How about batteries?

Great idea! That's what we'll call it!

Batteries get hot.
That heat is lost energy.
Batteries also have a limited life, they are dirty to dispose of, and cost a fortune to produce.

This way is much simpler.

Break water into its constituant parts with excess elec, then recombine them in a fuel cell later to regain that energy.

Simple, cheap, effective, very little waste, efficient....brilliant.

Watch the coal industry purchase the patent.. then shelf it in the bowels of their dungeon.

For those of you wanting to know more about how it works, here is a short description from Science Daily:

"The key component in Nocera and Kanan's new process is a new catalyst that produces oxygen gas from water; another catalyst produces valuable hydrogen gas. The new catalyst consists of cobalt metal, phosphate and an electrode, placed in water. When electricity — whether from a photovoltaic cell, a wind turbine or any other source — runs through the electrode, the cobalt and phosphate form a thin film on the electrode, and oxygen gas is produced.

"Combined with another catalyst, such as platinum, that can produce hydrogen gas from water, the system can duplicate the water splitting reaction that occurs during photosynthesis.

The new catalyst works at room temperature, in neutral pH water, and it's easy to set up, Nocera said. "That's why I know this is going to work. It's so easy to implement," he said.""

Ya, I see solar technology as one of the best cures to the energy crysis. I just don't see how to overcome the fragility of the silica based cell technology. I am hoping nano tech comes up with a cure to the testy and fragile nature of silicon crystal. This hybrid of storing solar energy is a good idea though, I wonder how much surplus they expect out of their solar system to make all that hydrogen. Would it really be enough to supply a modern house through the waking dusk till dawn?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Would it really be enough to supply a modern house through the waking dusk till dawn?


It doesnt have to be, even if it only makes it through half the night to start with, it would absolutley annihilate grid-based power demands.

Think how many coal plants you could shut down.

It still depends on the installation of a PV cell of sufficient capactity not just for the day, but for the night. Then it requires the installation of a fuel cell and an Oxygen/Hydrogen storage unit. I suspect it would be cheaper to install batteries of the same capacity as compared to this style unit for a house, but economies of scale would win out if this sort of unit was installed in an apartment building, for example.

If this tech is so simple to install and maintain perhaps it could see use in developing nations as a means of providing power for remote areas which are not attached to any sort of power grid?

Anyway, great sift. It doesn't appear to be particularly related to solar power though, as far as I can see anything could power the conversion process.

Thing is, I know somebody who has a wind turbine and it goes from producing too much power to too little or none at all. When he has a surplus it gets pumped onto the national grid and he gets compensated by the power company. So, its not like the excess is being wasted, and the money from the power company pays for the electricity he uses when the wind drops, so he has no real need to store the energy he produces. Ofc, in an ideal world everybody would have a wind turbine, and then you would need an energy store for when the wind drops, but while renewables are in the minority...

Anyway, gogo energy independance.

Yeah, great post.

The science on the sift is great, I'm new and it's what attracted me here, plus the cat videos .

You may find this interesting:

http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/h2homesystem.pdf

It's the same set-up...

Electrolysis powered by the excess energy from photo-voltaic cells, where hydrogen and oxygen are stored as a gas and then used in hydrogen fuel cell to create electric current as required.

To me the revelation here isn't so much the solar power; the increase in efficiency of photo-voltaic cells is exciting, but not new conceptually.

Storing the fuel locally as gas, then using a hydrogen fuel cell to generate the electric current is however very nice as domestic scale systems go.

Big though, isn't it?

I'm still trying to understand precisely how the energy in the system works from a physics point of view; if they're using an electrolyte, and why noble metal components are used. Any help?

As far as I know, the main thing from keeping solar technology from hitting the main stream is the cost. Most would think that once the process hits main stream the cost would go down. And while that is true to an extent, there is a technilogical hurdal that still has to be passed before a significant reduction in price happens.

