Discussions

« Back 1 2 3 [4]

This discussion relates to Technology Review's article Sun + Water = Fuel.

• 
  gbenedic
  

  Posts:
  1

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  11/01/2008 11:11 AM

  looking for a bit more understanding

  The "Sun+Water=Fuel" cover caught my eye. I read the article twice on two different days because I thought I was missing something but I still came away with a few questions I hope Kevin Bullis can clarify:
  1) what value does the Cobalt based catalyst bring to eletrolysis of water?
  2) how does the catalyst based electrolysis of water described in the article differ from the traditional electrolysis we might have done in high school?
  3) how does this electrolysis benefit from or work better with sun powered photovoltaics vs electricity from the grid?
  4) how does photosynthesis relate to the picture labeled "Photosynthesis in a Beaker"?
  
  Looking forward to further explaination from Mr. Bullis.
  
  Thank you!
  
  rgds -- Gustavo

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    dadan
    

    Posts:
    2

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    11/23/2008 09:23 AM

    Re: looking for a bit more understanding

    I agree, the subject is very interesting, but the article is disapointing, especially coming from TR. I don't know if it's the discovery or the article, but at the end, I don't understand what's so great.
    Maybe if the article simply had focused on the fact that the new catalyst improves water electrolysis, it would have generated less confusion.

    Rate this comment:
  • 
    gtlaw
    

    Posts:
    1

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    11/26/2008 10:57 AM

    Re: looking for a bit more understanding

    Can someone explain to a novice what makes this a sustainable cycle (e.g., how the Co and P recycle)?

    Rate this comment:
• 
  cryptocrystalline
  

  Posts:
  4

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  11/05/2008 08:55 AM

  Energy Storage

  Good article on linking solar power with hydrogen with energy storage for intermittent sources. However, I take issue with the stated concern of pumped water storage and arid generating sites. Wouldn't the grid take care of that? Make the energy in the desert, pump the water to storage in, say, the Seattle area?

  Rate this comment:
• 
  Solvere
  

  Posts:
  6

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  11/25/2008 04:29 AM

  Energy Solvere

  The greatest contribution of western scientists is the strict discipline of definitions, experiment, equating the left and the right, before and after reactions.
  
  Here is not science, this is alchmist.
  
  Here there is no input and output, here is pulling some input that is not abundant (solar photovoltaic) to produce something that is much much lesser (post eletrolysis hydrogen)
  
  This is adding intermediaries on top of an inefficient processes - the outcome is utmost inefficient.
  
  Photosynthesis did not split water into hydrogen and oxygen, this is the fundamental of law of nature, not science. If plants were to split water, then earth would be devoid of water, because hydrogen will rise to outter sphere and left everything oxidized like Mars. This is order of nature.
  
  Photosynthesis is binding carbon of carbon dixodie to water and release oxygen. This will provide carbohydrates, starch, etc stored in more compact manner. When energy is needed, like in night, in winter, then the starch is burnt for energy.
  
  Our forefather, western strict scientist did so so that every flight take off, every car move.
  
  Our forefather, oriental philosophers tell us that the immense order of nature we have to understand to keep in balance and harmony, so that living will thrive.
  
  My dear friend is moving no logic into logical explanation.
  
  The last time MIT did, was Black,Scholes that bring about brownian motions into economic theories and bring about Derivative, Subprime, Options.
  
  We cannot allow such to happen, though we must open our mind to listen to new ideas.
  
  The basics of law of nature is in order of oxidation states.
  
  When you change the state, you must get energy from somewhere.
  
  Mostly from Sun, but the more intermediaries you get, the more losses you have.
  
  Electronics engineers eliminated many intermediaires and get light directly from electrons jumping down potential state in diodes.
  
  Not get energy from burning hydrogen
  that has to be stored after eletrolysis
  after get electrical energy from photovoltaic
  after geting photovoltaic from a small portion of solar total energy.
  
  we need strict discipline to rally every bit of forces of nature
  
  we need broad heart to examine new ideas, and encourage each other to look at how to eliminate inefficiency, intermediaries, agencies. may we encourage TR and this inventor to look deeper to see how to remove intermediaries, increase efficiency.
  
  Heavenly order is very strict, this work the efficiency will be seen very fast.
  
  Human social order is very loose, human wisdom is very limited, it takes decade for subprime to be found damaging, the logic yet waiting to be found illogical.
  
  Solvere Lim Swee Keng
  SM(MIT), MBA(Law)
  Engineer, Inventor, Economist with Philosophical Depth
  CtS Cognoscere tenus Solvere
  Cognize before Happening
  Solving beyond Root Causes
  www.cts-ideas.com

  Rate this comment:
• 
  Solvere
  

  Posts:
  6

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  11/25/2008 04:36 AM

  Energy Solvere

  The easiest to do is to learn from chemical bonds.
  The most efficient way is to break CO2 at the resonant frequency of the C-O bond.
  
