Mad Mike Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 Sun + Water = Fuel With catalysts created by an MIT chemist, sunlight can turn water into hydrogen. If the process can scale up, it could make solar power a dominant source of energy. http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/21536/page1/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 Muy interesante. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted November 20, 2008 Author Share Posted November 20, 2008 Hydrogen is the answer for energy storage. Chemical batteries are too expensive, wear out, and have ecological impact issues. The use of solar power to create hydrogen is as natural and as perfect a solution to our energy problems as we are likely to find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunClintonRun26 Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 That's awesome . . . I hope this is seen as just a step and not an utlimate solution though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USS Redskins Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 Sweet then Al Gore can finally STFU. But seriously - this is great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No_Pressure Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 It will be beaten down for years...there are a lot of people, a lot of money, and a lot of power tied into current sources of energy. Electricity that is perfectly clean, efficient, and basically costs nothing at all? There is no way that it becomes a reality for a long time, the guys on top will do everything in their power to stay there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sleazye Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 Keanu Reeves would like to warn you that we tried this before and it ended up with him having to outrun a nuclear explosion on his motorcycle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 So he's found a cheap way of making an inefficient catalyst in a lab. He's got a long way to go. A solar panel to provide energy for electrolysis of water to create hydrogen and oxygen is a decades old technology. It's just expensive to produce useful amounts of energy. What would get interesting if his idea translates into a way, using chemicals and mass manufacturing methods, to produce really, really cheap solar cells and electrolysis equipment so that it could be used as roofing material on every building. Until then this is nothing to be excited about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted November 20, 2008 Author Share Posted November 20, 2008 It will be beaten down for years...there are a lot of people, a lot of money, and a lot of power tied into current sources of energy. Electricity that is perfectly clean, efficient, and basically costs nothing at all? There is no way that it becomes a reality for a long time, the guys on top will do everything in their power to stay there. That's just silly. It assumes that all of the "guys on top" are pro oil. There are plenty of billionaires willing to invest in Hydrogen INCLUDING the big oil companies. It doesn't matter to Exxon if it makes it's money from oil or hydrogen as long as it makes money. The problem is one of infrastructure. How do you take 100 years of infrastructure dedicated to an oil/gasoline economy and turn it into a hydrogen economy? You simply cant. Going to the moon was cake walk by comparison because we didn't have to un-build an entire nation's economy to do it. In relative terms it was a small, manageable project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 The problem is one of infrastructure. How do you take 100 years of infrastructure dedicated to an oil/gasoline economy and turn it into a hydrogen economy? You simply cant. But if the solution provides for the cheap generation of hydrogen at home then immediately there is the potential of reducing the need for natural gas, oil and coal for power generation, AND powering your car too. If the technology results in large hydrogen power production plants, then it will help reduce dependence on foreign oil, but will require the infrastructure to allow vehicle refueling for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCSaints_fan Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 The problem with hydrogen-powered autos is storing hydrogen at the necessary pressures to last more than few miles. Edit: OK I actually RTFA. The proposal appears to be to be to generate H2 and O2 from water and store that in a large, stationary reservoir (like a home or powerplant), essentially a big huge battery that could store energy when supply exceeds demand (like midday), and when demand exceeds supply it could provide the necessary power. I would like to see some numbers on efficiency of the entire process. I'm also skeptical of solar power being economical in any case (which defeats the purpose of the ). And the picture they show of the home has a car that says 'plug-in hybrid' which uses conventional battery technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted November 20, 2008 Author Share Posted November 20, 2008 The problem with hydrogen-powered autos is storing hydrogen at the necessary pressures to last more than few miles. BZZZZZT wrong. They get as much milage as any battery powered vehicle if not more. That is to say in the 80-130 mile range. And unlike batteries they can be "charged" in a few minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 The problem with hydrogen-powered autos is storing hydrogen at the necessary pressures to last more than few miles. The storage tanks are bulky and expensive relative to gasoline tanks, but I don't see why capacity would be so low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted November 20, 2008 Author Share Posted November 20, 2008 But if the solution provides for the cheap generation of hydrogen at home then immediately there is the potential of reducing the need for natural gas, oil and coal for power generation, AND powering your car too.If the technology results in large hydrogen power production plants, then it will help reduce dependence on foreign oil, but will require the infrastructure to allow vehicle refueling for sure. The technology will develop on both scales. Small home generators are great but wont do you much good when you run out of fuel across town or out of state. There is also the issue of regulation. Do you really want everyone to have a home hydrogen generator? Is it safe? How much hydrogen should you be allowed to store? The other promise of hydrogen? Jet aircraft. Cant run them on batteries can we? They can run on hydrogen. So can the many billion or so internal combustion engines out there today with minor tweaks the fuel system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No_Pressure Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 That's just silly. It assumes that all of the "guys on top" are pro oil. There are plenty of billionaires willing to invest in Hydrogen INCLUDING the big oil companies. It doesn't matter to Exxon if it makes it's money from oil or hydrogen as long as it makes money. Yes but that isn't what they want. They would have to drastically restructure their companies to accommodate a fuel source that isn't going to bring in nearly as much money as oil or coal. What executive in their right mind would say: "Well we have the same low operating cost no matter what with oil, and every year we tamper with the price of gasoline to create record profits just for the hell of it based on the fear of a shortage or other speculation, but we COULD have a fuel source that will cost us money to implement, that is totally abundant and cheap, has no real potential for increased profit other than making more and more power plants based on this technology, and just for kicks it will probably cost us money to have the patented compounds or technology that we didn't invent to use this power source...I think we're going to go with the risky change to an energy source with a lower potential profit margin and restructure the way this company works just for the hell of it." In the early 90's GM had a chance to buy Honda, instead they created Saturn and attempted to compete with Honda's product. General Motors spent more money keeping Saturn afloat to fail in it's competition with an Asian competitor than it would have cost them to buy them out and never compete to begin with. American companies are terrified of changes and more often than not will do something terribly stupid simply to maintain the status quo of their business. Oil companies have not embraced other forms of energy for a reason. They are the suppliers of a needed commodity that you can't exactly find in your back yard or falling from the sky. They control the oil fields, they control the means of production, and they control the prices which fluctuate on a whim. Why in god's name would they want to do anything different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCSaints_fan Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 BZZZZZT wrong. They get as much milage as any battery powered vehicle if not more. That is to say in the 80-130 mile range. And unlike batteries they can be "charged" in a few minutes. Do you have a reference for that? Was the design practical or economical? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.