OCT 27

In July, we told you about how a professor at MIT has developed a cheaper, easier way to split water using solar energy. Now he’s on the cover of the latest issue of MIT Technology Review, and is talking about how his new discovery is going to save the world.

His name is Daniel Nocera and he is a professor of chemistry. His method uses two electrodes, one of which is immersed in a solution of dissolved cobalt and phosphates. These ions collect on the electrode surface and form a catalyst which splits water around them. When water splits, it releases oxygen gas, and sends electrons through the circuit connecting the electrodes. At the other electrode, these electrons recombine with the hydrogen atoms (protons) from the original molecule to form hydrogen gas.

The best part is that the electric current can come from a photovoltaic panel. Thus, sunlight generates electricity, electricity (with the help of the catalyst) splits water into hydrogen and oxygen, and finally the hydrogen is stored for use as a fuel.

Nocera has been talking about his discovery in terms that are unusually rash for a scientist. "With this discovery, I totally change the dialogue," he said. "All of the old arguments go out the window." He believes that he has tapped into the power of photosynthesis and that we have finally harnessed it.

He may be right, but there are many who criticize him, especially for his apparent overconfidence. First of all, there is no new technology her, per se, other than the catalyst. We already know how to split water by running a current through it. What’s more, Nocera’s device has only a fraction of the water-splitting power found in a commercial electrolyzer. Some also suspect that going from sunlight to electricity to fuel, then back to electricity is a rather inefficient series of steps.

At the end of the day, though, if solar is going to take a significant place in our electricity generation, storage for off-peak hours will be top priority. And while we are making batteries better all the time, it doesn’t hurt to explore options such as these as well.

Via MIT Technology Review

Comments (12)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

who says we are going back and forth?
written by Alexofthenation, October 27, 2008

Who ever said that going from electricity to hydrogen back to electricity is inefficient has a lot to learn about chemistry. It is not like you are converting energy into hydrogen. It is more like digging the oil out of the ground, except it is water not dirt and rock. It takes energy to get it, but once you have it you can get much more power out of it.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Obtaining the hydrogen is only half the
written by Matt Simmons, October 27, 2008

Once you've got it, you've got to store it in a safe, easily converted matrix. Unless Dr Nocera's method can convert fast enough for fuel cell use live, in which case sign me up!

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Nocera at MIT
written by gmoke, October 28, 2008

I attended one of Nocera's talks at MIT. He is serious and his breakthrough is exciting but it will take years to get it out of the lab and into the marketplace. MIT's Energy Initiative is really stepping out these days, in part pushed by the Energy Club students who are looking for cross-discipline solutions to the problems that seem obvious to them.

MIT is planning for a world where we use twice the energy that we use now. I believe they're missing the point but then I don't have a PhD.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Robbert, October 28, 2008

@gmoke
Sadly twice the energy we use today may not be enough. Even if we manage to get the energy needs of the western world to stabilise of (hopefully) to go down. We still need to take into account the rising energy needs of other rising economies.
Ideally we plan for a world where all energy needs can be cleanly and stably (no brownouts) provided.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

performance coefficient
written by dbell, October 28, 2008

What the hell kind of performance does this thing actually get? I.e. unit of energy in vs. energy out.

And yes, I know that its a storage thing. Nevermind the fact that storing hydrogen is a crapshoot. But if this only keeps the energy around until we need its nothing special. We'll have capacitors and EV batteries to hold electrons far sooner than any decent hydrogen economy

He doesn't seem to be acting like a scientist about it either, he seems like he's doing some serious posing for whatever personal gain he sees

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Ken Roberts, October 28, 2008

There are still many more issues to be worked out here, so I'll remain skeptical until they are.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Green Products, October 28, 2008

@Alexofthenation Going from electricity to hydrogen back to electricity is inefficient, and it has more to do with the laws of thermodynamics than chemistry. You CAN NOT get more energy out of hydrogen when combining it back with oxygen to create an electrical charge, than is used to split the water molecules to begin with. There will be heat loss (energy loss) when converting back and forth.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Might get us off grid
written by Ryan, November 06, 2008

If it isn't as efficient as batteries but is cheaper or more reliable to use it might be better.

I imagine they could make some pretty good hydrogen storage tanks out of buckypaper eventually.

Being able to have your driveway, roof and house paint act as solar collectors might provide plenty of solar energy (from nanosolar). Having a buckypaper composite tank buried in your back yard would allow a lot cheaper and reliable storage I imagine than batteries though you could always use both and just use the tank for peak energy production summer storage for later month's use.

Whatever happens I think having multiple choices is certainly in our favor.

Yes I know commercial grade energy plants could do everything more efficiently but I don't like the misuse of political power of such companies and would rather not feed them any more or at least have measures to keep them in check.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Peter, November 10, 2008

If Professor Nocera can improve the electrolisis process and hydrogen generation, then we all benefit. I don't understand the criticism from various pundits. The world WILL continue to develop and energy use WILL continue to increase. No amount of conservation will solve the problem no matter what the doomsday enviro elitist government lovers think. We need MORE energy immediately. Renewable is best, but non-renewable is perfectly okay in the short run as a transition technology. The big question is what are we going to transition to next? Professor Nocera may have part of the answer. Let's applaud his efforts and ask to see more.....

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Re: "who says we are going back and fort
written by Flaming Pope, April 22, 2009

Any physictist/chemist worth his math. You misunderstood what Daniel Nocera stated. He never once stated that you get more energy out. Max energy out = energy in. It's universal law at the chemical level, varies at the physical (something about beson decay and some inequality). However he found a better way of obtaining hydrogen, more EFFICIENT yeild, not more NET energy.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Flaming Pope, April 22, 2009

O yea I'm totally gonna try it this weekend. if its really as efficient as the demo, imagine the amount of balloons I can fill.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by wedding dresses, October 13, 2009

storage for off-peak hours will be top priority. And while we are making batteries better all the time, it doesn’t hurt to explore options such as these as well.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment