MIT is in a twisted, propeller-capped knot this morning heralding a new discovery it says will unleash a solar revolution. However, the "revolutionary leap" inspired by photosynthesis is not on the glamorous front-end of energy collection, rather, it's related to a simple, highly efficient and inexpensive way to store that energy when the sun doesn't shine. "This is the nirvana of what we've been talking about for years," says Daniel Nocera, MIT neomaxizoomdweebie who with Matthew Kanan developed the unprecedented approach to split water into hydrogen and oxygen gases using the sun's energy. The gases can then be recombined later inside a
fuel cell. The key components to the process are a pair of catalysts (one consists of cobalt metal, phosphate, and an electrode; the other, platinum) which produce the O and H gases at room temperature and in neutral pH water (i.e., tap water). While similar solutions exist for industrial use (primarily), these are very expensive and require specialized environments.
"This is a major discovery with enormous implications for the future prosperity of humankind," said James Barber, a leader in the study of photosynthesis at Imperial College in 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." Nocera concedes that further engineering is required to commercialize the approach but hopes to see it implemented in household fuel cell systems within the next 10 years. Click through for the video breakdown.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Kizorblade @ Aug 1st 2008 2:18AM
I think it's a great idea, although I get this feeling that it won't be implemented. Although I'd love to see it being used.
Killer @ Aug 1st 2008 2:41AM
Agreed. It's just the cost of it. If I had cash to blow, I probably would do it. Maybe if i win the lottery or something. =/ Oh hell this has a better chance of becoming mainstream, then me winning the lottery, who am I kidding? =( Damn Odds...
Macca @ Aug 1st 2008 3:31AM
These trolls get worse and worse dont they...
who? @ Aug 1st 2008 4:16AM
@ Macca
Jeez, what's your problem? Big oil backer are ya?
thegreatino @ Aug 1st 2008 9:37AM
since when is this new technology? this is what hydrogen fuel cells are based on... so they made it solar instead of wired electric? big deal, not new technology at all. plenty of companies already have systems available utilizing hydrogen fuel cells, not to mention numerous cars.
ds @ Aug 1st 2008 10:57AM
Wow.. Engadget you got this story all wrong. The discovery has nothing to do with solar panels and hydrogen fuel cells. The discovery is of a new cheap catalyst that makes electrolysis cheaper, yet still very efficient. They are using a catalyst that cost hundreds to thousands of times less than platinum for one of the electrodes. This is the step that is taking the process from very specialized expensive industrial applications to putting one in your basement. Yes, anyone with a 9v battery can get some H gas from water; but catalysts make the process work well enough to actually be useful on large scales.
In electrochemistry, a different chemical reaction occurs at each electrode. At one electrode, electrons are forced into molecules, and at the other electrode they are pulled out. For any given "splitting" of water, the hydrogen that is formed at the reducing electrode and the oxygen forming at the oxidizing electrode do not come from the same water molecule. So yes, the kinetics of the half reactions are very important.
The difference in free energy between the 2H20 and 2H2+ O2 is fairly modest. However, the process is path dependent, and your traditional pair of metal electrodes in electrolyte solution connected with a battery is very inefficient, because the molecules have to be forced into high energy transition states in order to overcome the entropic and electronic barriers necessary for reaction. The work required to get over this kinetic barrier is irreversible, and lost as heat.
A catalyst lowers the energy of the transition state, increasing the efficiency by lowering the amount of irreversible work required to complete the reaction. In addition, a good catalyst is durable, and does not undergo side reactions that cause it to lose its effectiveness. Platinum is generally a great catalyst for a variety of reasons, but it is very expensive. What remains to be seen is if the cost that can be saved by using this type of catalyst is enough to overcome the presumably slightly lower efficiency than the exotic metal and polymer catalysts also being developed.
chris fredette @ Aug 1st 2008 6:19PM
Thanks ds.
What I find funny is that the MIT guy is pushing this as a home power plant using solar power and a fuel cell. First, we all know home solar is no where near cost effective, nothing changes here. Second, we all know fuel cells are not cost effective. How would this system that contains the two be cost effective?
I more see this as a low cost way to make hydrogen from water. They you could use that to say power a car(as long compressing it isn't too expensive). There are currently viable ways to power a vehicle with Hydrogen but the cost to extract it way to high.
