I can only understand about a tenth of this. Maybe Nydia will comment :)

http://www.physorg.com/news122534699.html

Plants trees and algae do it. Even some bacteria and moss do it, but scientists have had a difficult time developing methods to turn sunlight into useful fuel. Now, Penn State researchers have a proof-of-concept device that can split water and produce recoverable hydrogen.

"This is a proof-of-concept system that is very inefficient. But ultimately, catalytic systems with 10 to 15 percent solar conversion efficiency might be achievable," says Thomas E. Mallouk, the DuPont Professor of Materials Chemistry and Physics. "If this could be realized, water photolysis would provide a clean source of hydrogen fuel from water and sunlight."

Seems a pretty big thing since getting hydrogen for the hoped-for fuel cells cost more energy to extract than was recovered. Faster please...

This is where being back in school and taking lots of biology comes in handy. In photosynthesis, chlorophylls a & b absorb light energy, which excites their electrons. Those electrons head off into a chain reaction and are replaced by electrons from water -- this is the water oxidation process that splits the molecule.

The problems these guys were pursuing were how to capture more solar energy and how to keep the water molecules from reforming. The dye approximates the range of absorption of the chlorophylls, and the catalyst and electrode system (battery) keeps the water molecules split. The next step is to keep those electrons operating in order to improve efficiency.

It's interesting that they're essentially mimicking a process of 1-3% efficiency and have hopes of raising it to the 10-15% level (from 0.3%!).

An interesting experiment but it relies too heavily on the use of water, which in decades to come will pose its own problems in terms of supply, non-polluted sources, over use, mass desalination, etc.

Personally I would rather see the exploitation of negative reflection solar cells to maximize the power we can trap from the sun over this method. Creating our own sun in the form of fusion generators to me is the utlimate goal for short term success on the energy front, sadly its one of the toughest nuts to crack, right along with understanding all of the nuiansces of quantum science.

A hydrogen society will have cleaner outputs but to me it won't solve a lot of our societal problems in terms of the architectures we have built, i.e. cities, highways, etc.

Removing the "grid" from the power supply is the ultimate goal. i.e. - self contained power generators without the need for a refueling system would be the most benificial for all of us.

Solar and fusion are the two best candidates for this type of power source.

I know the two approaches I suggested have a long way to go in terms of viability or even first baby steps in terms of fusion, but I can dream can't I? ;)

Even though I don't agree with the overall practicallity of the experimentation referred to in the article, I am grateful that many scientists are taking a very broad approach in trying to solve our energy problems. Something found out in the experimentation in the article may have benifits in other areas of science or may help to solve problems in other areas.

Faster please...

Cheers,

1-3% is a low ball range for photosysthesis and I'm skeptical that they can get a net energy loss process up to a 10-15% efficiency. It will be great if they can, and I admit I'm not looking at the data they are, but it seems like a stretch from this article.

since getting hydrogen for the hoped-for fuel cells cost more energy to extract than was recovered.

This is true for electrolysis, which is probably the most mature hydrogen gathering technology. While still a way down the road, I expect thermochemical cycles like the Sulfur-Iodine cycle to eventually be a source of hyrdrogen at a reasonable economic cost.

Removing the "grid" from the power supply is the ultimate goal. i.e. - self contained power generators without the need for a refueling system would be the most benificial for all of us.

Without any refueling system sounds awfully similiar to a perpetual motion machine. :)

Without any refueling system sounds awfully similiar to a perpetual motion machine. :)

Every house just needs a Mr. Fusion!

Without any refueling system sounds awfully similiar to a perpetual motion machine.

I will concede its a pipe dream. Still someday I hope to put a banana peel and a pop can into my Mr. Fusion 3000 before I speed off in my Delorian for a long weekend on the moon.

Cheers,

Lokase

* bah! Taleran beat me to it ;)

As long as you put a banana peel in there, it is a possibility. But without fuel, you run up against that pesky First Law of Thermodynamics. It'll get you every time.

This is true for electrolysis, which is probably the most mature hydrogen gathering technology. While still a way down the road, I expect thermochemical cycles like the Sulfur-Iodine cycle to eventually be a source of hyrdrogen at a reasonable economic cost.


Electrolysis I would say is not the most mature technology for gathering hydrogen ever heard of an Steam Methane Reformer(SMR)? SMR's are much more efficient than electrolysis for recovering hydrogen. Yes the process makes alot of CO/CO2 but that now could even be recovered and used in process like carbon sequestration.

Agreed, it was a mistake to omit steam reforming as it is the current preferred method of H production, but the hydrogen produced is generally used for non-energy purposes (partly why I don't think about it as much). I am skeptical of the practical use of it to produce hydrogen for energy long term. If you are reducing a hydrocarbon and are guaranteed to not get 100% energy efficiency, why not just burn the hydrocarbon directly? They have been fairly decent fules for quite awhile now. If you localize the reforming, you save nothing in carbon production. If you centralize the production of hydrogen, sequestration is an option, but you have distribution problems. And you still have the problem that akipt pointed out, more energy in that you are going to get out. At some point, you have to look at why you want to use hydrogen as a fuel.

Didn't mean that post to sound as demonstrative as it did, chemistry is at most a hobby for me, if someone has a better reason to believe steam reforming is the future, I would be happy to hear it.

Actually I am an operator in a SMR yes it is not 100% efficient but it it much more efficient than anything right now and allows you to produce alot in short time periods. While we may only run about 90% efficient and I know that is not perfect we do have some plants that run much more efficient than the one I operate.

Distribution is a problem yes although hydrogen can be distributed via pipeline but then there are safety issues. The company I work for is big into finding ways and perfecting ways to deliver hydrogen to the masses though, we already have some refueling stations in use.

Is hydrogen really that more dangerous than standard gas as far as transport? Is it somehow prone to spontaneous explosions?

Or is the distribution process less dangerous because crude oil is what is being transported via pipeline?

Why not use the distribution process they have for gasoline, then? You pump the non-flamable product to a SMR, then distribute via trucks to the filling stations.

The only real danger you have then, is if there is an accident on the highway, involving the transport truck, or a hydrogen vehicle.

I'm sure there are innovative ways ways to make it highly unlikely a transport tanker or a hydrogen vehicle's gas tank can be ruptured. Perhaps an onboard fire supression system would be a step in the right direction?

Is hydrogen really that more dangerous than standard gas as far as transport? Is it somehow prone to spontaneous explosions?

This is the publics general knowledge of the dangers of transporting hyrodgen in a gas state:

http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/flying/assets/hindenburg.jpg

This is the publics general knowledge of the dangers of transporting hydrogen in a liquid state:

http://www2.qeliz.ac.uk/psychology/images/shuttle_explosion.jpg

Why not use the distribution process they have for gasoline, then? You pump the non-flamable product to a SMR, then distribute via trucks to the filling stations.

Because in order to "pump" and transport hydrogen in the manner you suggest you need to convert it into a liquid. Hydrogen turns from a gas to a liquid at 20.27 K (−423.17 °F/−252.87°C). You then need to insulate the container that the LH2 is being transported in so that its temperature doesn't rise resulting in its conversion back to a gas. Its a difficult problem to solve.


Cheers,

How many pictures are there out there of Gasoline or refinery explosions? Posting a couple of hydrogen explosions does nothing to address the volitility of gasoline or natural gas.

Wot? So Kan I Plug My Compooter Into My Fern?

Plug it into a potato!

I thought lemons were the best?

Because in order to "pump" and transport hydrogen in the manner you suggest you need to convert it into a liquid. Hydrogen turns from a gas to a liquid at 20.27 K (−423.17 °F/−252.87°C). You then need to insulate the container that the LH2 is being transported in so that its temperature doesn't rise resulting in its conversion back to a gas. Its a difficult problem to solve.

This goes back to power stations locally instead of grids. Our biggest problem is that the local market doesn't exist anymore. I go to the supermarket quite literally half a mile from some corn fields, yet our corn comes from 5 states away. My gas comes from halfway around the world. Even coming from your local coal power plant to your house so much energy is lost in the cables. Imagine if solar technology (including photosynthesis) could be refined to the point where you simply had panels on your roof and that was all you needed.

Why not use the distribution process they have for gasoline, then? You pump the non-flamable product to a SMR, then distribute via trucks to the filling stations.

Didn't notice that hydrogen was a gas? The energy it would take to compress or cool it would negate all of its energy potential.

You can't transport a gas via a truck? If that is implausable or impractical, how about filling stations where the gas is created?

Even coming from your local coal power plant to your house so much energy is lost in the cables.
Transmission losses are only around 7.5% for our power grid. Not nothing, but also not a large issue compared to the other problems.

However, I agree overall. Gridless power would truly change the world for the better (as long as you aren't part of the monopolies making bank off the grid).

There are Hydrogen gas pipelines as Louisiana, NE Gulf Coast of Texas, and California have but as of right now these pipelines are between refineries. As for liquid hydrogen and gaseous that stuff is transported all over the US via truck whether for NASA or some other company.

The safety issue is the bitch there. My step-mom is in charge of shipping for one of the "eco-imagination" chemical divisions for GE and you can't have hydrogen shipped over bridges or through tunnels and essentially the amount of gas used to ship this stuff isn't energy efficient. By the nature of it being a natural gas you don't get much in the tank so you compress it or liquidify it and then ship it then offload it into a pressurized system. All of this takes energy. To use our current infrastructure it really seems like ethanol or other alcohols are the easiest way to go, or truthfully, just stick with gas.

I'm personally a fan of electric cell cars with gas backup tanks - charging your car as you drive along w/ a solar panel on the roof or with solar energy from your house's panels/battery overnight. The good news is, people are starting to tackle these problems and every year we are getting a little bit closer. Consumer demand for these items is going up and that means profitability and research increases.