MIT primed to unleash solar revolution

[RF]

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

'Major discovery' from MIT primed to unleash solar
revolution
Scientists mimic essence of plants' energy storage
system

Anne Trafton, News Office
July 31, 2008

In a revolutionary leap that could transform solar
power from a marginal, boutique alternative into a
mainstream energy source, MIT researchers have
overcome a major barrier to large-scale solar
power: storing energy for use when the sun doesn't
shine.
<snip>

 

[Eeyore]

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

'Major discovery' from MIT primed to unleash solar
revolution
Scientists mimic essence of plants' energy storage
system

Anne Trafton, News Office
July 31, 2008

In a revolutionary leap that could transform solar
power from a marginal, boutique alternative into a
mainstream energy source, MIT researchers have
overcome a major barrier to large-scale solar
power: storing energy for use when the sun doesn't
shine.

By converting it to hydrogen and oxygen ?

What's revolutionary about that ? There's a lot of bogus science on that
page too like the idea you can split water into 'just' oxygen or
hydrogen.

Whatever happened to MIT ?

Graham

 

[J. Clarke]

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

'Major discovery' from MIT primed to unleash solar
revolution
Scientists mimic essence of plants' energy storage
system

Anne Trafton, News Office
July 31, 2008

In a revolutionary leap that could transform solar
power from a marginal, boutique alternative into a
mainstream energy source, MIT researchers have
overcome a major barrier to large-scale solar
power: storing energy for use when the sun doesn't
shine.
<snip>

Wonder of wonders, MIT has discovered electrolysis.

 

[Mauried]

Wonder of wonders, MIT has discovered electrolysis.

--

Err, the fundamental problem with Solar isnt the storage , but the
cost of the solar cells.
Why hasnt MIT announced they have invented 10 cents a watt solar
cells.
That would be a solar revolutioin.
Everyone is looking at the wrong solutions.

 

[Eeyore]

You misread the article...or didn't read it at all. You also placed
your quotation marks around the wrong word. Nowhere does it say that
they are splitting 'just water' into 'just one gas'. The article did
say they, "have developed an unprecedented process that will allow the
sun's energy to be used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen
gases."

The article did say, "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."

Well, the article was badly written at least. It was ambiguous IMHO.

The guy they quoted in the article doesn't appear to be a lightweight
nor agree with your skepticism. "This is a major discovery with
enormous implications for the future prosperity of humankind," said
Barber, the Ernst Chain Professor of Biochemistry at Imperial College
London. "The importance of their discovery cannot be overstated since
it opens up the door for developing new technologies for energy
production thus reducing our dependence for fossil fuels and
addressing the global climate change problem."

But no numbers about efficiency. And there's all the usual hydrogen storage
problems still.

In case you're not familiar with Imperial College -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_College_London. Then again,
he's only a silly professor and you read one article about it on the
interweb, so I'm sure you're right.

I was offered a place at Imperial as it happens. Went to UCL instead.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Err, the fundamental problem with Solar isnt the storage , but the
cost of the solar cells.
Why hasnt MIT announced they have invented 10 cents a watt solar
cells.
That would be a solar revolutioin.
Everyone is looking at the wrong solutions.

Couldn't agree more.

Graham

 

[Mauried]

Cool. Now all we need is something real.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that there is research going on. But
I clearly recall reading a magazine article in high school that claimed that
PV was going to be competetive with othe power sources within the next two
years. I graduated from high school in 1979.

It's good to be optimistic, but it is also hard to maintain enthusiasm when
so few of these developments ever see daylight.

Personally I'm keeping a close eye on Nanosolar. It appears that they are
actually shipping a product, now if I can just get these inexpensive panels
for home.

Regards,
Steve

PV was predicted to cost 50 cents a watt in 2000, we arnt even close.
As for Nanosolar, all they have claimed is that they have made solar
panels for $1 a watt.
No one has been able to verify this claim.
Nanosolar claim they are shipping solar panels to an undisclosed buyer
and at an undisclosed price.
But try and buy some panels off them for $1 a watt, and see how far
you get.

 

[Joe User]

The article did say, "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."

You need to quote the part where it requires electricity to use the
catalyst. So, if you have electricity, you can more effeciently
electrolyze water with the new innovation. A nice thing, but it has
nothing to do with solar or wind energy.

The cheapest way to get electric power is not solar or wind energy.

 

[J. Clarke]

I read the article, breifly, also and it looked to me like they are
claiming the invention of the wheel ...again. There were no tech
details, in the article I read, and the process was the same old
splitting water into two gases as people have done for decades at
big
losses.




No, it wasn't. Your opinion apparently precluded your reading
comprehension.

I'd agree that it's badly written. I can't imagine a professor at MIT
calling a press conference over the discovery of electrolysis. I
suspect that he was really announcing something else that the reporter
missed.