Doug @ Aug 1st 2008 2:34AM
Humm.. Hopefully it will power my 2000watt psu on this computer.. ;D
ben @ Aug 1st 2008 5:32AM
superlame.
HunterXI @ Aug 1st 2008 10:55AM
Wow. Talk about wasted energy. Have fun with the electricity bill.
Skyride @ Aug 8th 2008 9:39PM
It only draws what it needs. And it isnt even possible to build a PC that would draw even close to 2Kw.
A triple SLI, huge OCed, 2x quad core system with 12 HDD's and 8GB of RAM and all voltage settings on max wouldn't even draw more than 1000watts.
lens42 @ Aug 1st 2008 2:34AM
When can I buy the kit from Edmund Scientific? ;-) It's easy to get jaded with all vaporware "new energy" announcements, but MIT usually slings less BS than most. We can only hope.
JAmerican @ Aug 1st 2008 2:37AM
Great idea but he forgot about one thing... capitalism. Capitalism won't let a self-sustaining system like that thrive unless we are paying some big companies lots of money. Electric companies, gas/oil companies definitely won't let that happen.
Flowah @ Aug 1st 2008 4:01AM
I don't understand. You don't think there's a single person/company out there that would be willing to commercialize this because it's "self sustaining" (I doubt it is 100% self sustaining, although certainly more renewable than fossil fuels)?
That would be necessary, seeing as how if even 1 company or person decided to develop it, they'd have the market all to themselves.
David @ Aug 1st 2008 12:58PM
Yes, socialism has produced so much...
dreamscape86 @ Aug 1st 2008 4:33AM
*sigh* Another product of the public skool system that believes "capitalism" is synonymous with "greed."
Capitalism is the very reason a product like this CAN succeed. Capitalism dictates that if there is a system that can do something cheaper and more efficiently, people will buy it.
Capitalism is an economic system and has nothing to do with "corporate greed", "big oil" or any of those other buzzwords you hear thrown around. Please visit your local library (or even Wikipedia, for crying out loud) to learn more.
Othello @ Aug 1st 2008 5:36AM
Capitalism tends to flounder when you're dealing with a captive audience.
ben @ Aug 1st 2008 5:40AM
Don't speak of capitalism as a single entity, it makes you sound like a Che Guevara clad angsty teenager. You owe your ability to be here to the capitalists at IBM, Sun, Microsoft, and Apple. If it had been up to state controlled economies, computers would probably have remained as research tools only.
Joshua @ Aug 1st 2008 9:00AM
A simple business model can be made of this anyway. Simply sell it like a furnace. You sell the initial installation, then come back and check it every 6 months to ensure it is operating efficiently and then replace it every 15 - 20 years. Money can be made from checking the efficiency of the installation once consumer base has reached critical mass. Some money will be made on initial install and on upgrade.
As for capitalism, that will hang around until we realize that wanting to do something for someone else is more satisfying than getting paid to do it.
Cheers
Ten @ Aug 1st 2008 8:54AM
@ dreamscape86
the meaning of capitalism has been corrupted.
governments work to serve their own purpose, not the peoples (wikipedia on economics, look it up)
big oil and other self serving companies can ensure that governments stay in power, so of course they will get whatever they want.
I would love to see this product make it into the market, and it probably will, in a niche. A niche so expensive that the self serving public will never accept it into the mainstream.
People have to accept that we are all here to only serve our own self interest and not the planets. That way we can quickly get back to killing ourselves and save the environment by not being here anymore.
facebookfake @ Aug 1st 2008 2:42AM
This is not new at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEdQRVQtffw
Macro @ Aug 1st 2008 3:50AM
The "new" part of this is how efficiently they can convert the water into its elemental parts.
Jim @ Aug 1st 2008 11:33AM
Of course this is not new. The puzzle pieces have been laying around for millenniums. What's exciting (and new) is that we just figured out which pieces fit together (well a couple of them at least!)
Killer @ Aug 1st 2008 2:51AM
@dndrules
WTF DUDE?! Where did Apple come in on this?
Pochi @ Aug 1st 2008 2:52AM
Holy crap.
I'm actually a little amped about this. And I'm the token cynic commenter most of the time. I think when people use the word 'nirvana' I just get excited.