  This we did to selectively cook organics by striking with high density microwave that make water molecules H-0 bond to resonate to cook food.
  
  we need to find this frequency of C-O bond to oscillate and then flunt off like space mission leaving earth orbit.
  
  MIT, do this part and do not fall behind Russian  like Kennedy age.
  
  Solvere
  
  
  
  

  Rate this comment:
• 
  danxchen
  

  Posts:
  1

  Reply

  11/26/2008 10:51 PM

  Interesting Paper, Interesting comments

  As a TJ Meyer's student back in 1986-1991 time frame, I am very glad to hear that Tom's experiments were mentioned here. I am also not at all surprised by Tom's comment on Nocera's work. Tom, as close as he has been with the project like this, has every reason to be cautious. Talking about the work itself, May I make the following comments:
  1. This is indeed an improved electrolysis. Nothing more and nothing less.
  2. This is only a half reaction of photosynthesis. Photosynthesis occurs in two stages. In the first stage, light-dependent reactions or photosynthetic reactions (also called the Light Reactions) capture the energy of light and use it to make high-energy molecules. During the second stage, the light-independent reactions (also called the Calvin-Benson Cycle, and formerly known as the Dark Reactions) use the high-energy molecules to capture and chemically reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) (also called carbon fixation) to make the precursors of carbohydrates. For starter, please go to this site for details (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis).
  3. No matter what, the endeavour of finding cost effective alternative energy is important. The end game is to achieve independence from fossil fuel.
  
  
  Regards,
  
  danxchen
  

  Rate this comment:
• 
  Platinum
  

  Posts:
  1

  Reply

  12/13/2008 10:34 PM

  industrialized

  I notice and not being an expert in the field, but how much of the focus of the discussion is on the large industrial countries with developed infrastructure.  The idea of a self contained unit that can generate energy to provide at least some power (not necessarily the greedy amount of energy the "average" house uses), would be an economic liberation for the majority of the world which live in the high sunlight areas of the tropics.  In my country which is entering its third decade of drought, this is fascinating and we can already generate solar power and put it into the grid commercially.  This *might* be an idea to take another step. 

  Rate this comment:
• 
  erbium
  

  Posts:
  110

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  01/09/2009 12:20 AM

  I prefer metal + water = hydrogen on demand + metal oxide

  If you reverse the equation you can use pure metal pellets plus water as fuel to produce hydrogen on demand plus metal oxide that can be electrolyzed back into pure metal, without ever having to store more than a tiny bit of free hydrogen.
  
  
  http://news.cnet.com/Producing-hydrogen-with-water-and-a-little-metal/2100-11392_3-6184879.html
  
  the same thing can be done with magnesium, and I'm sure the energy equations are slightly different.
  
  Another advantage is that if you started powering cars on this now, the metals can be recycled back to fuel (pure metallic form) by ANY electricity from any source.  Solar, wind, nuke, (yes, even coal).  Then, in the case of coal the pollution is concentrated in just one place and can be dealt with much easier than cars spewing hydrocarbons, co2, nitrous oxides all over.  I'm sure alcoa has made the most efficient way of producing metallic aluminum, which does take alot of electricity.  Perhaps this could be made more efficient to separate the oxygen from the metal atoms.
  
  In an accident, you'd have 35 gallons of water in your tank spewing out to put out fires.  The hydrogen would only be produced at the rate needed by the car, with a slight reserve for acceleration and other increases of power use.
  
  Gas stations could instead pump in new aluminum or magnesium pellets and pump out the metal slurry to reconvert into metal. Either on site or truck away elsewhere.
  
  Home solar panels or wind could be set to slowly reform your slurry at home into metal also.  The hydrogen would be very pure and feed a fuel cell in your car.  The diagram in the article would have to be modified only slightly.  Cars could still act as absolutely quiet and pollution free generators for your house or cabin without a grid hookup.  
  
  The aluminum process requires a small amount of gallium to keep the reaction going, and the magnesium process involves higher temps, typical of car engines, if i recall right.  So won't be runaway hydrogen production even if you were to combine the elements, and I see them being metered out into a reaction chamber to produce the hydrogen as needed.. 

  Rate this comment:
• 
  dealrocker
  

  Posts:
  1

  Reply

  03/18/2009 03:05 AM

  Sun + Water = Fuel

  I am still confused..! Is it really possible??

  Rate this comment:

« Back 1 2 3 [4]