Kind of reminds me of a story a while back (but in this century)
reporting a radical breakthrough, a ship that could cross the Atlantic
on a single tank of fuel.

The press these days isn't any more reliable than the blogosphere, and
then they wonder why subscriptions are tanking.

Would you like your perfect solution wrapped up with a bow and
installed free of charge? Sheesh.

Well, if it's supposed to be a radical breakthrough involving
electrolysis, yes.

 

[Eeyore]

Eeyore wrote

Uh huh.

Uh huh. 1971.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

I read the article, breifly, also and it looked to me like they are claiming
the invention of the wheel ...again. There were no tech details, in the
article I read, and the process was the same old splitting water into two
gases as people have done for decades at big losses.

Thank You !

Sanity re-enters the thread.

The only possible advantage might be their oxygen electrode structure. Nothing
else has changed over standard electrolysis AFAICS. So, a few percent better
efficiency ? Turns a lame duck into a very slighlty less lame duck.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

You need to quote the part where it requires electricity to use the
catalyst. So, if you have electricity, you can more effeciently
electrolyze water with the new innovation. A nice thing, but it has
nothing to do with solar or wind energy.

The cheapest way to get electric power is not solar or wind energy.

Oh so true.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

You mean quote the part that has to do with solar energy? Okay...
"With today's announcement, MIT researchers have hit upon a simple,
inexpensive, highly efficient process for storing solar energy."

I see you're one of those people who read articles and believe them without
questioning them.

Your sort dominate Wall St, The London Stock Exchange etc etc.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Exploring the MIT site produced this.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/solar-dish-0618.html

Much more sensible as long as you can keep contaminants (salts) out of the system.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Cool. Now all we need is something real.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that there is research going on. But
I clearly recall reading a magazine article in high school that claimed that
PV was going to be competetive with othe power sources within the next two
years. I graduated from high school in 1979.

It's good to be optimistic, but it is also hard to maintain enthusiasm when
so few of these developments ever see daylight.

Personally I'm keeping a close eye on Nanosolar. It appears that they are
actually shipping a product, now if I can just get these inexpensive panels
for home.

They won't sell one to you. Nor will they present them for independent
appraisal.

Graham

 

[J. Clarke]

J. Clarke wrote:

The artical:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html


Well, he didn't say he invented electrolyses.

However he did say this:

"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."

What he did, so he says, is to make an improvement and
cost reduction in the structure of one of the electrodes.
The one that liberates the oxygen. He did nothing to the
hydrogen liberating electrode.

Advancements often come in little steps.

The process that you have just described is called "electrolysis".
There is nothing new about it.

 

[Mauried]

The process that you have just described is called "electrolysis".
There is nothing new about it.

--

Even if the process is 100% efficient,what happens next.
You can store the H2 either as liquid or compressed gas, but when you
convert the H2 back to electrtcity in a fuel cell, that process is at
best only 50% efficient.
A Hydrogen fuel cell producesa lot of heat in the process of making
electricity.
You can see this is the steam that comes out of them as water vapour.

No large scale energy storage system can afford to lose 50% of the
stored energy.
Even pumped hydro is better than 50%.

 

[Eeyore]

Come on, folks. The detractors are saying that Nocera has claimed to
invent electrolysis. The evangelists are saying that this is the solar
breakthrough we've been looking for.

Neither of these are the case. Nocera is only claiming to have
developed a catalyst for the oxygen electrode that provides excellent
(he's claiming nearly 100%) efficiency without the use of toxic
materials or a pressurized vessel.

Where is the efficiency claim ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

My sort? You mean the sort of people that point out that you have
trouble reading?

No one is claiming that the process in question is a panacea. You
misread the article and started casting aspersions based on faulty
comprehension. I was simply pointing that out.

Sorry if it got your knickers in a twist.

It's electrolysis. It's 200 years old.

Graham

 

[J. Clarke]

Even if the process is 100% efficient,what happens next.
You can store the H2 either as liquid or compressed gas, but when
you
convert the H2 back to electrtcity in a fuel cell, that process is
at
best only 50% efficient.
A Hydrogen fuel cell producesa lot of heat in the process of making
electricity.
You can see this is the steam that comes out of them as water
vapour.

No large scale energy storage system can afford to lose 50% of the
stored energy.
Even pumped hydro is better than 50%.

You can also burn it in an internal combustion engine, just like
gasoline. If the "storage losses" for gasoline are acceptable then
they are for hydrogen. However what you are describing is a
conversion loss, not a storage loss.

In any case fuel cells are available with efficiencies as high as 80
per cent. As for producing heat, you are confused--some cells operate
at high temperatures, but that is not because they "produce a lot of
heat", it is because they are designed to run at that temperature.