RoboDan @ Aug 1st 2008 2:54AM
Solar powered electrolysis of water? Taking two existing ideas and combining them in an obvious way does not count as originality.
Now combining Solar with some new battery technology that uses no harsh chemicals, wet parts, or moving parts - that would be newsworthy.
Macro @ Aug 1st 2008 3:51AM
This is as good as battery technology and it meets all the requirements you just set as news worthy...
dan g @ Aug 1st 2008 10:24AM
Forget the solar part for a minute, that's old hat and was thrown in to get the off-the-grid greenies pumpin. What wasn't mentioned, is that this is potentially the missing link in attaining that hydrogen infrastructure needed for this new hydrogen economy. H2 really is little more than an energy storage system aka battery technology. In an electric car, the H2 tank + fuel cell can be functionally interchangeable with a big array of batteries, and have the advantage of rapid refueling (much like gasoline) vs slow recharging.
Generating hydrogen is typically an energy intensive, dangerous and expensive process. This new process for generating H2 has the advantage of (relatively) cheap catalytic materials and takes place at room temperature/pressure. This means gas stations can install H2 pumps, tanks and generators (they already have electricity and water). You can even have your own H2 generator in your garage, powered by solar or the grid. Rather than charge your electric car while you sleep, you can make H2 all day and night, and fill'r up when you're ready.
shaka999 @ Aug 1st 2008 10:35AM
Dan G is right on the money here. This should be seen as a replacement for batteries (or other energy storage like gas). In that light this is a huge deal.
RoboDan @ Aug 1st 2008 2:56AM
Solar powered electrolysis of water?
Taking two well understood ideas and combining them hardly counts as "ground breaking"
andres @ Aug 1st 2008 11:37AM
it does when you suddenly make it alot cheaper and more efficient
michael freeman @ Oct 21st 2008 1:35PM
hey "RoboDan" it's about the catalyst, duh!
Mr. H @ Aug 1st 2008 2:59AM
Because, you know, $4 per gallon of gasoline is crazy expensive. I'd much rather use solar panels that use PLATINUM as a catalyst?!
We'll have to mine the mouths of moderately successful rappers.
Tombio @ Aug 1st 2008 3:26AM
$4 per gallon is a joke. $9.12 is what we paid this morning for the same amount here in Northern Europe.
Tombio @ Aug 1st 2008 3:27AM
and I also got the sarcasm a bit too late :D
DakStaka @ Aug 1st 2008 6:06AM
Ahh Mr H. google catalytic converter - you know the pollution control device fitted on every car!
Mr. H @ Aug 1st 2008 8:56AM
I'm well aware catalytic converters use platinum. Then again, when were those ever cheap?
As others have mentioned, if anything, this article should be about finding a new way to split water.
I was also poking fun at the idea of powering your entire house on solar energy, and to still have enough left over to power your car and your house at night time! Solar panel technology is really going to have to make a lot of advances for that to be a possibility. Never mind the price of solar panels.
Steve Gates @ Aug 1st 2008 9:57AM
Venezuela's gas is 12 cents a gallon.
Cory @ Aug 1st 2008 2:59AM
The beef everyone has had against hydrogen powered cars is that there isn't an efficient way to get hydrogen gas to replace all the fossil fuels we use. Couldn't the hydrogen gas from this process be pumped right into a car made to run on it? Wouldn't that be more efficient than turning the H2 and O2 back into electricity and pumping that into my car? Also, I think you could get more miles per fill up out of carrying it in gas form. Thoughts?
Ice2097 @ Aug 1st 2008 3:04AM
Ok, it's a little ambiguous at first, but the "revolutionary" thing in this video is that they found a catalyst to efficiently electrolyze water, NOT that they created the system that combines the use of solar power and hydrogen storage (which they obviously didn't).
I'm assuming they just wanted to frame their catalyst discovery in a way that most people can relate to, and putting it in the perspective of powering ones home and car and whatnot appeals to a lot more people than a [more accurate] title of "Efficient, cheap electrolysis catalyst discovered."
pyro @ Aug 1st 2008 4:53AM
This is the truth. It took me a while to read past all the bullshit in the articles.
This is great news though if this new catalyst is as cheap as they say it is. The price of the current method has been the only thing really stopping hydrogen fuel cells from being a major source of power.