The problem with PV cells is the silicon crystal they have to make in order to harness the photons. The way it works is you have a peice of silica crysal. The thiker the crystal, the more power you can generate. But, like the microchip fabrication process, there is a potential for every micron of thickness you add, that the layer above could have a flaw and thus ruin all the sub-layers of silica below it. The fabrication process has to draw a line with yeild vs power output vs material costs. Right now, that still means relativly low power effeciancy (last I read, it's lower than a combustion engine). Granted, not using hydro carbon related tech, so it's greenish but it does create a lot of waste and heat waste.

The problem still lies in the fabrication process. And it's at the atomic level that the problem is. At the atomic level, there are a very few number of tools that manufacting labs have at their disposal, and even more things that we don't know why happen.

For instance, it was a resent discovery of what a gold atom looks like at the atomic level. Very important when you are wanting to build uniform crystaline units. What I am stating here is that atomic reasearch is very promising, but it is still just that, a promiss of something that is yet to arive. With that said, I think the main stream adoption of solar tech for main stream use is years, if not decades (booo) away.

As you might of guessed, you also have to consider wear and tear on the units. If they become impacted by FOD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_object_damage) then you are talking about some serious problems, like a complete or partial replacement of your potentialy 10k dollar investment. I live in texas, where we have at least one hail storm a year, CURRENT solar tech either has to add screen and shields that once again lower effectivness, or you run the risk of a total system failure...

Anyway, sorry for the rant...I enjoy tech talk

>> ^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.

I love the exchange of theories here. Very interesting stuff, keep it coming!

It is especially nice to see so many "P"s participate in the discussion!

>> ^charliem:
Batteries get hot.
That heat is lost energy.
Batteries also have a limited life, they are dirty to dispose of, and cost a fortune to produce.
This way is much simpler.
Break water into its constituant parts with excess elec, then recombine them in a fuel cell later to regain that energy.
Simple, cheap, effective, very little waste, efficient....brilliant.


Exactly the answer I was looking for.

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.

Adding video to channels (News) - requested by NetRunner.

>> ^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)

Keep the hydrogen and oxygen apart and pump them into your monster SUV, suddenly you can flip the bird at all the Prius owners as you run over them.

>I read a thing a year or so ago about a new technology that enabled production of much cheaper and more efficient solar panels

thin film solar was the touted breakthru, but i can't find the video i saw before either. the developer/manufacturer claimed they could just crank out unlimited yardage like newspaper.

>> ^Payback:
Keep the hydrogen and oxygen apart and pump them into your monster SUV, suddenly you can flip the bird at all the Prius owners as you run over them.


actually, that brings up an interesting point. If every place is making hydrogen gas as a means to store solar energy, than you eliminate the problem of changing over all your gas stations to hydrogen stations. You could fill up nearly anywhere as it would be mainly decentralized...out of gas, stop at the neighboors

Sure, this theory is great. Don't want to overlook that.

But man, I'd hate to run in to him on the street. Did you see how homeboy drives his car? With his driving technique at the wheel, I'm sure he's bound to just randomly smash in to a coal plant!

he needs more eyeshadow

Ahh, this is brilliant, and what I've been saying for some time. We NEED to get as many houses as possible solared right up.

Batteries have indeed been the issue up until now, along with efficiency and cost of the solar panels, but we NEED to do this.

I saw a news clip about a woman who was part of the EV-1 electric car trials in California, except that she has normal cars (I think she has two) converted to be electric. As such, she was allowed to keep hers after the trial (as she could still get spare parts and maintain them). She has solar panels on the roof of her house, she charges her car (or two if I'm right) each night, and runs the whole house off the solar... and her energy bill each month is, like, a couple of dollars.

So, using tech from a number of years ago she can almost entirely run her house AND charge electric cars from solar.

Just imagine if we were all doing that! Almost no power plants required, all cars could be electric, the power industry as we know it can largely go away, instead replaced with an industry creating, distributing, installing and maintaining solar systems.

We could start it NOW.

But we don't because big business is far too afraid of change and their current money streams.

I wish a Richard Branson or similarly cashed up person would sink some money into this for the betterment of society.

I appreciate him doing so into space travel, but would love to see it being done for energy creation.

