hydrogen, its to re-arrange the water mollecule, giving more energy than just hydrogen alone for relativly the same cost.

Its not over-unity, just very efficient browns gas production.

What a scam...it fits the mental abilities of the Fox audience, though.

It's just another one of the endless stream of con artists peddling electrolysis as the some sort of "miracle" fuel. Always ignoring the fact that you can't get more energy out of burning hydrogen than you spend breaking apart the water molecules.

Im no chemist, but wouldnt it be possible to break down CO2 into carbon and oxygen via some sort of electrolysis process, similar to whats done in fuel cells ?

1. I never said Christians cannot/shouldn't be scientists and nor do I think so. I know several good scientists that are religious, and I respect them, even though they were indoctrinated as children and have since interpreted some of their experiences as proof of a deity. It is sad, and it all comes back to indoctrination, like I said previously. Now, supporters of ID, however, are a disgrace and they're undermining the whole concept of science. I think you'd agree that there is quite the correlation between religious fanatics and supporters of ID, wouldn't you? So it's no real surprise I assumed you might be one. I apologize for this assumption, and I'm happy you say you're not of the ID crowd.

2. I didn't attack your interests; just essentially said you should expand your knowledge in most fields - as should I and pretty much everyone. I just get annoyed when people talk about advanced sciences with great ignorance, misconstruing and making up facts on the spot, and that was what you did.

3. We are in agreement on science not making the claim of (ever) having the absolute truth; yet you seem to be one who believes this is possible via faith, that science has no truth to it at all and also, that making this claim is a good thing; this is where your logic and rationality fail. Anyone making the claim of absolute truth is wrong, and hence, it's a bad thing.

4. The mass of an atom isn't "the most simple thing in particle physics". It also isn't the smallest particle. Nor the one with least mass. It is also, in most common cases, a known, and I am at a loss how anyone could forgo this knowledge in their secondary education. Just because you lack basic knowledge in particle, no, basic, rudimentary physics, doesn't mean the scientific community does.

5. I won't argue semantics of 'fact' here. If you don't like the scientific definition, you can... well, do nothing about it. A discussion should be based on impartial principles, however, you attempt to impose your set of definitions and interpretations.

6. How is a METHOD true or false? Do you have any understanding of what a method is?

7. It appears your 'knowledge' of particle physics is drawn from http://www.videosift.com/video/Quantum-Physics-Double-Slit-Experiment-amazing-results. That's just sad, man. You should at least browse through Wikipedia before you engage in a discussion about these matters. We cannot as of yet see an electron or a photon - it has to be registered - interacted with, to determine which slit it goes through to carry this experiment out - hence the intrusion and the different results. The cool thing that baffles scientists is that it's the first time we've had a situation in which one cannot measure without interfering. That's it. That's the easy explanation. I don't think I should go into how the complementarity principle and wave-particle duality work.

8. In response to your request (you ignored mine) - here's 7 ideas from a 200 years ago that we hold true and still use today, quite in their original form, include:

Heliocentric theory.
Narrative history.
Electromagnetic induction.
Electrolysis.
Oxidation numbers.
Kinetic theory of gases.

and finally, a dessert - Evolution. It's occurrence has finally been proved in a lab experiment. Did you know that?

9. Please, don't just talk about it, do also look the Theory of Everything up. You actually think it's a theory that tries to describe everything - which is hilarious. I hate schooling other people and doing the internet's job, but you ought to know it is a theory that would explain the 4 known fundamental forces of our universe - gravity, electromagnetic force and strong and weak nuclear forces. That's it, doing that alone has proven to be difficult enough. There may be other forces required to explain any and all physical phenomena, which is what it's geared towards, but it won't in any way try to explain, for example, why kittens are cute or why you're arguing about that which you have little to none understanding of on the internet.

All in all, I apologize for my sometimes hostile tone; it's rather challenging for me to tolerate blatant ignorance. And you saying "It is impossible to prove something truth with science.", that's just plain wrong and illustrates just to what extent you misunderstand science and its methods.

Anyway, if you think it does not further true knowledge, then why the hell are you studying science, huh?

>> ^Jinx:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:Words.
Hey, nice post.
I read a thing a year or so ago about a new technology that enabled production of much cheaper and more efficient solar panels, but I can't seem to find any information on it now, so I wonder if it was just a pipe dream or something.
If I remember correctly the panels were paper thin and flexible, like laminated card, were durable to weather but eventually required replacing after 6 months or so of use. They were also supposed to be vastly superior in efficiency and their production allowed them to be "printed" en masse, and sold at approximately one dollar per metre square.
Obviously I was very excited about this. People could turn every south facing wall into a solar panel relatively cheaply and if the efficiency was as high as the article boasted you'd probably be able to light, heat and power most of the appliances in your house on your own energy. Alas, no cheap solar power yet.
Anyway, if all of Earths energy (with the exception of Geothermal, Nuclear and The Tides?) comes from the sun, be it stored in ancient pressurised plant matter or firewood, it would seem to make sense to find a good of way of tapping energy straight from the source.


Ya, little blurbs like that are usually kinda PR moves by certain solar research foundations to generate a flow of funds to their particular areas. Not saying thats a bad thing mind you, but its kinda a red herring. I say that because paper thin sheets of silica are not going to generate that much electrical power.

That said, it isn't unimportant. I think all of us have seen the caution signs and help phones on the road sides with the solar pannel coming off the top...very useful in that kind of aplication where low amparage is needed.

The problem is...well, at least with my house of nerds, is we use....a cubic butt ton of power (standard SI unit, look it up!). Mutiple computers, projector, game systems...a cornicopia of electronic wonders suck up a lot of juice. There is no way a paper thin PV cell is going to generate enough power to do all the work required of it...even if I coated my whole house with them.

Like I mentioned before, the energy generated is from the amount of "work" the photon has to do as it travles through the substrate. Unless they are doing some magic that I haven't become aware of (like nano tube redirection which was still theoretical last I heard) those paper thing sheets have a limited applications. Movement is good, so being able to cheaply produce those things is good, and my lead to further discoveries down the line, but it is mainly a red herring it seems.

Like I said before, I have the highest hopes for PV cells than anything else I have seen. And combining it with more effective means of electrolysis is very smart indeed. Hats off to them for all their work. Hopefully, PV technology is blessed with "bright" ideas. But I really think its got a long long road ahead of it...think of it this way, it is THE most researched green tech of the past 40 years, and yet, we are still only as far as we are...which is bare minimum public use this make solar panda sad indeed, but hopefully, he will be basking in the glow of nearly infinite energy!

/rant!

(there most likely a mass typoes here as its 1am...clean those up in the morrow)

This has been making the rounds in the *newspapers. Here's the MIT article originally published.

I watched this video, and missed the scientific breakthrough on the first viewing; electrolysis (splitting water into oxygen and hydrogen with electricity) has been around a long time, I did it myself in a lab in junior high.

The real scientific/engineering breakthrough here is being bale to do it with water that has neutral pH.

Everything else is kinda window dressing to make it relevant to the energy crisis.