Jed @ Aug 1st 2008 3:07AM
I think it's not about the originality of the water electrolysis idea. It's about how "inexpensive" their "major discovery" can make the process.
jake @ Aug 1st 2008 4:15AM
Yep, I agree that is the most important point, which lots of people seemed to have missed.
But this is just one small step, because even if this does get commercialized, the next part is to make the fuel cells & hydrogen storage tanks cheap enough so most people can afford them, and that part is much harder. Remember people are already reluctant to buy solar panels at system costs in the $10,000s. Even if this electrolysis system was given to you for free, the system cost of a fuel cell with the storage tanks will be in the $100,000s based on current costs (remember even Honda said with mass production they hope to make a hydrogen fuel cell car for ~$88k around a decade into the future, so you can imagine how much it costs now). Maybe hydrogen ICE will be cheaper, but so far it still seems expensive.
Remember recently ITM-power claimed they can make a home electrolyzer system for $4k if mass produced, so the cost is comparatively fairly cheap already.
http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/09/itm-power-shows-off-in-home-hydrogen-fueling-station/
So I'm interested in how much improvement these new catalysts will bring to the efficiency of electrolysis, b/c that will be important too.
In the end, no, energy crisis is still not solved, but this is a good step.
Deus @ Aug 1st 2008 3:09AM
Because pumping electricity back into the grid is so wasteful!
Sebbi @ Aug 1st 2008 6:47AM
You have no idea! Pumping it back into the grid very wasteful ...
Peter @ Aug 1st 2008 3:14AM
How on earth is this a new idea??? This has been proposed years ago... I even did a similar project during my university days, where we use both wind and solar power to produce hydrogen during the day and use the hydrogen at night with the fuel cell, plus the wind turbine to produce power. This is no big deal. The main problem with this is cost. From a cost benefit analysis that, this will not be feasible at communities where natural gas is available as we can not produce hydrogen cheaper than natural gas due to the cost of the system based on a 15 year depreciation. Now on the other hand, for remote communities like North Canada or at the middle of America, South America, this will be feasible as the cost of natural gas or petroleum transport will make this system feasible.
David @ Aug 1st 2008 11:13AM
Analyze the cost and efficiency of your system, including the materials used for the electrodes and the need to use a very basic (high pH) solution. Now compare against this new system, which uses pH neutral water, cheap electrodes and is very efficient. The difference is the breakthrough. When it comes to something being viable or not, cost and practicality aren't just side issues ... they are at the core.
Peter @ Aug 1st 2008 2:19PM
I understand that the actually hydrogen extraction might be cheaper... but the fuel cell and solar panels are not... So with that in mind, one must not forget about the fact that you need need compare your cost with existing solutions... which include just buying electricity from the grid, or using natural gas to produce power... and after comparing those cost, you will find that using electricity from the grid is the cheapiest solutions if it is available... for remote communities that is not on the grid but have easy ground transportation, natural gas is the best solutions... unless the MIT prof can drastically reduce the price of fuel cell and solar panels, this system will not work. As as someone has pointed out, most solar panels for home used are energy negative, that means they don't produce enough energy for even one house... so never mind producing extra power to run this system. It just doesn't makes sense.
kthwilson @ Aug 3rd 2008 4:21PM
During the 2006 Solar Decathlon Event in Washington, DC, the team from the New York institute of Technology use a very very similar system for storing electricity form their solar panels.
From the article:
"And then there's the hydrogen power system. "From the beginning of this project, we decided to do something very special using a hydrogen fuel cell for energy storage," says energy management student David Schieren. Electricity from a roof-mounted PV system is used to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen through electrolysis; the hydrogen is collected and stored and later used to power a fuel cell. The fuel cell recombines hydrogen with oxygen to produce a household supply of electricity. This system replaces the batteries that are commonly used with stand-alone PV systems to store excess energy. The electric system is very dynamic and allows the monitoring of numerous household circuits. At the competition, this is designed to allow the NYIT team to direct power to the places where it can best be used."
http://www.solardecathlon.org/2005/team_new_york.html
Peter @ Aug 1st 2008 3:23AM
I forgot to mention, the main cost is actually the solar cells / wind turbine required to power the house during the day + make enough energy to produce hydrogen. The amount of cells required, based on a 15 year depreciations and maintanence, you might as well just use natural gas for most of your energy production in your house (if it is available in the area). It just doesn't work.