>> ^deathcow:
he needs more eyeshadow


Eyeshadow? Homie just finished toking some energy out of a plant the proper way! He's wasted.

*sharp inhale* Dude, Where's My Portable Hydrogen Generator?

that is just plain cool. future generations will mock us for using nuclear energy when, - to paraphrase - In one hour, the sun produces as much energy as the Earth comsumes in one year." To me, that's profound.

So, what is the hard data, how efficient is this process? IIRC hydrolysis has a theoretical upper bound of efficiency in the low 70% range, and most production systems don't even hit 50%, how much better is this process?

Does the 5-20% gain ( which is a 10-40% increase in stored energy per input, not too shabby) kick the current generation of residential PV system over the hump to 5 year 100% ROI?

Once a residential PV system drops below 5 years to recoup, we are going to see some major fur fly as the centralized utilities fight tooth and nail to keep a strangle hold on the energy market. Hopefully we get there by better, cheaper tech, instead of scarcer, more expensive oil.

>> ^dgandhi:
So, what is the hard data, how efficient is this process? IIRC hydrolysis has a theoretical upper bound of efficiency in the low 70% range, and most production systems don't even hit 50%, how much better is this process?
Does the 5-20% gain ( which is a 10-40% increase in stored energy per input, not too shabby) kick the current generation of residential PV system over the hump to 5 year 100% ROI?
Once a residential PV system drops below 5 years to recoup, we are going to see some major fur fly as the centralized utilities fight tooth and nail to keep a strangle hold on the energy market. Hopefully we get there by better, cheaper tech, instead of scarcer, more expensive oil.


But the main problem is the hydrogen. You have to expend a good deal of energy to break the covalent bonds of water to get at hydrogen. So where you may have an effective means to gather hydrogen at a very high rate of energy effectiveness, but that energy does still have to come from somewhere, and solar still isn't up to snuff on the durability side. I would imagine that most people will never make back the money thay invested in the curret generation of technology, the cost of a total cell failure is pretty substatial as it has to be completely replaced. And the most dishearting thing is that I haven't really heard much about new technologies that are ready for mass production any time soon

So where I still think solar is the future...its still a slightly distant one. Without a better way to generate multilayerd perfectly aligned silicon atoms the next gen of solar pannels isn't coming. I have hope that nano transister research will end up spilling over into solar reasearch. Right now, micro processors are having the same problem that solar pannels are having...atoms don't always go exactly where you want them to go; and worse, you don't know why they don't do what you want them to, and ever more worse, we don't know how to get them to do so. We need a revolution in micro manufacturing before the REAL solar revolution begins...and on that day, bye bye dino doo doo.

Great! Now where can I buy one?

>> ^Xax:
Great! Now where can I buy one?


They have people that do the installs right now for everything but the fuel cell stuff...and that just needs electricity and a tie in to setup, something that can, in theroy, be installed after the fact. They run anywhere from 10k to 40k depending on how much juice you need and what area you live in. The more intence your solar radiation, the less cells you need. Most can be written as tax right offs untill some time which I can't remember. Also, there are loan programs out there for people wishing to go green from the good ol US government. I would still wait awhile before getting a set installed though, still a couple of maturaty levels the tech needs to hit for my taste.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^Xax:
Great! Now where can I buy one?

They have people that do the installs right now for everything but the fuel cell stuff...and that just needs electricity and a tie in to setup, something that can, in theroy, be installed after the fact. They run anywhere from 10k to 40k depending on how much juice you need and what area you live in. The more intence your solar radiation, the less cells you need. Most can be written as tax right offs untill some time which I can't remember. Also, there are loan programs out there for people wishing to go green from the good ol US government. I would still wait awhile before getting a set installed though, still a couple of maturaty levels the tech needs to hit for my taste.


I am waiting for the 3G Version...

Looks like the embed code is hosed.

Grab new embed code from here:
http://techtv.mit.edu/videos/633-span-classhighlightdanielspan-span-classhighlightnoceraspan-describes-new-process-for-storing-solar-energy

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by jonny.

*length=00:02:07

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 2:07 - length declared by ReverendTed.